“When I was Stone Blue … Rock and Roll sure helped me through ….” Foghat©
Warning beforehand, this is a fluff-piece – you’ll have to excuse me. Actually, a little of this can be blamed on Verizon commercials.
What originally inspired this was the return of typical south Texas summer heat in all its oppressively humid splendor. Mostly we’d been spared this year, save for July 21 (my birthday) and one other day in June – the only profusely body-moistening days so far this year. It’s an oppressive climate sometimes. Typical heat brings the discomfort, discomfort brings discontent, discontent seeks an outlet – it’s a generally predictable pattern.
A little background, I also live without air conditioning and heat – by choice, mostly. After being laid off in Jan. 2003, it was obvious budgetary reasons. Since then, with the continued “economic recovery” (income deflation and cost inflation), I’ve continued the practice. Houston’s known as for disproportionately expensive electric and gas utility bills. It’s mostly not too bad until the really extreme humidity sets in.
Yeah, I know – New York is humid, Washington is humid, lots of east coast places are humid. But when I hear folks there complaining in real time about it, I can’t help but chuckle. Courtney Sharp, a New Orleans native, and I both shared a laugh at DC’s “humidity.” Ask anyone in the Gulf Coastal region, it’s a different climate here in more ways than social.
Back to the subject, I sat waiting for my computer to cool down and watched a bit of TV. Lo, there was a Verizon commercial with a guy doing an AC/DC imitation in his copy room at work – a grown-up who never grew up. It got me to thinking: why the hell am I up here sweating when I could be downstairs diverting my focus on the heat with an album or two?
Yes, album. Being a vintage ’57 model, I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s vinyl era. No, this isn’t about fetish clothing a la tranny, but music media – LP albums to be exact, turntables and the like. It was a great escape for those of us, pre-computer and internet, when we all thought we were alone. Maybe that isolation wasn’t so for New York or L.A. or the Bay Area. But for transpeople in the howling hinterlands between the left and right coast, and especially in the heart of South Texas, isolation was as pervasive as life itself.
And music was the soundtrack to life. More than any other genre, rock and roll became a more symbolic form, more attention demanding than any other category. It’s defined generations, added subconscious imagery to mass marketing, and even become a suggestive influence for the more vulnerable and impressionable (think Judas Priest and the suicides, or N.W.A. and the gangsta wannabes).
While music would never dictate my life choices, it certainly had its soothing qualities – savage breast notwithstanding. It was also a wonderful shared experience, whether it was concerts (a rare and eagerly anticipated “event” in Corpus Christi), cruising around with the cassette or eight-track blasting, or even simply kicking back at home playing albums and partaking in our favorite intoxicant – in whatever form that may have taken.
It was probably just me, but it seemed like a much more magical time.
We certainly had heaping portions of teen angst, lack of opportunity, frustration, and sensory and cultural malnourishment. Authority and social mores were hollow and hypocrisy-filled, it was pre-computer age (much fewer distractions) and our future lives appeared to be an ultimate dead-end. As Jimi Hendrix sang in a line from Manic Depression© “I know what I want, but I just don’t know how to go about getting it.” The endless humid heat coupled with boredom and idleness caused us to be both outwardly and self-destructive. It’s amazing that we kept from killing ourselves! No one questioned the condition: we were all in the same boat. Think the movie “Dazed and Confused”: then exchange the live oak woods outside of Austin for the open beaches and sand dunes outside of Corpus Christi – everything else was exactly the same, save for the surfboards.
Yet even with all of that seemingly spirit-crushing outlook on life, we managed to be happy! We managed to find something to fill that gaping maw, and it had little to do with a perpetual buzz or simply “hanging out at the island (the beach).” It ultimately boiled down to music.
For music, we’d hop in the car and drive 6 hours and 400 miles across state to attend a Texas Jam in Dallas. We’d spend a weekend sleeping in the Astrodome parking lot, eating and drinking little, in hopes of snagging a ticket to a sold-out concert – or alternately just hanging out in the parking lot, partying and feeding off of the multitude of open cars and trucks blaring music. Even in talking with a lot of the others in the trans community, music was the one constant that kept us from going off the deep end.
Even though it was pre-trans years, and I was internally conflicted, it was unnoticeable in the midst of all the others standing sweat-drenched in the open summer sun, baking like potatoes ‘til our skins were almost equally as brown and crispy. And through it all was the soundtrack of the quintessential, emotion-charging, high-energy songs of summer – songs to bake by.
Yes, I was into Punk and New Wave, but not many folks in South Texas were. Even so, Punk was more intimate music for smaller venues, being born in the pubs and smoky little basement bars. Loud, very much so. Expansive and reverberating outdoor music, no.
Not sure why, but very few songs from outside the US were on this list, surprisingly (esp. for UK groups). Possibly it was because of their more complicated and sophisticated rhythm and song structure – the progressive rock. The synergistic songs that seemed to inspire action, regardless of heat-fatigue, were those more reliant on the up-temp power chord crunch. There was one John Lennon song, Instant Karma that made it in that category. And also an Aussie group, AC/DC with Problem Child, that also had that spontaneous activating quality.
The rest were all American continent groups, most with something to do with Texas. Songs like Ted Nugent’s Free For All, and Bachman-Turner Overdrive’s Roll On Down the Highway (Canadian), Kiss’ Calling Dr. Love, the Raspberries’ Go All The Way and the Sweet’s Ballroom Blitz were there to be sure – none really anything to do with Texas then (though conservative Ted’s now a Texas resident).
Maybe Texas was more inclined towards setting up amps in open areas (like beaches) and just letting the music blast forth, neighbors-be-damned. It was really the mentality, blare until the police came and shut it down. We had ZZ Top with LaGrange, Steve Miller Band (who lived in Dallas) with Jungle Love, the Eagles’ Good Day in Hell and at the tail end of the era, Stevie Ray Vaughan’s When The House Is Rockin’. Save for the middle break, Edgar Winter’s instrumental Frankenstein would be there as well.
The #3 all-time top beach songs had no connection with anything to do with Texas (save for Ronnie Montrose being in Edgar Winter’s group at an earlier point, and both Winter brothers being from Orange, TX). But this isn’t six degrees of Texas. Actually there were two Montrose songs off of their first album that really rated in this, as Space Station #5 should also make this list. But the one song, Rock The Nation, was another of those blistering, power-chord reverberation heavy songs that would get cranked to top volume and echo up and down the shore. Needless to say, the song subject was equally appropriate.
