Sunday, September 13, 2009

Letter from a Former Student

Dear Miss Nichols,
I hope life is treating you well in Philadelphia. I am quite sure you are enjoying the endless amount of reading required for your dissertation. Life at USC hasn't been quite the same this semester without your course. I didn't ever get the opportunity to thank you for your guidance and understanding last semester. Despite being thrown into the Freshman lion den, I did enjoy your class and teaching style. You made a somewhat tedious class far more enjoyable and I appreciate the standard you held me to. With that said, I am enquiring about the possibility of obtaining a law school recommendation from you. I believe we spoke about it briefly last semester and out of the teachers I have had in my brief tenure at USC, we had the a fairly amicable student- teacher relationship. I am sure you are quite busy in your studies; however, I would greatly appreciate and forever be indebted to you. I would go as far to say that upon my law school graduation, I would be willing to represent you for any legal matters for the duration of your existence. Additionally, I would be willing to provide any help necessary as well as an empty envelope and stamp if necessary. In the event that you can't in good conscience write me a recommendation, I will always reminisce on the in depth conversation with my pupils. Once again thank you so much for an interesting semester and I wish you the best of luck and success. If you ever find yourself in the state of South Carolina please inform me, I am fairly certain I owe you a beer. By the way William Smitthers told me to thank you for passing him. With sincere admiration, Sid Gibson

Saturday, July 18, 2009

New Blog

Hey everyone. My friends and I started this blog as an experiment and, well, busy schedules have kept all of us from contributing equally to it. I've left it up for now, for posterity's sake, but decided to branch off with my own blog.

This will inevitably piss someone off

But I don't care. It needs to be said.

There was a controversial article published here:

For those of you not in the know, there is a HUGE debate sparked by Prop 8's passing between the gay community and the African-American community. A generalization of the argument (and I recognize it is a generalization so don't yell at me for generalizing, please) is that gays do not have a right to compare their civil rights struggle with that of blacks, because racism and homophobia are different kinds of hate, because one can hide one's sexuality but not their race. Therefore, the hate African Americans receive is greater and more forceful than the hate received by gay people; therefore, gay people not only cannot compare their civil rights struggles but also cannot complain that they have not yet received their total rights (i.e. legal equality in the form of gay marriage, military equality in the removal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc) because while gay people have waited 40 years for their freedom, African-Americans have been waiting several hundred years for theirs.

And after reading both, I agree with the critique more than the article. Some money quotes from the critique:

"For one thing, the argument is so self-defeating. You generally don't end up with an intelligent discussion. What you end up with are folks who compare abuses like they are marks of honors. Getting your head busted open for being black or gay is not a trophy and should never be seen as such."

"Are we so damned wrapped up in talking about how we have been oppressed that we forget that all oppression must be stopped?"

The last quote sums it up for me. Why are we even arguing whose oppression and discrimination is more important and more valid? Hate is hate and should not be tolerated, whether it lasted for 40 years or 4,000 years. I'm getting sick and tired of any minority, whether sexual, racial, cultural, or spiritual/religious, claiming they have more of a "right" to bitch about "non-rights." It's the perverse reversal of bigotry. "My genetics receive more discrimination than your genetics, therefore, I am superior to you."

I'm sorry, but prejudice is prejudice no matter WHOM IS DOING THE HATING. I believe a white person hating a black person simply because they are black is JUST AS WRONG as a black person hating a white person because they're white. Likewise, I also believe that a gay person hating a straight person is the same sin as a straight person hating a gay person.

Hate is hate, period, and it is never, under any circumstances, justified. I don't care how long your ancestors were oppressed. Your bigotry is not absolved because of your history.

And speaking of history, if we study it, we'll find that damn near EVERYONE has had some atrocity done to them. Just off the top of my head: Hitler and the Jews, the Romans and the Christians, Europe/America and Africans, Africans and Africans (hello apartheid), Europeans and Native Americans, Britain and India, Protestants and Catholics, the British and the Irish, the Irish in New York City, Japanese Americans circa 1945, China and Tibet, the Spaniards and the Aztecs, the ethnic cleansing of the Yugoslavia breakup, Jews and Palestineans, Iraqis and Iranians, the people of North Korea, the high school football team versus the effete theatre geek, and let's not forget WOMEN for over 2,000 years and counting in some parts of the world.

Now...are we done playing the Victim-Thon? And can we use our anger that we've been spewing at each other to fight oppression in ALL forms? To fight racism, sexism, and homophobia. Because this "you have no right to complain" is counterproductive and just allows oppression to exist WITHIN minorities as well as outside of them. That, my friends, achieves nothing. And I'm tired of achieving nothing, how about you?

Saturday, June 13, 2009

DOMA: Did Obama Make A Big Mistake?

