The problem, I think, with always working and running from place to place is that I can't talk about work-related issues due to non-disclosure crap - Casual conversation lends itself much better to an "I hate that motherfucker from
Didn't think so.
Do we need another gay guy telling us how much he dislikes the McCain/Palin agenda? How much he likes Cindy McCain? How about how I still think Hillzbot should be in this race, but would sack my support of her in a second if Nancy Pelosi would even nod in the general direction of campaigning?
The Real Housewives of Atlanta? Are you kidding me? I know Atlanta is wealthy, and the South isn't nearly as bad as Yanks like me like to believe, but wtf. I am a total addict for glamour and excess, but those bitches make me kind of ill - "I'd like to buy a Cadillac Escalade today, fully loaded." Fully loaded? Who says that besides someone who only knows that they are spending money, not what they are purchasing. When did it become OK to flaunt nouveau riche? This was always my problem with The Real Housewives of Orange County - Trash with money is still trash. Just because you put a skank in a Mercedes does not mean she is no longer a skank.
Before I get to the point, there is another quote from the trailer for that show that really annoys the fuck out of me - the "housewife" who is married to a professional athlete and talks about how she 'always knew she was going to grow up to be a success.' Congratulations, you colossal waste of life - 200 years of African-American oppression, an entire city whose black wealth base exists because of people who fought against the mindless exploitation of other humans, an entire world of opportunities for you to excel in any arena you choose, and your "success" is a mirror image of the 'When I grow up, I want to marry a wealthy man' agenda reared and perfected in East Coast country clubs. Fuck me with a fingerling potato, let's all stop trying to achieve anything other than languishing in the questionable accomplishments of our "professional" athlete spouses so we can further cement our reputation as the second most disgustingly wasteful and irregahdless place in the world (those crazy motherfuckers in Dubai and China tie for first in my head)... I expect better of everyone.
So if this is where we're at - This glorification of nothing to a degree where even the most irrelevant of irrelevants have a reality show where there is no objective or contest other than to see exactly how much Summer's Eve product placement you can do in a room full of douchebags before the viewing audience realises they've been duped into yet another 43 minutes of treacle peppered with 16.75 minutes of advertisements whose creation involved countless hours of research to perfect the angle of manipulation.
Last night, I saw Margaret Cho's Beautiful tour at the Merriam Theater - Rudy took me as part of my birthday gift (somehow we got to birthday gifts 2 months late, but still haven't exchanged Christmas presents from 2007). I love Margaret, and I really enjoyed the show - she was deliciously vicious in the appropriate places, opening the entire show with "I fucking hate Sarah Palin!" (see, I told you we didn't need another gay man blogging about it - the Asian faghags have it covered). I left thinking the performance was far better than the Assassin tour or I Have Chosen To Stay and Fight, but now I'm questioning that - The Assassin tour was so politically charged - everyone was mad as hell at Bush for creating the biggest mess this country had seen in decades, lying about Iraq, WMD, Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind, health care, taxes, spending, wastefulness... the list went on and on - and it seems at that time, less people actually cared - the entire country was in this 09/11 refractory period, desperately wanking at it's political concern, trying in vain to get it up but creating performance anxiety that basically caused our willing bottom to roll over and go to sleep. Did that translate well? We should have impeached the Commander-in-Chief in 2003. And 2004. And 2005. And 2006. And 2007. We should have impeached his Crony-In-Waiting - or at least charged him with reckless endangerment when he shot someone... Why have we stopped talking about Guantanamo Bay? Why have we not overturned the Patriot Act as unconstitutional? Why have we not 'done anything' about Darfur? Why do we think it's OK to stop asking WHY?