The Doobie Brothers weren’t from Texas, nor had connections to it, but one of their songs was probably the #2 quintessential beach / summer sunburn song and captured the essence of relentless summer heat in our neck of the woods. China Grove was really not even an official town, more just a collection of businesses and a few homes and trailers at the intersection of Rigsby and Foster Rd. just outside the Loop, east of San Antonio. There’s nothing there. Why it rated a song, I have no idea. But it was a song that captured the essence of summer for us then.
The top summer song that floated my boat back then, whether the beach or campgrounds, was yet another Texas boy from Orange. Rick Derringer was a one-hit wonder, and never enjoyed much recognition in his solo career. However, his one hit was a good one. Rock and Roll Hoochie Koo used to blast out of a jukebox at our lonely little campground west of San Antonio on our two family vacations up the Nueces River. It was one of the few decent songs on the box, and it got the overwhelming lion’s share of play. In my mind’s eye, I can still hear (and even feel) the beat from the bass-thumping box a football field away, wending through the live oaks every night. Even at the coast, in the mid-day heat, it was enough to get us energized, to inspire harder play in the pick up football games or give it our all in traffic Frisbee games on the drive-on beach. There was just something about that crunch that shook your bones, no matter how heat-fatigued, and activated you. It also helped you put the heat out of mind, arguably one of, if not the most important quality of all!
Clearly, this is not a definitive list for everyone. Certainly age and the era we grew up in will influence other songs filling that list. I can see a Guns N’ Roses Welcome To the Jungle, a Nirvana Smells Like Teen Spirit, or even Marilyn Manson’s Mobscene or something from Korn being subsequent generations’ top outdoor summer songs. There will be other suggestions and a near-infinite number of opinions on how they beat the heat, pain (physical or emotional), quell frustration or simply keep their focus. But for my prime of youth era, for me and for those I also observed, these were the songs that did it. Whatever gets you through your life! (thanks again, John Lennon)
As I wrap this up, it’s another of those more typical summer days in Houston, a smoggy, humid, 100 degrees with a bullet at 3PM. Even in oppressive heat, it works! Besides the cicadas rattling outside, you can guess what I’m listening to at the moment. Sorry about the noise, neighbors!
Rabu, 22 Agustus 2007
Senin, 20 Agustus 2007
Fashion Asia: Whats sexy in a man?
Fashion Asia: Whats sexy in a man?
Found a very interesting topic in this blog. What sexy in a man? What is the definition of sexy to guys?
7. Confidence
Found a very interesting topic in this blog. What sexy in a man? What is the definition of sexy to guys?
According to Rekojuno from Yahoo! Anwers, definition of sexy differs from girl to girl. Different looks work for different guys. Some look great muscular, and others would look terrible that way but look incredible while slim. Mostly, the key is looking healthy. Really, most people are driven by instincts. Weird, but think about it, overweight people as well as too thin people are normally unattractive. Men like curves on women, which exists primarily for childbirth. Women like muscles because it shows that men are capable of taking care of them. But most likely, man just need to play up their natural traits and let women see their personality, confidence. That is sexy.
Others said “sexy man has to smell, walk, talk sexy (you just add in some imagination how to do all these). It's not just the face or the body it has to be everything. He is confident without being arrogant, he is strong without being vain, he's being sensitive without being soft”
So what are the traits that make man sexy? Here are some tips guys should watch out:-
1. Masculinity
What a woman first notices is his anatomical assets but what lingers in her mind is not all that. It's his inherent masculinity. Well, is this sound familiar? It's in the way he languidly struts across the room with a show of adequacy and grace and the way he flashes the glint in his eyes that ultimately creates the spark. This will include the way he talks and walks that attract women’s attention.
Being masculine does not always suggest a large build but just the right amount of muscle without overdoing it, tanned out sorta to trigger women's instinctive feelings of attraction.
2. Sense of Style and Fashion
Follow latest trend and style is what we called update. But you know what?
It's not the clothes that make a man sexy. It is actually how you bring up your apparel with confidence that does. Clothes don't tempt woman, it's you that makes those clothes look good in yourself that entice woman.
3. Eye contact
Also known as higher level of communication! A man who knows how to have eye contact is a man who knows how to communicate. They want men to listen and to take heed of the things they say, or in short, they need affirmation. So guys!! Now you know why you always got blame for nothing when you are so concentrated on your sport channel while your girlfriend or wife is talking to you. Eye contact also makes a woman feel sufficiently attended to and cared for.
4. Smile.
A simple sweet smile is one of the greatest attraction of a man. It will breaks a girl hidden resistance and also communicates hidden messages without any verbal language. This is why Tom Cruise, who is generous with his smile carried women-magnet profile!
5. Sensitivity
So how sensitivity relate to sexy? Sensitivity here means having a sense of empathy, confidentiality, gentlemen and trust rolled into one. Sensitivity is not finding solution when woman confides something, but rather share your ear to listen to what they express.
6. Sense of Humor
Sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, a quality which all people share, although the extent to which an individual will personally find something humorous depends on a host of absolute and relative
variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, and context. it releases chemicals that create a sense of well-being, a man equipped with a good sense of humor automatically wins his points on the sexy scale with women.7. Confidence
Confidence is always the must, otherwise, you will not have the chance to attract woman. Confidence not necessary about appeal of wealth or power and it does not mean arrogant, it should always be self-assurance and self-esteem, that attract woman.
Minggu, 19 Agustus 2007
Another man fashion tip: Color Matching
When dealing with fashion, it always refers to matching, in term of design, trends, styles and of course color. COLOR, the most fundamental rule in fashion, a man must aware about the color combination of his shirt, necktie, shoes, trouser, jackets etc. So what are the best combinations of color in male fashion world?
White and Black
Most popular color in male fashion world, it goes well with any color.
Good choices for tops and bottoms, a must in your wardrobe. It always readily matches with any tops, bottoms, shoes, jackets. These colors are most commonly found in formal business functions and corporate world.
White, associated with purity, cleanliness, freshness, gives the feeling of openness and freedom.