First off, a few things.

1) I was not pissed off about the CA State Court decision regarding Prop 8. According to the California state constitution, you can petition an amendment, get the required number of signatures to put said amendment on the ballot, and then open it to an election. This is what the supporters of Prop 8 did and what they did was legal. Was it right? No, but that's not what the court was ruling: they ruled that it was legal. I expected it. I'm not sure why other gays and gay supporters didn't.

2) I am not expecting President Obama to support or even legislate gay marriage. He said he was against it in the primaries and throughout the election. I'm not sure why other gays and gay supporters think that he was for it when he clearly stated that he was against it.

3) Given #2 as well as the fact that no alternative has been suggested by Congress, I expected him to uphold DOMA.

Those three things said, I am surprised that the brief they used to uphold DOMA was so inflammatory. The brief reads like it was written by Jerry Falwell. Gays cost the federal government too much money? Gays can enter into a sham marriage with someone of the opposite sex just to get the benefits? Can anyone read this thing with a straight face? (no pun intended).

The brief bases all of its arguments on a court decision back in 1971, in which it was ruled that gays did not have the right to marry each other. Social conservatives have used this ruling over and over again to justify their position. The problem is that the ruling took place over 40 years ago and the arguments that were made then are not the same arguments made in 2009. The brief should have taken into account present day arguments: it did not.

I'd have thought Obama was a bit smarter than this, but apparently I was wrong. If he was going to uphold DOMA, he should have used a less inflammatory (and might I add, dated) brief. So we've got two possibilities here:

1) It was an after thought. The administration realized that they would have to issue a brief, didn't take the time to draft one, and then used a holdover brief from the Bush Administration without even doing a spot check. Which shows that Obama doesn't hate U.S. homosexual citizens, he just doesn't care.

or 2) The administration read the brief and approved it.

Neither one of these scenarios bodes well for the gay rights movement in the United States.

Proof of this is found in another one of the brief's arguments, in which it states that the federal government has no obligation to recognize the rights granted by the state. So theoretically, we could have 45 states allowing legal same sex marriages but the federal government has no right to recognize them. Considering the recent decisions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa, this part of the brief is the most damaging (I think). It's setting up the situation where gays and lesbians are equal on a state level, but not on a federal level. Meaning: expect fair treatment from the state but not from the White House. Put more bluntly: the White House doesn't care what your state rules, it's still going to discriminate against you.

Not surprising to learn that this brief was drafted by a Bush appointee. President Obama has claimed that he would not use executive power to live in a vacuum like President Bush, but this brief essentially says that, at least on the issue of gay rights, he will follow Bush's lead.

What's worse is that this brief will be used as fresh ammo from all social conservatives and anti-gay marriage groups. "See? Even Obama doesn't want you to marry." Basically, our President threw gays and lesbians to the wolves. Despite the victories in New England and the heartland, we just got handed a grenade.

So does Obama deserve our anger? This time, oh yes...yes indeed.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

An Online Debate

This will be a long post, so I apologize in advance.  But I've spent much of today debating with a very unhappy anti-gay person.  You can read the article and the comments (where the debate took place) here.

And now, here were my responses:

"Frankly, Link, nobody cares because heterosexuals, having had marriage for as long as they have, realize that it's not the panacea that the gay community insists that it will be."

But I thought that marriage was so fragile, so important, so sacred to society that the concept of same-sex marriage would destroy the United States of America and then the entire world?

If all heterosexuals believed that, there wouldn't be any opposition. But there is. A lot of opposition so some straight people must regard marriage in high esteem.

And NGT, you're damning an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few. For every misguided gay parent taking their kid to a leather convention, there is a well-rounded gay parent taking their kid to a park. This is true of STRAIGHT PEOPLE as well. People, regardless of sexual orientation, make bad decisions.

And some of us gays actually DO work for HIV charities and try to help the indigent and the sick. So NGT, please keep your self-righteous anger in check.

As for the Dan Savage comment, everyone seems to take his ideas out of context. He's not saying monogamy that is hurtful, it's the illogical expectation of it. Meaning for most people, it's not realistic, and for all people, it's difficult. Considering the 50-plus percent divorce rate in this country, I'd say that's fair assessment. 

Regardless, it is odd that the White House has made no comment on the actions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Iowa, and the only time our President mentions gays or lesbians is in a joke. Forgive us if we take a little offense to that. As if discrimination against gays and lesbians is nothing more than a nuisance. Is it so awful to ask for a little respect from the government, who seems to have no trouble at all taking our tax dollars? 

And "Don't Ask Don't Tell" needs to be repealed. It's a stupid law, one that promotes homophobia, and is completely outdated.