Why are we so goddamn afraid to ask for any change that doesn't come in the form of an overly homogenized black man and his anodyne, milky white, dull-as-dishwater wife with her DC blowout? Or our other option, that angry midget who is still annoyed about that time the other guys plotting against Caesar didn't tell him about the happy hour with his drug-addled bitch wife (love you Cinds!) who always looks like she's about two seconds away from pulling a blade from under her tongue and a hammer from her Birkin and JUST GO FUCKING OFF ON SOMEONE... and that person should be that seal-clubbing, anti-choice, autocastrating, bitch running mate - Seriously, what the fuck is that woman's problem? I have not seen a politician work so adamantly at reversing the flow of progress and solidification of the rights of citizens since the current Asshole In Charge tried to create a Constitutional amendment REMOVING rights... These are our choices to lead a world superpower... Really?
Does anyone remember Margaret's Notorious C.H.O. tour? Her closing speech, about being a minority and loving yourself? I love this speech, because it makes me feel alive... And when I watch it again, it reminds me why shows like The Real Housewives of Atlanta exist - If we can watch nouveau riche trash go to parties and pretend that the entire world is OK, any action we take makes us better than them. As long as we go for the most conservative proponent of change, it's OK for us to not ITMF that spent 8 years digging a hole so deep we lost the shovel and the map....
I respect Obaby and O'Biden for their 'progressive' politics - Yes, get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell... But do not stand up in front of an entire country and tell me that you are in my corner. Do not campaign with your Obaby posters with a rainbow background and then tell me you do not support gay marriage. Do not tell me that. Do not tell me that a "separate but equal" policy doesn't ring a little close to home. Or did you, Senator Obama, like the Housewives of Atlanta, forget history?
I do not want "progressive" politics and the "progress" they enact. I want the change that was promised. And the only changes I can see are to the promises that were made.
Wow. I am an angry gay man.
4 comments:
said...
<3 Before I was clever enough to embed video I actually listened to that clip in six second chunks so I could transcribe it and posted it as a text blog.
As far as the tone of last night's show, I think it was pretty appropriate to the current political climate. It's too late to impeach anybody. Congress would already be in recess if they hadn't been finishing up the bailout so there's no time to work on repealing the Patriot Act or DOMA or any other bullshit. I think the audience was 97% Obama (although as you pointed out that's the best possible choice in the given situation rather than an actual solution) so she didn't need to do any stumping for him or other democratic candidates.
What I would like to have seen more of was her politics of personal revolution ala that video or I have Chose to Stay and Fight. I think that we as a nation as well as we as queer Americans are so culturally and intellectually bankrupt that all progressive politics will start with rejection of this culture on an individual level. Hence, nothing makes me happier than Margaret's finer moments or You are Beautiful graffiti.
Also: "Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens."
Howard Zinn
I think that right now that direct action isn't even isn't even an ACT UP die in or an anti war march, but the bravery and the fortitude to see what is beautiful in ourselves, what is beautiful in others and what is beautiful in the world. Only then will we find something worthy fighting for.
Angry, yes, and rightfully so. Also incoherent.
Let's be very clear about one thing: your distaste for the Obamas is purely aesthetic. It's rooted in nothing resembling logic as far as I can tell, and that's fine, but let's just be real about the fact that this makes you totally incapable of approaching him and his politics with anything resembling reason.
That said, I agree: it is annoying as fuck to have Biden stand up there like he did the other night during the VP debate and say, without hestation, that he supports full domestic partnership rights for gays and then in the next breath say, equally without hesitation, that he and Obama don't support gay marriage. It is beyond totally fucking shitty that no national candidate can get elected - can even get close to elected - if s/he openly supports gay marriage. But do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi would do things differently? If you do, you're totally ignorant of the facts, so I think it comes back to aesthetics again. You like the way they look and act in roles of power, and the fact that their politics are on the correct side of the spectrum, while important, is secondary.
Frankly, it blows my mind that in the same blog entry you can both rail on one of the Real Housewives of Atlanta as a "colossal waste of life" for living a life that, in your mind, trivializes "200 years of African-American oppression", and yet dismiss Obama and his wife as "an overly homogenized black man and his anoydyne, [sic] milky white, dull-as-dishwater wife." Obama and his wife, two black Americans who truly were disadvantaged growing up, who went to the best schools in the country - the world, for that matter - and worked for everything that got them there, are basically no better than a vapid reality starlet-of-the-minute? Obama and his wife, who are the best and biggest examples we have right now of exactly what it means to triumph in spite of those centuries of African-American oppression, are apparently no better than a footballer's wife?