Black, associated with cool, styles, mysterious, direct opposite of white, give the feeling depth, represent elegance and prestigious.
Yellow
A color commonly related to fun and summer wear.
It creates excitement and always suggests a more sunny, joy, lively mood. It also tends to bring about cheeriness to the environment.
Red
A color that extensively used in fashion world.
Like yellow, it is most visible and create attraction and excitement. It naturally portrays an image of excitement, energy, enthusiasm and confidence. Nonetheless, it also suggests an erotic feeling…more for lady rather than man.
It is often associated with love, ambition and passion.
Blue
Most popular color in male fashion world.
It brings about a very relax, pleasant feeling, is a good choice for daytime and even nighttime wear.
The color associated with serenity, inspiration and friendliness.
Tips: Whatever color you wear, most importantly, it must suit the place, functions that you are going to attend, the group of people you are going to meet.
Minggu, 15 Juli 2007
Justice, American Style
July 15, 2007
It was striking seeing a blurb by a spokesperson in the Iowa Republican Party responding to the prospect of former-President Bill Clinton lobbying for his wife Hillary’s presidential campaign: “After Bill Clinton tarnished the name of the president of the United States, the Republican Party restored hope, respect and morality within the Oval Office by bringing positive ideas and conservative values back to the White House.”
Reading this caused me to respond with one of those GEICO© caveman moments: “Yeah, I’d like to respond to that. Uh … WHAT?!?”
As if that reality-disconnected soundbite weren’t enough of a head spinner in the era of the three-man destruction crew of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, we get more reinforcement of Republican morals a couple weeks ago. Credence, increasingly a rare commodity among the R-suffixed folk, was suspended fully when our President the Decider decided to commute the sentence of Irving Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, former chief of staff of Dick Cheney.
Basically, there will be no sentence, no punishment, no fallout from the outing of a CIA agent. An outing during war, no less! And who was CIA agent, Valerie Plame’s body of work specializing in? Iran. Bush/Cheney’s wet dream of a new conquest: Iran. But hey, America went into Iraq fairly blindly, and look how well that turned out, eh?
After news of the commutation of Libby’s sentence, Bill and Hillary Clinton did themselves no favors by criticizing the decision. Pres. Clinton pardoned some 140 odd folks at the final hour of his presidency, something no Republican would ever forget. Just pointing that out only appeared as cynical hypocrisy on the Dems side. But, not to be outdone, the hypocrisy was quickly one-upped by the GOPpers in criticizing the Clintons’ criticism. Why I can hear the Straw-man singing now … “If I Only Had a Brain”.
The message of all this? Outing CIA agents apparently isn’t treason any more. Hey, why not just write treason out of the constitution entirely with one of the President’s signing statements? In fact, who needs that? Just have the Vice President in his unitary executive powers call it unconstitutional and have it excised. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales will sign off on it, loyal man that he is. Treason is AOK … until a Democrat, or any other non-conservative commits the act.
The last scene in this episode shows the President the past week finally admitting that someone in his Administration may have outed Valerie Plame, but that this whole affair has “run its course” and he doesn’t expect any further investigation or charges. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out a full pardon for Libby. All that money spent, all that time investigating, and absolutely nothing was accomplished.
Yep, you’ve gotta love the justice system in the U.S. of A.
Meanwhile in West Palm Beach, Florida, a trial was taking place to prosecute a 17-year old who severely beat a transwoman he’d picked up outside of a bar. Later that evening, he discovered she still had male anatomy, he “beat the transsexual until his hand was sore,” according to an officer who took the statement. After the assailant went back to his car, he returned and, according to a witness who was seated atop a lifeguard stand, “forced her to kneel in the sand while he punched her and slammed her head into [the] lifeguard stand. The impact of the head-slam shook the lifeguard stand.
Once the case came to the judge’s decision, Judge Peter Blanc said Monday that he does not believe the boy was guilty of a first-degree felony hate crime. The judge opined in court "Your anger, from your perspective and from many other people's perspective, may be justifiable anger."
"In many ways it appears from the testimony that was presented here that there are two victims in the case," the judge added. Unique concept: if you’re trans in America, and someone attacks you, the attackers are the victims. But this is typical of justice in America. We've seen it play out more times than we care to recount when the victim was transgender. If you commit treason, you’re much better off than being a trans person who is attacked for victimizing someone by ... being out in public!
To the attackers’ credit, he said the victim threatened his life. The witness testified that the trans victim did not fight back, but as he described during the initial investigation, he had a “couple of sissy scratches” to show for his “attack.” Certainly sissy scratches are serious -- considered life threatening in Florida’s justice system.
The judge added that teen did not seem to beat the victim “because of sexual orientation,” Blanc said, but because of his anger and desire for retribution. Retribution for what?!? Realizing he was making out with someone who was anatomically male??? Certainly nothing about sexual orientation, and the hate derived from that, eh?
At the least, I suppose the trans community can take solace in that their arguments made and dismissed over the years by gay and lesbian leadership, and legislators as well, have specifically been proven as inadequate. So much for gender or sexual orientation covering transgenders.
Small consolation that is.
But such is justice in America. If you want to avoid punishment most severe, don’t be transsexual. Even if you’re attacked or victimized, you’re culpable for making your attacker the victim. If you do want to avoid punishment, even treason, simply be a connected Republican, like Libby.
Knowing what kind of Democracy and system of justice our President is exporting to the rest of the world really gives you a warm spot in your heart, doesn’t it? Kinda like … heartburn.
It was striking seeing a blurb by a spokesperson in the Iowa Republican Party responding to the prospect of former-President Bill Clinton lobbying for his wife Hillary’s presidential campaign: “After Bill Clinton tarnished the name of the president of the United States, the Republican Party restored hope, respect and morality within the Oval Office by bringing positive ideas and conservative values back to the White House.”
Reading this caused me to respond with one of those GEICO© caveman moments: “Yeah, I’d like to respond to that. Uh … WHAT?!?”
As if that reality-disconnected soundbite weren’t enough of a head spinner in the era of the three-man destruction crew of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, we get more reinforcement of Republican morals a couple weeks ago. Credence, increasingly a rare commodity among the R-suffixed folk, was suspended fully when our President the Decider decided to commute the sentence of Irving Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, former chief of staff of Dick Cheney.