Re: North Dallas Thirty

1) NDT, gays aren't sneering at the virtues of marriage, they're sneering at the HYPOCRISY OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS STRAIGHT PEOPLE. You can't use the argument that gays are not worthy of marriage because they are promiscuous and self-destructive when some married heterosexuals are guilty of the same type of behavior. 

But again, this is damning an entire group of people based upon individual actions. ANYBODY, regardless of sexual orientation, can have self-destructive and promiscuous tendencies. If these actions do not disqualify heterosexuals from marriage, then it shouldn't disqualify homosexuals.

2) The stereotypical "gay lifestyle" is misnamed. It should be called the POPULAR LIFESTYLE. All of pop culture is shallow, hyper-sexual, and excessive. This is, again, not homo-centric so you can't keep using it as an argument that gays are inherently irresponsible because of their "lifestyle." 

3) You're missing the other benefits of marriage. Gay couples are owning property together, joining their finances, and raising children. They have no federal protections for their property, their money, or their children. Straight people do. This is where the inbalance lies. The fact that a straight couple can cohabitate for 7 years and have a commonlaw marriage but a gay couple can be together for 50 years and not have ANY federal protection is bullshit.

Re: TS

Yes you are subjected to different laws in different COUNTRIES. This is the United States of America. There is a big difference. Also, I'm not sure why gay marriage is a "forceful" issue. The United States grants personal freedom to all its citizens as long as they are unobstrusive to others. If gay marriage were legal, churches would still have the right to refuse certain unions (as they do now), parents would still have the right to tell their children they believe gay marriage is wrong (as they do now), and businesses would still have to treat all of their employees, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender, with equality (as they do now). So what exactly would change?

One of the prices we pay as American citizens is that other citizens will believe and live their lives in ways that we don't approve. But just like we have religious and personal freedom, so should our neighbors.

It's easy for the majority to tell the minority to wait for their rights and be thankful for what they are given. If everyone would put themselves into a situation in which they are the minority, I think it would alter their worldview dramatically.

"Marriage is two things to the gay community: a convenient excuse and a useful proxy fight."

Well, isn't that true of the Republican Party as well? Haven't they used it as a divisive issue for years to gain votes and win elections?

"how willing they are to trash it when doing so allows them to attack heterosexuals and religious people." 

And by your words here, aren't you guilty of the same sin? Aren't you using marriage as a way to trash homosexuals in the same manner that you're claiming homosexuals are using marriage to trash heterosexuals?

"How can you call opposition to gay marriage a divisive issue when the Obama Party and its candidates proclaim their public opposition to gay marriage and support state and Federal constitutional amendments to ban it?"

Last time I checked, it was the voters who elected politicians, and the issue is divisive amongst VOTERS. 51% voted for Prop 8 in California, but 49% did not. I therefore call the issue divisive. 

And it's not the Obama Party, it's the Democratic Party. Saying that is just as assinine as me calling the Republican Party the "Limbaugh Party."

"it's hard to argue that homosexual couples are identical to heterosexual couples when homosexual couples are completely dependent on heterosexual couples to produce them."

So homosexuals are inherently lesser than because we were simply born? Wow. 

"In other words, heterosexual couples have the capability to provide something of value to society that homosexual couples don't."

My aunt and uncle were barren. Should their marriage be annulled because they didn't produce any children i.e. any value to society? My grandfather is almost 70 and won't be producing any children. Should he also not marry? 

"The best that can be hoped for in regards to gay marriage is that it might keep gays from irresponsible behavior, even though it doesn't do so for straights."

You still haven't addressed the issues of shared property, shared finances, and shared children. Adopted children who were abandoned by (ahem) straight people. And what about lesbian couples who use the same fertility treatments that naturally infertile straight couples use?

"Liberalism has made of marriage an inconvenience, something that you do for the tax writeoff with the current sexual partner"

Since gay marriage is illegal in 45 states, you are referring to the actions of straight people and, once again, damning all homosexuals for the actions of some, ***not all*** heterosexuals.

"your only concern is what marriage does for you and you alone, and my concern is what marriage does for society"

And what does gay marriage do to the society? That point you've never made. You've talked about how it's not essential to gay people but you've only argued that citing extreme behavior that is not limited to homosexuals and does not represent all homosexuals. 

And I guess homosexual couples spending money on houses, vehicles, education, insurance, entertainment, travel, food, clothing, and other items don't contribute at all to a capitalist society such as this one.

"Hence, it's pretty obvious that your behavior won't matter as long as you have the right opinions, and if you don't have the right opinions, everything you say will be wrong anyway."

You are airing your opinions in a public forum. Anytime you do that, you will be subject to praise, agreement, disagreement, and criticism. This is the price of a public forum. The Dixie Chicks and Miss California found that out the hard way so it hardly follows to a conservative or liberal bias. If you don't want your opinion judged, then simply don't give it. Or grow a tougher skin. 