Is it because they've all actually gotten what any American might want - their definition of success - and seem to have lost their blackness somewhere along the way? Is that what bothers you? Because I've got news for you. The fight for gay marriage is about exactly the same thing: the right to be exactly like everyone else.
We can be pissed about the way things don't ever really seem to change in any meaningful way in our lives, but that, too, is a sentiment that forgets history. Especially if we're talking about civil rights, the lawyer in me observes. Think about how different things were for gay people even 10 years ago: no gay marriage anywhere in the country. Now, it's legal in two states, and several others provide either civil unions or protections for domestic partners. Go back another 10 years: the specter of AIDS and Reagan ignoring it. Go back another 20 years: Stonewall hadn't happened yet and gays faced constant arrest and harassment and courts and politicians tacitly (or sometimes explicitly) sanctioned it. So don't tell me "progress" is bullshit and that change doesn't happen. It does, every day. Sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes explosively. Sometimes with a Stonewall, sometimes with a piece of legislation. But change happens, and my point is, angry revolution is not always a necessary ingredient. To forget that - that is to forget history.
Thank you, Jawnny my <3, for proofing - I noticed earlier that I lost a chunk of pre-rant lead-in text, but didn't have time to fix it. I also forgot to run spellcheck. Whoops.
But to the point - My distaste for the Obamas is not solely aesthetic. While I dislike many things about their appearances, it's insulting to say that therein lies the root of my contention.
It's fairly common knowledge that Senator Obama's political platform was so similar to Senator Clinton's that the selling point for many on Barack was that he was not "politics as usual," "the same old Washington routine," etc. etc. ad nauseum. Record numbers of voters undecided within their party until the last moments of the primary are a clear indicator that we were looking at two very similar candidates.
We heard over and over again how Hillary was an example of a typical politician, wielding shady influence in lieu of actual policy for change. Perhaps this is why I'm so mad - We knew what we were getting with Hillary Clinton. Her election as President would surely be condoning the "politics as usual." In effect, nothing would be done differently - I didn't ask for her to be the nominee, but I feel she should have been the Vice Presidential pick.
Speaker Pelosi, however, is a completely different story. It is her voting record and its reflection of her politics, not the fit of her suits, that make her so appealing to me. I might say that without Pelosi campaigning, we can't make an equitable assessment of how she'd hold to her voting record under the scrutiny of a Presidential election... but it seems that during a Presidential campaign, it is acceptable to stare in slack-jawed appreciation of oratorical skills while blithely ignoring a record of not voting on measures that would solidify one's position in a truly tangible way.
It blows your mind to draw those parallels? Really? As you mention, the Obamas are educated, successful, and hail from an underprivleged background - I would think the experience of this adversity, the character based in struggle, the world class education, would make them slightly more interesting. I don't feel as if they've "lost their blackness" so much as they've become so dliuted in character that literally, they could be anyone.
What was so aggravating during the primaries was the belief that Hillzbot was inferior to Obaby because she had a history of doubletalk and changing her stance. She had that spouse and his indiscretions, that spouse and his legal dealings, that spouse and his DOMA, that spouse and his inaction... Obaby was so popular because he was new, he was fresh - He hadn't yet been given the opportunity to disappoint us.
You've missed the point entirely - The Obamas have triumphed in spite of all those years of oppression. Poverty to Ivies to office to candidacy - And now, in that triumph, what do we have? A man who had an opportunity to make a statement - to create what was widely considered an unstoppable political team - to show us that Change is not just another buzzword but something he actually believes in. Instead, he demonstrated to us just how entrenched in orthodoxy he really is, selecting what is essentially the white male version of Hillzbot because it was the safe choice. I am not offended by his 'lack of blackness,' but rather the popular (and erroneous) belief that his minority is tacit endorsement for a political agenda where all citizens are equal.