Basically, there will be no sentence, no punishment, no fallout from the outing of a CIA agent. An outing during war, no less! And who was CIA agent, Valerie Plame’s body of work specializing in? Iran. Bush/Cheney’s wet dream of a new conquest: Iran. But hey, America went into Iraq fairly blindly, and look how well that turned out, eh?
After news of the commutation of Libby’s sentence, Bill and Hillary Clinton did themselves no favors by criticizing the decision. Pres. Clinton pardoned some 140 odd folks at the final hour of his presidency, something no Republican would ever forget. Just pointing that out only appeared as cynical hypocrisy on the Dems side. But, not to be outdone, the hypocrisy was quickly one-upped by the GOPpers in criticizing the Clintons’ criticism. Why I can hear the Straw-man singing now … “If I Only Had a Brain”.
The message of all this? Outing CIA agents apparently isn’t treason any more. Hey, why not just write treason out of the constitution entirely with one of the President’s signing statements? In fact, who needs that? Just have the Vice President in his unitary executive powers call it unconstitutional and have it excised. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales will sign off on it, loyal man that he is. Treason is AOK … until a Democrat, or any other non-conservative commits the act.
The last scene in this episode shows the President the past week finally admitting that someone in his Administration may have outed Valerie Plame, but that this whole affair has “run its course” and he doesn’t expect any further investigation or charges. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out a full pardon for Libby. All that money spent, all that time investigating, and absolutely nothing was accomplished.
Yep, you’ve gotta love the justice system in the U.S. of A.
Meanwhile in West Palm Beach, Florida, a trial was taking place to prosecute a 17-year old who severely beat a transwoman he’d picked up outside of a bar. Later that evening, he discovered she still had male anatomy, he “beat the transsexual until his hand was sore,” according to an officer who took the statement. After the assailant went back to his car, he returned and, according to a witness who was seated atop a lifeguard stand, “forced her to kneel in the sand while he punched her and slammed her head into [the] lifeguard stand. The impact of the head-slam shook the lifeguard stand.
Once the case came to the judge’s decision, Judge Peter Blanc said Monday that he does not believe the boy was guilty of a first-degree felony hate crime. The judge opined in court "Your anger, from your perspective and from many other people's perspective, may be justifiable anger."
"In many ways it appears from the testimony that was presented here that there are two victims in the case," the judge added. Unique concept: if you’re trans in America, and someone attacks you, the attackers are the victims. But this is typical of justice in America. We've seen it play out more times than we care to recount when the victim was transgender. If you commit treason, you’re much better off than being a trans person who is attacked for victimizing someone by ... being out in public!
To the attackers’ credit, he said the victim threatened his life. The witness testified that the trans victim did not fight back, but as he described during the initial investigation, he had a “couple of sissy scratches” to show for his “attack.” Certainly sissy scratches are serious -- considered life threatening in Florida’s justice system.
The judge added that teen did not seem to beat the victim “because of sexual orientation,” Blanc said, but because of his anger and desire for retribution. Retribution for what?!? Realizing he was making out with someone who was anatomically male??? Certainly nothing about sexual orientation, and the hate derived from that, eh?
At the least, I suppose the trans community can take solace in that their arguments made and dismissed over the years by gay and lesbian leadership, and legislators as well, have specifically been proven as inadequate. So much for gender or sexual orientation covering transgenders.
Small consolation that is.
But such is justice in America. If you want to avoid punishment most severe, don’t be transsexual. Even if you’re attacked or victimized, you’re culpable for making your attacker the victim. If you do want to avoid punishment, even treason, simply be a connected Republican, like Libby.
Knowing what kind of Democracy and system of justice our President is exporting to the rest of the world really gives you a warm spot in your heart, doesn’t it? Kinda like … heartburn.
Love Thy Neighbor?
July 14, 2007
As the Hate Crimes amendment to the Defense Funding Authorization is being debated in the Senate, it’s funny hearing some of the arguments coming from those opposed to allowing the additional protections to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of the callers advocating for killing the Hate Crimes amendment have taken liberty of saying it infringes on free speech.
Nothing in the Hate Crimes bill (S. 1105), nor the amendment to the defense-spending bill with the exact same wording, makes any notation of hate speech. Nothing.
Yet still, the callers and advocates – specifically from the conservative religious groups – continue to equate this with being locked up for speaking their minds! Literal calls to senate offices have beseeched senators to not let the bill pass, and “don’t let them lock up my preacher.”
Hearing these arguments, the terms “specious” and “exaggerated” come to mind, but those descriptions fall way short of accuracy. Even hyper-exaggerated is inadequate. Their arguments are nothing short of absolute fabrication, pathologically so.
There’s always the perennial argument as well: protecting people who made choices to be gay, to be transgendered. At least that argument had validity, to an extent. We could choose to repress who we are. But then, why?
Religion itself is a choice. Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan railed about the “evil empire” – then known more commonly as the Soviet Union, or U.S.S.R. – religious citizens of all stripes were choosing to repress who they were. The government back then would come down on Soviet citizens who chose to express their faith openly. There were consequences for their choice. And we correctly considered that a travesty of human rights.
Indeed, people can choose to be religious or not, or even choose to change their religious faith. Why would any of the religious faithful speak with anyone outside of their own sect about their faith if it weren’t, at some level, to hope to draw others to their own religion? That’s choice, and America officially embraces that to the point of protecting those from being attacked for their choice. With the multitudes of various denominations, people should have the right to choose and not be condemned for it.
So why are so many opposed to what they see as choice of a different kind. (Yes, I’m aware of the studies on gender identity and sexuality that have pointed to biological underpinnings – that’s an article for another time. For the sake of argument let’s just agree to “choice” now and continue.)
To say that religion, or “the churches” are opposing hate crime expansion is inaccurately broad. Many progressive and humanitarian denominations support it. To my knowledge, we haven’t heard one religious denomination officially come out and categorically oppose expansion of hate crimes for sexual orientation and gender identity. They will officially state they don’t approve of the lifestyle choices. But opposing laws deterring hate violence against these expanded communities, as a denomination is a step beyond the pale. It states that that religion tacitly approves of hate-borne violence against gays, transgenders, etc. because of their choice.