Or how about don't comment on a gay friendly website. I don't comment on extreme right-wing websites because no one is going to be open to my opinion. Practice a little self-awareness next time.

"Therefore, I don't give respect under the belief that it will be reciprocated or thatit adds any value; I give it when I feel like doing so."

If you expect confrontation, you will always find it. It seems that were burned by the actions of a few extreme, misguided gay activists, and for that, I'm sorry. But you've taken those past experiences and made a hatred for an entire group of people and no matter what religion or philosophy you follow, I promise you none of them would condone it. 

As I've said before, you are damning all homosexuals (including me, by the way) for the actions of a FEW. I have not resorted to name calling at all during this thread, nor have I sent you hate mail or hateful messages. I have just criticized your opinion, which you stated in a public forum. Therefore, do not link me or others like me to the negative experiences you have had in the past.

Let's agree to disagree. It's apparent you are not open to my opinion and I do not agree with yours. I do hope you grow less vitriolic over time. Hate ages the soul but it does not make it wise.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

To my friends in California

Well California sucks. I'm not surprised by the ruling at all. But there is hope, friends. Look to the Northeast, the birthplace of America, and look to the heartlands of Iowa. Freedom and justice for all is coming. It will come one state at a time. CA is just a bump in the road. And that state will soon be ashamed of what they've done today.

Now let's do the one thing the Christian Right would never do to us: walk over to them and say, "We forgive you for trespassing against us." Just because they hate us does not give us the right to hate them back. Give the love and forgiveness we wish they could have shown us. Remember, kids, karma is a bitch. Get on its good side and don't worry...the supporters of Prop 8 and all its like will get their comeuppance. Bigots always do.

Much love from Tennessee,


Thursday, May 14, 2009

Dear President Obama

Unlike the letter to Miss California, I actually sent this one:

Mr. President, I first would like to say that I know your job isn't easy. Pleasing 250 million people is not a pleasant task. But I'm just curious as to the silence concerning the historic actions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa in regards to gay rights and gay marriage. I find it odd that you wouldn't even acknowledge these acts, especially given your campaign promises.

I know little of politics and I understand if certain promises are pushed aside, but Mr. President, I'm asking for an acknowledgment that what these states did was Just and American. That homosexual citizens matter enough to be spoken of. I live in TN, the state where 82% of the population believed I shouldn't ever be married or have a civil union, because my long-term relationship would be less than valuable to society. My family doesn’t even ask about my relationships, as if I were asexual, whereas they obsess over my brother’s (heterosexual) love life. At 25 years old, I wonder if I'll ever be considered a citizen and person of value instead of a dirty little secret.

I consider myself to be a good American, Mr. President. I'm currently working towards my MBA at Belmont University. My main goal is to fix an entertainment industry that, like our country, is falling apart. I pay my taxes, I vote, I educate myself on the issues and world events, I am kind to my neighbors, I work hard and I play fair. And yet, I have people telling me everyday through their actions that I don't matter. Whether it's talk shows, radio programs, blogs, newsprint, or even comments in a Nashville bar. And your silence is telling me, once again, that because of who I am, who I was born to be, who I was made to love, that I don't matter.

So I ask you, Mr. President, do I matter? Or am I just a dirty little secret?



Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Dear Miss California

Dear Miss California,

I wanted to congratulate you. You are about to become the Christian Right's favorite martyr. You will be held up as the prime example of why gays are evil...because they make fun of you and oppress your right to say your God-approved opinion by criticizing you in public. Oh I know what you're thinking. They didn't actually take away my right of free speech. I said what I wanted in a public forum and I was criticized in a public forum. That's the way public forums work. But don't you give in to that rational logic and thought! That has no place in the Christian Right. You are a martyr, dying at the hands of evil, horrible gays.

I also wanted to thank you for the phrase "Opposite Marriage." It's a goldmine of a title and I can't believe no one had thought of it before. After all, if gay marriages are abominations, then straight marriages must be the opposite of abominations. What a mind you have, Miss California!

I myself am going to use your phrase, but in a slightly different context. You see, since almost 60% of straight marriages end in divorce--such as your own parents--I don't want my marriage to emulate straight marriages. No offense, but why pattern your life after so many abysmal failures? So my marriage will be "Opposite Marriage" too!

I think we could campaign together. I really do. We can both argue for "Opposite Marriage." When you strip away the lip gloss, the collagen, and the silicon, you and I are not that different, Miss California. We were both hurt by a vicious lie: that marriages are sacred. I can't imagine the horror you must have felt when your own parents betrayed that sacrament by an act of sacrilege known as "divorce." And then to have icky, icky gays want to participate in that same sacrament. How horrible it must be for you!