It wasn't my intention to equate the Obamas with the Housewife, and I apologise if it read that way. I sought to illustrate that we live in society where we can immediately tune to Bravo when we need to feel better about how "real" we are. By watching a woman whose measure of success is the complete absence of responsibility, we can be in a situation where our political parties are represented by the likes of McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden - one ticket stands to maintain the status quo through inaction, the other to be an agent of "change" by compartmentalizing the rights of citizens by gender.
The lawyer in you is contradicting the activist in you, John. Angry revolution is not always necessary, but in the examples you give, it actually was.
Two states that allow gay marriages?
How about the states that have laws prohibiting it? For fun, let's look at when they enacted those laws...
Alabama? 2006.
Alaska? 1998.
Arkansas? 2004.
Colorado? 2006.
Georgia? 2004.
Hawaii? 1998.
Idaho? 2006.
Kansas? 2005.
Kentucky? 2004.
Louisiana? 2004.
Michigan? 2004.
Mississippi? 2004.
Missouri? 2004.
Montana? 2004.
Nebraska? 1999.
Nevada? 2001.
North Dakota? 2004.
Ohio? 2004.
Oklahoma? 2004.
Oregon? 2004.
South Carolina? 2006.
South Dakota? 2006.
Tennesse? 2006.
Texas? 2005.
Utah? 2004.
Virginia? 2006. (amusingly, the state for lovers!)
Wisconsin? 2006.
Don't get out of your chair to come to the defense of Senator Obama's limp-wristed (ha) approach to "change" and reference the past 10 years as more liberating for gay men and women. Media exposure is not civil rights, and I maintain that this "progress" is bullshit - From my chair, we're losing 27-2. To call that progress is to ignore history.
How did we get here? How is it even possible that our candidate is a black American touting separate but equal policy as acceptable? A reassignment of failed legislative problem-solving from one minority group to another, with those same minorities fully behind him, is more than enough reason for a fucking revolution.
This would be the first time, to me at least, that you've actually spelled out your issues with Obama as anything other than superficial. So thanks for actually spelling out a reasonable critique.
You know my feelings about the Clintons. If Obama made her VP, his candidacy would have been the Bill and Hill Show - a disastrous sideshow of a choice not unlike McCain's choice of Palin. Bill's presidential museum donors and potentially improper overseas business dealings would be fair game. It would be terrible.
That said, I take your point about the irony of Obama advocating for a "separate but equal" policy, but Hillary's positions with respect to the gays were basically the same (arguably slightly worse), and Nancy Pelosi, amazing though she may be, would never get elected, as liberal as she is.
I also take your point about the score being 27-2, as you put it, but I also think you miss the bigger picture. The fact that 27 states felt the need to pass gay marriage bans over the last ten years tells me that people are scared of us. Ten years ago, no one was worried that gays might want to get married, so much that we'd fight for it. Now, half the states expressly forbid gay marriage. What that shows is that visibility does mean something, even though you say otherwise.
It's funny you mention Virginia being for lovers in the context of gay marriage. The Supreme Court case that ended state bans on interracial marriage 40 years ago was called Loving v. Virginia, because one Mildred Loving wanted to marry a white dude and the Commonwealth of Virginia wouldn't let her. I mention this because, in the end, discriminatory laws like gay marriage bans (and sodomy bans - Lawrence v. Texas) often get invalidated or overruled by the Supreme Court. Gay marriage may become legal in spite of all those state bans; in other words, in our democracy, revolution sometimes comes from the top.
As it stands now, the Supreme Court has four justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts) who would overturn Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, and vote against any case that presented the issue of whether gay marriage shoudl be legal. They also happen to be younger, on average, than the other five justices, at least three of whom are either very old or likely to retire in the next four years. It's obvious that the next president will determine whether the Court stays in its current divided balance or moves in a decidedly more conservative direction. And if you think Obama wouldn't appoint (and be able to confirm, given the Democratic tilt of Congress) liberal judges to all levels of the federal courts, or if you think that doesn't matter, you're sorely mistaken.
For that reason, if for no other, Obama is by far the best bet for your "revolution vote," as it were.
Post a Comment