Ultimately, this opposition for hate crime protection on GLBT people it has less to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ-like spirituality. It has everything to do with individuals leading congregations, or those using religious affiliation out of convenience and taking liberty to speak representatively in their behalf.
As we’ve seen, it’s a wonderful shield against reproach for these opportunists. Nobody cares to be seen as taking on a religion, which can easily be flipped into an assault on God. This built-in irreproachability gives them automatic advantage, something they never lose sight of.
It also allows these opportunists the ability to weigh in on and indirectly influence others’ choices by encouraging or protecting punitive reaction against them. Their ultimate hope is to effectively end choices made which these self-appointed arbiters deem wrong. Once they successfully deny protections against gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, what do they do for an encore?
One glaring omission from the current hate crimes bill is the homeless. Will these same folks speak out, railing against protecting these people who they feel made the wrong decisions in life? Will they feel the homeless have chose to be too slothful or incorrigible to be protected, and that free speech – or wielding bats as seen on TV in Florida – should be what is protected?
And how about religion, the other choice mentioned earlier? We live in what we advertise as a pluralistic society, and that all are free to worship howsoever. But does everyone agree with such open tolerance toward those who choose religions that may contradict our own scripture?
Just last week during Senate prayer, a Hindu priest provided the opening invocation. Shortly after beginning his prayer, jeering yells like “abomination,” “there is only one true God,” and “we are Christians and Patriots” came down from above. No – not from heaven but from the gallery of visitors over the Senate Floor. Christians upset with a Hindu prayer, upset with a man who made different religious choices then they.
If precedence is given to those who would implicitly oppose any stoppage of hate violence to those who made “choices” they didn’t agree with, then where does this leave others whose choices they don’t agree with. Even though religion is a category currently covered by hate crimes law, what about those whose religion is deemed by the prevalent faith to be what they consider “making the wrong choice?” How long before they begin turning a blind eye toward violence against them?
As the Hate Crimes amendment to the Defense Funding Authorization is being debated in the Senate, it’s funny hearing some of the arguments coming from those opposed to allowing the additional protections to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of the callers advocating for killing the Hate Crimes amendment have taken liberty of saying it infringes on free speech.
Nothing in the Hate Crimes bill (S. 1105), nor the amendment to the defense-spending bill with the exact same wording, makes any notation of hate speech. Nothing.
Yet still, the callers and advocates – specifically from the conservative religious groups – continue to equate this with being locked up for speaking their minds! Literal calls to senate offices have beseeched senators to not let the bill pass, and “don’t let them lock up my preacher.”
Hearing these arguments, the terms “specious” and “exaggerated” come to mind, but those descriptions fall way short of accuracy. Even hyper-exaggerated is inadequate. Their arguments are nothing short of absolute fabrication, pathologically so.
There’s always the perennial argument as well: protecting people who made choices to be gay, to be transgendered. At least that argument had validity, to an extent. We could choose to repress who we are. But then, why?
Religion itself is a choice. Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan railed about the “evil empire” – then known more commonly as the Soviet Union, or U.S.S.R. – religious citizens of all stripes were choosing to repress who they were. The government back then would come down on Soviet citizens who chose to express their faith openly. There were consequences for their choice. And we correctly considered that a travesty of human rights.
Indeed, people can choose to be religious or not, or even choose to change their religious faith. Why would any of the religious faithful speak with anyone outside of their own sect about their faith if it weren’t, at some level, to hope to draw others to their own religion? That’s choice, and America officially embraces that to the point of protecting those from being attacked for their choice. With the multitudes of various denominations, people should have the right to choose and not be condemned for it.
So why are so many opposed to what they see as choice of a different kind. (Yes, I’m aware of the studies on gender identity and sexuality that have pointed to biological underpinnings – that’s an article for another time. For the sake of argument let’s just agree to “choice” now and continue.)
To say that religion, or “the churches” are opposing hate crime expansion is inaccurately broad. Many progressive and humanitarian denominations support it. To my knowledge, we haven’t heard one religious denomination officially come out and categorically oppose expansion of hate crimes for sexual orientation and gender identity. They will officially state they don’t approve of the lifestyle choices. But opposing laws deterring hate violence against these expanded communities, as a denomination is a step beyond the pale. It states that that religion tacitly approves of hate-borne violence against gays, transgenders, etc. because of their choice.
Ultimately, this opposition for hate crime protection on GLBT people it has less to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ-like spirituality. It has everything to do with individuals leading congregations, or those using religious affiliation out of convenience and taking liberty to speak representatively in their behalf.
As we’ve seen, it’s a wonderful shield against reproach for these opportunists. Nobody cares to be seen as taking on a religion, which can easily be flipped into an assault on God. This built-in irreproachability gives them automatic advantage, something they never lose sight of.
It also allows these opportunists the ability to weigh in on and indirectly influence others’ choices by encouraging or protecting punitive reaction against them. Their ultimate hope is to effectively end choices made which these self-appointed arbiters deem wrong. Once they successfully deny protections against gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, what do they do for an encore?
One glaring omission from the current hate crimes bill is the homeless. Will these same folks speak out, railing against protecting these people who they feel made the wrong decisions in life? Will they feel the homeless have chose to be too slothful or incorrigible to be protected, and that free speech – or wielding bats as seen on TV in Florida – should be what is protected?
And how about religion, the other choice mentioned earlier? We live in what we advertise as a pluralistic society, and that all are free to worship howsoever. But does everyone agree with such open tolerance toward those who choose religions that may contradict our own scripture?
Just last week during Senate prayer, a Hindu priest provided the opening invocation. Shortly after beginning his prayer, jeering yells like “abomination,” “there is only one true God,” and “we are Christians and Patriots” came down from above. No – not from heaven but from the gallery of visitors over the Senate Floor. Christians upset with a Hindu prayer, upset with a man who made different religious choices then they.
If precedence is given to those who would implicitly oppose any stoppage of hate violence to those who made “choices” they didn’t agree with, then where does this leave others whose choices they don’t agree with. Even though religion is a category currently covered by hate crimes law, what about those whose religion is deemed by the prevalent faith to be what they consider “making the wrong choice?” How long before they begin turning a blind eye toward violence against them?