For me, I learned that since marriage was so sacred, and I was so not, I couldn't participate in the Renaissance Festival known as the Wedding Ceremony. Oh to never know the joy of spending thousands of dollars on clothes to be worn only once, to shove a cake with a five hundred percent mark-up in someone else's mouth, to pose for countless pictures as if we were the lead story in "Vogue," and to play the party host to hundreds of people who only came for the free booze. My eyes still tear up to this day that I can't spend half a year planning a single party that will end up being nearly identical to all the ones that came before and would come after it.

Miss California, we're both the victims of injustice, and I say we fight that injustice. We should fight for "Opposite Marriage." Marriage today is not the promise and commitment it once was, what with prenuptial agreements, no-fault divorce, and the fact that this country allows you to marry as many times as you want. (Hello, Rush Limbaugh!) It's time that we reclaim marriage's moral high ground, making it the flip side to the marriages of convenience and "covering up unexpected pregnancies." Indeed...making it "Opposite Marriage."

So I applaud you, Miss California, for your beliefs and your strong moral convictions. Those same convictions that led you to posing nude and having your breasts augmented a week before your crowning competition. You are the new botoxed face of feminism and free speech. Live long!...knowing that your breasts will be here for millions of years after because they're not bio-degradable.



P.S. ~ A word to the wise. The Christian Right aren't kind to their martyrs once they've finished using them. They treat their martyrs just like they treat their whores: use 'em up, throw 'em out. So if I were you, I'd brush up on those typing skills. If you'd like, I can give you some references.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Media Hot for Teacher/Student Liasons

So today at the gym I was jamming out to VH1 Classics as I often do when on came Van Halen’s “Hot for Teacher” video—you know, the one where Van Halen and their 7th grade doppelgangers make lewd and suggestive comments about teacher-beauty queen-strippers. At first I was merely struck, as I always am when subjected to anything Van Halen, at how dead-on Metalocalypse creators Tony Blacha and Brendon Small have captured the essence of David Lee Roth and the band with their characters Dr. Rockzo the Rock-n-roll Clown (I do Cocaine!) and Zazz Blammymatazz, the clown band. I mean, that dance number with them wearing matching peach suits and white gloves?! C’mon!

But as the video progressed, I became more surprised that it hadn’t been censored, or at the very least, prefaced by a disclaimer declaring it for adult audiences only. After all, here it was glamorizing, nay celebrating, what current news hysteria dubs a horrendous crime—student-teacher sex. I mean, even the original Sesame Street got slapped with a parental advisory sticker when it got released on DVD—too much depression, visible poverty, and cookie-eating for our delicate little snowflakes these days. But nope, not a single “views expressed in this video in no way reflect the opinions of VH1, VH1 Classic, or any of its affiliates” popped up.

This got me to thinking. What makes the news media so hot for teacher-student sex? Why has what was once the subject of rock songs (The Police’s “Don’t Stand So Close to Me” is another one) and bad jokes now one of the hottest headlines in a news outlet’s tackle box? Is the shock and outrage real? Merely feigned to mask our still prurient fascination with sexual coming of age? Displaced guilt? When did it stop being culturally acceptable for the young male to be initiated into sex by an older woman? Young women are almost as likely to engage in sexual activities are their male peers, so perhaps it’s a natural evolution that the current ideal seems to be for two equally inexperienced teenagers to grope their way to knowledge together.

Or perhaps it’s a reflection of our need to prolong childhood well into adolescent years, despite the hyper-sexualization of teenagers in the media. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, as my mother would say.

Yet, I think the new villainization of older women who engage in sexual contact with teen boys also reflects our changing definitions of masculinity—at least adolescent masculinity. We’re slowly becoming more accepting of seeing males as victims of sexual abuse, though the journey is constantly hindered by entrenched and entrenching ideals of hyper-masculinity. I mean, isn’t that why female teacher/male student sex was glamorized? Because being a manly man means not only wanting sex, but making women of all ages want your sex?

That’s the idea all those Axe commercials sell anyway.

For your enjoyment, Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher":

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Why is there still Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Dear President Obama,

I mean this with all respect, because I do respect you. However, would you please man up and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Or do you want to idiotically lose more servicemen and servicewomen who are working for our country and our intelligence agencies? Especially Arab linguists, because you know, what with our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we *certainly* wouldn't need them....don't be a a light. Like you promised you would be. Repeal DADT.


Wednesday, May 6, 2009

What we lost 8 years ago.....

While there has been an overwhelming bout of hysteria concerning Obama taking everyone's wealth away (and yet, I don't see a shortage of people with iPods so everyone's bank account must have remained intact during the first 100 days), let us not forget what former President Bush took away from us....a little thing called DUE PROCESS.

Because of the Patriot Act, a 16 year old boy is in jail and will probably remain so because there are no such things as trials or appeals once the government calls you a terrorist. I repeat, under the Patriot Act, an FBI or CIA agent only has to label you a terrorist and you are no longer a United States citizen--a citizen with a right to a fair trial, a right to a proper defense, a right to an appeal. This 16 year old, barring an act of God, will probably remain in jail for the rest of his life for doing absolutely nothing.

I would also like to point out, to those of you who think this won't happen to you because you're not Muslim and you don't have a darker skin pigment, this kid is white and is not a Muslim. Funny how everyone is screaming about Obama taking their rights away (oh my god, he's gonna take my gun and my inflated bonus away! Marxist!!!) when they've failed to realize, Bush already did that. But nobody seemed to notice because they got overpaid and fat. Me? I'd rather have freedom and protection.

And I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay higher taxes than go to jail because some asshole hacked into my IP address. Just sayin'....


Now...President Obama...repeal this under-handed, ham-fisted, Orwellian piece of legislation and STAT!

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Response To Amazon

A response to a particular comment at The Stranger's Blog concerning Amazon's bone-headed decision to label all books with gay content or written by gay authors to be stripped of their sales rankings and removed from all content searches because they are "Adult" in nature. Never mind that Jackie Collins' Married Lovers is still out in the open.

And my response was to a post by the username Loveschild.

Re: “And in the worst of cases to introduce fragile minds into acceptance of homosexual (emphasis on the sexual part) behavior. There would be no other way of explaining to a kid why 'heather' would have two mommies when they and their friends have a mommy and a daddy.”

And I call bullshit on you, Loveschild. This policy isn't about "protecting fragile minds." Please. I love how conservatives always hide behind "protecting children." This policy and others like it are for squeamish adults. Unless your kid has your credit card, they can't order the damn book anyway, and they can't even read more than 2 pages in their excerpts. So again. This isn't about protecting children; it's about promoting the feelings of ADULTS.

Adults who are too scared that their kids are gonna (gasp) ASK QUESTIONS. Isn't that what kids do? Ask questions? "How am I going to tell them that Heather has two mommies?" you ask. You're going to tell them that there are gay people in the world and some of them have families. Why, Loveschild? Because they *exist.* Whether or not you agree with homosexuality, whether or not you think it's sinful and an abomination, doesn't change the fact that there are gay people in this world. Just like there are people of different races, different cultures, and different religions (different religions, by the way, are also an abomination to the Christian Lord). You can tell your child that you believe it's wrong. You can even tell your child that all gay people are full of rainbows and candy. I don't really care cuz it’s your kid. But sheltering your child (and yourself, while we're at it) from reality does not change the reality.

As for your “emphasis on the sexual” part of your comment, ALL non-platonic relationships are sexual, not just homosexual ones, sweetie. I doubt our parents initially got together to play a weekly night of bridge and NEVER had any desire to see each other naked. With your own logic, you couldn’t explain to kids why Heather would have a mother and a father, because in order for poor old Heather to have appeared, the mother and the father would have had SEX.

Sorry, Loveschild. Use better logic next time.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Enough Already!!!!!!

Dear People Who Are Shouting That Obama is a Socialist/Communist/Nazi/Satan Incarnate:

Shut the fuck up.

Seriously. Enough. Stop acting like drunk, pill-addicted, bitter housewives (hello, Rush Limbaugh), and Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Look, I’m not happy about being taxed either. Last year, I paid 25% taxes. 25% while making less than $30 K, and I didn’t even have to pay State Income taxes, thank god. I’m not happy about being stuck with the bailout bill either.

But I’m also not happy that for 8 years, our government ignored a growing problem on Wall Street. I’m not happy that for the last 20 years, the people of Main Street thought they could get whatever they wanted whenever they wanted despite what their bank balance showed. I’m not happy that we launched 2 wars that are still going on with no end in sight. I’m not happy that we’ve squandered the goodwill we earned after WWII with the dumbass, military funded failures such as Vietnam and the current Iraq War. I’m not happy that the generation who inherited the financial boom of the 1940’s spent all the money on drugs and rock’n’roll, then sold rock’n’roll to Pepsi commercials so that my generation gets watered down shit like Creed, then bought their way into Congress to roll back every law so that they can benefit from a Ponzi scheme that left the entire country bankrupt.

I’m not happy about any of these things, folks.

But calling for Obama’s assassination, and that’s what you’re really doing by calling him names like “Hitler” and “AntiChrist,” isn’t going to change the fact that a lot of people will lose their jobs, their homes, and their livelihoods, that our healthcare system and our interstate system are on the verge of collapse, and that Creed is going to get back together and try to make a comeback.