Minggu, 01 Juli 2007
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
July 1, 2007
Pride Party this year was fun, and probably left most of us a little fuzzy-minded. Like all parties where we partake a bit too much, there’s always the obligatory hangover.
This year I made good on a promise and attended a friend’s Pride party at THE Pride Parade in New York City. Yes, my hometown Houston’s Pride Parade is unique in that it’s at night, with lit up floats – the only night Pride Parade in the northern hemisphere. Even with that, nothing tops the sheer size of the Pride Parade in New York. It’s befitting. After all, this is the catalyst point and the anniversary date that the GLBT community points to as beginning this “movement.”
Just last week I was in New York enjoying the Pride Parade with some trans friends I’ll call Ann and Melissa. Neither of them is out at work due to concerns for their careers, and I don’t blame them. But once a year they throw a blast and open their apartment to the community. The building they reside in is right on the parade route and has numerous Pride parties on Pride day. Their party is the hit of Trans NYC, and they extend invitations to their friends from all walks of society: straight, gay, lesbian and trans in fairly equal numbers.
One of the neat aspects of this one-day blast is that neighboring parties tend to migrate to each other’s parties on the other floors of the building. At one point, a group of the trans girls and I (admittedly in pursuit of a hunky NYPD officer making the scene) decided to go crash the party two floors below.
Arriving downstairs, it was a lively and typically (for New York) crowded affair. We were very welcomed to the party, no problems there. One thing struck me shortly after arriving. This was a very homogenous affair. Before we arrived, it was a 100% gay male event – most all seemingly coupled. It was in sharp contrast to the party I’d just left.
After a bit, I wandered back upstairs to Ann’s party and watched the entry for Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) walk by. The ESPA marchers all held up signs that had “Marriage Equality” on one side, and “GENDA Now” on the other. For those of you not familiar, New York passed a non-discrimination bill in 2002 called SONDA – Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act. GENDA is the Gender Expression counterpart to that as, obviously, coverage for transgenders was left off.
The reason I knew of this and became involved was that the push for this began at a time of internecine struggle within the state’s transgender organization (NYAGRA), and followed immediately on the heels of Sylvia Rivera’s funeral. The timing was exquisite for ESPA, but callously calculating from a trans perspective.
Back to the parade, the ESPA group marched with their signs held high … and to a person, all but one of them held it with the Marriage Equality side out to the crowd. Only one bothered to hold the GENDA side out.
Flashback to 2003, at the signing of SONDA, ESPA and their executive director, Matt Foreman, promised that GENDA would now become the group’s top priority. Well, other things got in the way … things change … people forget. It didn’t happen. Malicious intent probably wasn’t the culprit. More likely, we just didn’t cross their mind.
Back to the parade, ESPA only got a lukewarm reception that paled in comparison to who followed them: AVER – the American Veterans for Equal Rights. It also didn’t help much that many of them chose to wear those infernal equal signs on their chest or sleeve.
A while later, HRC’s entry rolled up. Cheering ceased, and not just at our party. The entire building went mute. No boos or raspberries, just silence. It was mildly amusing to watch some of their marchers peer up at the building in bewilderment. Then again, I also felt a bit sad for them. It’s likely their marchers were volunteers who couldn’t understand why the cool reception or the history behind it. All they knew was what was marketed to them, and the possibility they saw in that vision.
From the trans community and beyond, we’re all just likely folks who never really crossed their mind.
And truly, why would we? They’ve got their own laundry list of wishes on their agenda. Their organization staffs are very homogenous because, hey, those are the people they know. It’s kind of like the party two floors down from Ann and Melissa: they invite the people they know, and those are the people they know.
Regarding GLBT organizations, transgenders and other disparate segments of the greater queer community don’t readily come to mind for hiring, leadership or other considerations. Why would we pop to mind when it comes to political agendas – especially if they don’t have to dig their asses out of the fire for some exclusionist faux pas? It’s a case of out of sight, out of mind.
So why do we refer to these organizations as GLBT anyway? True, we worked hard over the years in the 90’s to be recognized as a part of the community, but that didn’t mean our entire fight boiled down to being nothing more than a T at the end of an acronym. It’s like saying our entire goal was to be the butt on a pig, with all the significance. Dandy! So why don’t they just advertise just GL or GLB? Sure, it’s not PC. But what the hell good is being PC if all it requires is just saying “I’m GLBT” and never giving it another thought (at least not until those screaming trannies throw their asses in the fire when they’re forgotten again)?
If these organizations were all trans staffed, trans funded and led, chances are that we would be accused of unequally focusing only on our own issues and not having theirs come naturally to mind. It’s possible we could be just as guilty of the same behavior … of course with no chance for that, we’ll never know.
Meanwhile, back at Ann and Melissa’s party, I reveled in what was the vision of true equality at their party. Not just trans, and really not even overwhelmingly trans … just a bunch of G and L and B and T and straight folks enjoying a great Pride Party. At least in some corners of the world, we can all be kept in mind.
Pride Party this year was fun, and probably left most of us a little fuzzy-minded. Like all parties where we partake a bit too much, there’s always the obligatory hangover.
This year I made good on a promise and attended a friend’s Pride party at THE Pride Parade in New York City. Yes, my hometown Houston’s Pride Parade is unique in that it’s at night, with lit up floats – the only night Pride Parade in the northern hemisphere. Even with that, nothing tops the sheer size of the Pride Parade in New York. It’s befitting. After all, this is the catalyst point and the anniversary date that the GLBT community points to as beginning this “movement.”
Just last week I was in New York enjoying the Pride Parade with some trans friends I’ll call Ann and Melissa. Neither of them is out at work due to concerns for their careers, and I don’t blame them. But once a year they throw a blast and open their apartment to the community. The building they reside in is right on the parade route and has numerous Pride parties on Pride day. Their party is the hit of Trans NYC, and they extend invitations to their friends from all walks of society: straight, gay, lesbian and trans in fairly equal numbers.
One of the neat aspects of this one-day blast is that neighboring parties tend to migrate to each other’s parties on the other floors of the building. At one point, a group of the trans girls and I (admittedly in pursuit of a hunky NYPD officer making the scene) decided to go crash the party two floors below.
Arriving downstairs, it was a lively and typically (for New York) crowded affair. We were very welcomed to the party, no problems there. One thing struck me shortly after arriving. This was a very homogenous affair. Before we arrived, it was a 100% gay male event – most all seemingly coupled. It was in sharp contrast to the party I’d just left.