Times are shit. But before we start blaming everything wrong on our “socialist,” “communist” President (and by the way, those are 2 very different political ideas, please pick one and stick with it), have we forgotten how bad the other ticket was? Do we remember that McCain was just more of the same shit we had for 8 years? Did we forget the bat-shit crazy train wreck that was SARAH PALIN. A woman who made Charles Manson look sane.

You have to live with what you got, folks, and this is the best our government system can do. It’s flawed, it’s imperfect, it’s been royally fucked by greedy, selfish, short sighted businessmen and voter contingencies (who vote based upon 3 things: God, Guns, and Gays), but calling for anarchy will only fuck us more.

So like I said.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Monday, April 6, 2009


This was a response I wrote for an article at The New Gay:

I think defining virginity in terms of sexual acts is missing the point. To me, I liken “virginity” to “innocence” in that, if you help achieve an orgasm for someone else or vice versa, and it is an experience you have never had before, then you have had sex. Sex is essentially the mutual physical pleasuring of two (or more) people, and having an orgasm with someone else is, at least to me, an intimate act. Once that happens, there’s no going back: your “innocence” (or ignorance, for lack of a better term) in regards to sexual pleasure with another human being is gone and frankly, so is your virginity.

But the entire article illustrates how virginity was essentially thought up and used by religious organizations to enforce guilt and curb sexual behavior. Think about it: the author and his interview subjects work hard to narrowly define virginity. Let’s say for argument that over-the-clothes orgasms would count as sex, which would mean that the author lost his virginity in his early teens. His prose indicates that this would be a negative situation, so he redefines sex as a strictly “no clothing” act.

But why should he even have to do that? Why is there such a negative stigma in losing your virginity at whatever age you experience sexual pleasure with someone else? If we are going to live our lives in a “non-heteronormative way,” then maybe we need to recognize the concept of virginity for what it is:

Controlling the sexual habits of women.

Remember, virginity was never really expected of boys or men in the days of old, but my god, a woman had better be a virgin (or at least appear that way), otherwise there would be hell to pay: the man would be a laughing stock and the woman would be stoned, burned, or hanged, depending on the century we’re in.

Virginity is nothing more than an unattainable moral standard used to make people feel guilty about sex. And frankly, there is too much guilt with being gay as it is (at least for some people). So if we really want to define it ourselves, how about this:

Virginity is when a person does not yet know the wonderful, exciting feeling of pleasuring and be pleasured by someone else.

Being a virgin is not a negative thing, because the person “does not YET know.” Hopeful language there. And when virginity is lost, it’s because of a “wonderful, exciting” experience.

But maybe I ramble……

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

AIG: Assholes In Government

The question that needs to be asked is not why did they use bailout funds to pay bonuses, but rather: Why in hell did they even get bailout funds?  Is AIG that crucial to the stability of our economy?

I call bullshit on the bailouts.  Before, I was open to them, now I call BULLSHIT.  Do a little research and you'll find that AIG received bailout funds because one of the architects of these bailouts actually stood to benefit financially if AIG survived instead of going under.

"Freed from all capital restraints, sitting pretty with its man running the Treasury, Goldman jumped into the housing craze just like everyone else on Wall Street. Although it famously scored an $11 billion coup in 2007 when one of its trading units smartly shorted the housing market, the move didn't tell the whole story. In truth, Goldman still had a huge exposure come that fateful summer of 2008 — to none other than Joe Cassano.  [The one who caused AIG to crash and burn.]

Goldman Sachs, it turns out, was Cassano's biggest customer, with $20 billion of exposure in Cassano's CDS book. Which might explain why Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein was in the room with ex-Goldmanite Hank Paulson that weekend of September 13th, when the federal government was supposedly bailing out AIG.

When asked why Blankfein was there, one of the government officials who was in the meeting shrugs. "One might say that it's because Goldman had so much exposure to AIGFP's portfolio," he says. "You'll never prove that, but one might suppose."

Market analyst Eric Salzman is more blunt. "If AIG went down," he says, "there was a good chance Goldman would not be able to collect." The AIG bailout, in effect, was Goldman bailing out Goldman. " ~ Rolling Stone (

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  

I've been labeled a cynic and this just proves my point: America has been bought and paid for by powerful billionaires who play with the country's money as if it were a game of monopoly. You'll notice that Joe Cessano of AIG is in his mansion, keeping all the pretend money he made. The profits for AIG weren't real, hence the assets weren't real, yet Joe's bank account is real. Does that make sense to anybody?  