After a bit, I wandered back upstairs to Ann’s party and watched the entry for Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) walk by. The ESPA marchers all held up signs that had “Marriage Equality” on one side, and “GENDA Now” on the other. For those of you not familiar, New York passed a non-discrimination bill in 2002 called SONDA – Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act. GENDA is the Gender Expression counterpart to that as, obviously, coverage for transgenders was left off.
The reason I knew of this and became involved was that the push for this began at a time of internecine struggle within the state’s transgender organization (NYAGRA), and followed immediately on the heels of Sylvia Rivera’s funeral. The timing was exquisite for ESPA, but callously calculating from a trans perspective.
Back to the parade, the ESPA group marched with their signs held high … and to a person, all but one of them held it with the Marriage Equality side out to the crowd. Only one bothered to hold the GENDA side out.
Flashback to 2003, at the signing of SONDA, ESPA and their executive director, Matt Foreman, promised that GENDA would now become the group’s top priority. Well, other things got in the way … things change … people forget. It didn’t happen. Malicious intent probably wasn’t the culprit. More likely, we just didn’t cross their mind.
Back to the parade, ESPA only got a lukewarm reception that paled in comparison to who followed them: AVER – the American Veterans for Equal Rights. It also didn’t help much that many of them chose to wear those infernal equal signs on their chest or sleeve.
A while later, HRC’s entry rolled up. Cheering ceased, and not just at our party. The entire building went mute. No boos or raspberries, just silence. It was mildly amusing to watch some of their marchers peer up at the building in bewilderment. Then again, I also felt a bit sad for them. It’s likely their marchers were volunteers who couldn’t understand why the cool reception or the history behind it. All they knew was what was marketed to them, and the possibility they saw in that vision.
From the trans community and beyond, we’re all just likely folks who never really crossed their mind.
And truly, why would we? They’ve got their own laundry list of wishes on their agenda. Their organization staffs are very homogenous because, hey, those are the people they know. It’s kind of like the party two floors down from Ann and Melissa: they invite the people they know, and those are the people they know.
Regarding GLBT organizations, transgenders and other disparate segments of the greater queer community don’t readily come to mind for hiring, leadership or other considerations. Why would we pop to mind when it comes to political agendas – especially if they don’t have to dig their asses out of the fire for some exclusionist faux pas? It’s a case of out of sight, out of mind.
So why do we refer to these organizations as GLBT anyway? True, we worked hard over the years in the 90’s to be recognized as a part of the community, but that didn’t mean our entire fight boiled down to being nothing more than a T at the end of an acronym. It’s like saying our entire goal was to be the butt on a pig, with all the significance. Dandy! So why don’t they just advertise just GL or GLB? Sure, it’s not PC. But what the hell good is being PC if all it requires is just saying “I’m GLBT” and never giving it another thought (at least not until those screaming trannies throw their asses in the fire when they’re forgotten again)?
If these organizations were all trans staffed, trans funded and led, chances are that we would be accused of unequally focusing only on our own issues and not having theirs come naturally to mind. It’s possible we could be just as guilty of the same behavior … of course with no chance for that, we’ll never know.
Meanwhile, back at Ann and Melissa’s party, I reveled in what was the vision of true equality at their party. Not just trans, and really not even overwhelmingly trans … just a bunch of G and L and B and T and straight folks enjoying a great Pride Party. At least in some corners of the world, we can all be kept in mind.
Minggu, 10 Juni 2007
So Who Feels Pride?
June 10, 2007
It’s June. Pride Month is in full swing with parades across the country and indeed the globe, and festivals and parties of all stripe heralding the one time of year when it’s hip to be gay. It’s a celebration of self, a celebration of the gains made, and a remembrance of where the catalyst symbolically began, Stonewall. New York City.
For the trans community, news came in of Jenny Bailey, the first out trans person elected mayor in Cambridge, UK. This is truly good news, and certainly a boost for trans morale in Great Britain, and an inspiration to the rest of the world.
To be sure, there have been improvements in the transgender community’s lot in the US as well. But compared to more progressive nations to our north or across the pond, we’re moving at a more glacial pace. It’s safe to say that the United States is arguably the most prudish nation in the civilized world.
America’s answer to Jenny Bailey? Susan Stanton, City Manager of Largo, Florida being forced out the minute “Steve” was outed to the city council as imminently preparing to transition to Susan. After seventeen years on the job, Largo’s authority figures decided Stanton was no longer qualified to be their city manager. Simply because of transition. Oddly enough, Largo has a non-discrimination ordinance. American progress vs. British progress: no contest. Later, when Susan went up the road to Sarasota, Florida to apply for a city manager vacancy, the attitude was “it’s just not the right time” to hire a trans city official. “No trannies in authority,” appears to be the common message.
There was a recent editorial highlighting the reluctance on behalf of the major candidates to stand firm on an all-inclusive ENDA. Chris Crain, former publisher of Window Media started off, noting John Edwards’ unequivocal support for trans, but also noting how Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton cunningly sidestepped any mention of trans in ENDA. He did note Obama’s previous support of trans inclusion in the 2004 campaign.
As for Sen. Clinton, it was less positive – dredging up her history on trans. Sen. Clinton is most noted in the trans community for her response to transgender inclusion in legislation – being “unaware” of any issue as “no one in the gay and lesbian community” had approached her on it. She noted in an interview in 2000 how ENDA would broaden rights, freedoms and responsibilities in her focus to try to get the bill passed. She also expressed how adding gender identity would not be “in the best interest of moving the agenda forward.”
Peter Rosenstein, in an editorial for Window Media, even went so far as to vilify organizations that were not willing to ditch trans-inclusive language from any sexual orientation inclusive bills. He called standing firm on trans-inclusion “suicidal.”
So the message is: broadening rights and responsibilities is great, but not really a good idea for trans people. And while straight America may be where we’ve received most all of the breathtaking gains trans people have achieved to date, not just Hillary, but many in straight America still take their cue from the gay and lesbian community on transgender issues.
And when you look at gay and lesbian America, well … you won’t see any prominent trans people in their fold either. They’ve been, and still are, very antsy about having trans people with any responsibility or visibility in their own environs. Whether public or not, that communicates to the outside world. It’s the elephant in the room everyone sees, but no one acknowledges: trans people are not trusted there. We most often can’t even be trusted to speak for our own issues – much less anything non-trans – nor be seen capable of choosing our own leadership without outside “assistance” or guidance.
Transgenders have never written or endorsed proposed legislation that left out gays or lesbians. To my knowledge, no trans person has lobbied against inclusion of sexual orientation in active bills. And yet we’re not seen as anything considered responsible lo these many years later. Maybe they fear we’ll be irresponsible, like … oh, say the marriage debacle during the campaign of 2004?
So how did T folk as a community become so suspect? Rhetoric alone? When you listen to the Crains, Rosensteins, or for that matter the Winnie Stachelbergs, or David Smiths, et. al, that loses plausibility. Worry about us being too trans-centric? How about these same ostensibly GLBT orgs with folks like Jeff Soref, who chaired the Task Force board, and previously chaired and was the stalwart of the passage of a trans-exclusive SONDA in New York, and then later taking chair of the GLBT caucus of the Dem. National Committee and pushing for sexual orientation only on both terms of his tenure?
No, the message from the national level folks is you can’t trust trans people in positions of authority, visibility, responsibility. That comes through loudly and clearly. And so far, straight America is mostly following suit.
Yes there’s pride to be found here in America. As for trans pride here in Pride Month? Perhaps that can best be found overseas. I’ll leave you with the quotes of Mayor Jenny Bailey’s ex-wife, pre-transition.
"I am incredibly proud of Jenny and the achievements she has made over the last few years. She is a totally selfless person who wants to help others and make a positive impact on our community. I think she will make an excellent mayor and has major contributions to make. I hope this will be the focus which people concentrate on.”
Hear, hear!
It’s June. Pride Month is in full swing with parades across the country and indeed the globe, and festivals and parties of all stripe heralding the one time of year when it’s hip to be gay. It’s a celebration of self, a celebration of the gains made, and a remembrance of where the catalyst symbolically began, Stonewall. New York City.
For the trans community, news came in of Jenny Bailey, the first out trans person elected mayor in Cambridge, UK. This is truly good news, and certainly a boost for trans morale in Great Britain, and an inspiration to the rest of the world.
To be sure, there have been improvements in the transgender community’s lot in the US as well. But compared to more progressive nations to our north or across the pond, we’re moving at a more glacial pace. It’s safe to say that the United States is arguably the most prudish nation in the civilized world.
America’s answer to Jenny Bailey? Susan Stanton, City Manager of Largo, Florida being forced out the minute “Steve” was outed to the city council as imminently preparing to transition to Susan. After seventeen years on the job, Largo’s authority figures decided Stanton was no longer qualified to be their city manager. Simply because of transition. Oddly enough, Largo has a non-discrimination ordinance. American progress vs. British progress: no contest. Later, when Susan went up the road to Sarasota, Florida to apply for a city manager vacancy, the attitude was “it’s just not the right time” to hire a trans city official. “No trannies in authority,” appears to be the common message.
There was a recent editorial highlighting the reluctance on behalf of the major candidates to stand firm on an all-inclusive ENDA. Chris Crain, former publisher of Window Media started off, noting John Edwards’ unequivocal support for trans, but also noting how Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton cunningly sidestepped any mention of trans in ENDA. He did note Obama’s previous support of trans inclusion in the 2004 campaign.
As for Sen. Clinton, it was less positive – dredging up her history on trans. Sen. Clinton is most noted in the trans community for her response to transgender inclusion in legislation – being “unaware” of any issue as “no one in the gay and lesbian community” had approached her on it. She noted in an interview in 2000 how ENDA would broaden rights, freedoms and responsibilities in her focus to try to get the bill passed. She also expressed how adding gender identity would not be “in the best interest of moving the agenda forward.”
Peter Rosenstein, in an editorial for Window Media, even went so far as to vilify organizations that were not willing to ditch trans-inclusive language from any sexual orientation inclusive bills. He called standing firm on trans-inclusion “suicidal.”
So the message is: broadening rights and responsibilities is great, but not really a good idea for trans people. And while straight America may be where we’ve received most all of the breathtaking gains trans people have achieved to date, not just Hillary, but many in straight America still take their cue from the gay and lesbian community on transgender issues.
And when you look at gay and lesbian America, well … you won’t see any prominent trans people in their fold either. They’ve been, and still are, very antsy about having trans people with any responsibility or visibility in their own environs. Whether public or not, that communicates to the outside world. It’s the elephant in the room everyone sees, but no one acknowledges: trans people are not trusted there. We most often can’t even be trusted to speak for our own issues – much less anything non-trans – nor be seen capable of choosing our own leadership without outside “assistance” or guidance.
Transgenders have never written or endorsed proposed legislation that left out gays or lesbians. To my knowledge, no trans person has lobbied against inclusion of sexual orientation in active bills. And yet we’re not seen as anything considered responsible lo these many years later. Maybe they fear we’ll be irresponsible, like … oh, say the marriage debacle during the campaign of 2004?
So how did T folk as a community become so suspect? Rhetoric alone? When you listen to the Crains, Rosensteins, or for that matter the Winnie Stachelbergs, or David Smiths, et. al, that loses plausibility. Worry about us being too trans-centric? How about these same ostensibly GLBT orgs with folks like Jeff Soref, who chaired the Task Force board, and previously chaired and was the stalwart of the passage of a trans-exclusive SONDA in New York, and then later taking chair of the GLBT caucus of the Dem. National Committee and pushing for sexual orientation only on both terms of his tenure?
No, the message from the national level folks is you can’t trust trans people in positions of authority, visibility, responsibility. That comes through loudly and clearly. And so far, straight America is mostly following suit.
Yes there’s pride to be found here in America. As for trans pride here in Pride Month? Perhaps that can best be found overseas. I’ll leave you with the quotes of Mayor Jenny Bailey’s ex-wife, pre-transition.
"I am incredibly proud of Jenny and the achievements she has made over the last few years. She is a totally selfless person who wants to help others and make a positive impact on our community. I think she will make an excellent mayor and has major contributions to make. I hope this will be the focus which people concentrate on.”
Hear, hear!
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)