To a certain degree, I understand why letting big, powerful banks fail would hurt us in the short term.  But I don't understand why allowing the same companies who bought and sold bad debt to investors and a made billions from it are allowed to 1) keep the money they made and 2) receive more money and less incentive to be responsible with it.  

The bad thing is, we can't throw them in jail because, believe it or not, what they did wasn't illegal.  20 years ago, it was.  But not today.  The Democrats, in a half-wit move in the early 90's, were so desperate to get back into Congress that they decided to be more "big business friendly."  So they lifted many of the regulations from the banking industry and the selfish, gluttony banking CEO's used this opportunity to 1) get rid of any competition 2) buy up the needed legislators in Washington and 3) run a ponzi scheme that could have very well destroyed our economy for good.

Thanks a lot, Congress.  I appreciate it.  Go fuck yourselves.

And now, we're being told that to save our economy, we have to give billions of dollars to the very companies that did us in.  And even that I could understand if there was massive reform going on as well.  There isn't.  These companies are receiving the money with little to no restraints, the deregulation hasn't been reversed on Wall Street, and they're doing what I feared they would do: they spent it on themselves.  

Great.  Just great.

Now Washington is trying to rack up private investors, whom they won't identify (dear god, we're not taking money from terrorists, are we?), and the Feds, the most unconstitutional government body I've ever seen, are pumping trillions of unaccounted for dollars into the economy.  Where is it going?  They won't say.  Where is it coming from?  They won't say.  And get this: The Feds aren't accountable.......TO ANYONE.

Congress and the President have no authority over what the Feds do.  This is scary shit. Because if the current economic crisis has taught me one thing, it's this:  Self-interest rules and fuck everybody else.

And you and I are everybody else. 

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Hey Medical Community! Are you listening?!

This next blog is a series of email responses I made in a conversation with a friend of mine. We were discussing my afternoon in which I participated in Vanderbilt Hospital's effort to inform people about the trial HIV vaccine. For more (accurate) information, please visit their website.

Here is my side of the conversation:

The event went well. I did meet some cool people. It wasn't as well attended so it was a short time at the booths. But I did learn about the HIV vaccine. It's still in the trial stages and Vanderbilt Hospital has been running it for 20 years. They had a big bust (i.e. a trial that failed) in 2007 so they're starting over this year. They basically inject 3 parts of DNA from the HIV virus into a person's bloodstream to see how the person's immune system reacts. The theory is that if the human body recognizes the 3 proteins of DNA when the actual virus hits the blood, the body will already have a trained defense. There are 3 stages of this trial and they're only in stage 2 right now.

Of course, being around all this disease talk is making me paranoid. I am a hypo, after all. But TN is experiencing another syphilis outbreak. (We're #1 in the nation! We're so proud...) Listening to all this stuff, it makes me want to be celibate. I mean, jesus, my idea of foreplay now would be an exchanging of paper test results from either planned parenthood or a physician.

And now they're saying that Oral Herpes (HV 1) and Genital Herpes (HV 2) are interchangeable. So since over 80% of the U.S. population is already infected with Oral Herpes, that means that currently, or in the future, over 80% of the population will be infected with Genital Herpes. Sighs.....I'm inheriting a bankrupt country, a broken healthcare system, AND multiple STD epidemics. Sometimes, it just doesn't pay to get out of bed, ya know?  

The good news is that syphilis they can treat. As long as you're not allergic to antibiotics (and haven't abused them with over-prescriptions), you're good to go. The problem with syphilis, as well as all the other STD's, is that you can be asymptomatic for a long period of time. During that period of time, you can infect everyone you have unprotected sex with.

And I've come up with a solution. I don't know why this hasn't been a solution. We teach sex education and that works part of the time. But most people who are having sex aren't necessarily thinking of their sex ed class. So mistakes get made. Mistakes will always get made.

So looking at the rising number of infections, I'm still wondering why STD and HIV testing is still voluntary. What the fuck is wrong with our medical community in that they would allow this to be voluntary. The only time an HIV test is administered involuntarily is when a woman is pregnant. Other than that, if you don't specifically ask for testing, you won't get tested.

I think that starting at ages 11-13, when the doctor takes blood and urine, as it per usual, they run HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and, if they can, herpes. Every single time they come in for a physical. We know kids are having sex that young and if 35 year olds can forget to put a condom on, you can bet your ass that a 13 year old will forget as well. There's nothing to report unless there's a positive.

I honestly believe if we make STD tests mandatory and yearly, we could catch the positives earlier, inform the infected, which would hopefully stop the spread of the disease from that person. Most transmissions are done b/c people simply do not know they're infected. This would decrease the ignorance. and hopefully, the spread. Make the ad campaign similar to cancer. Catch cancer early, live another day. Catch an STD early and your spouse gets to live another day.

But I don't hear anybody in the medical field talking about this. There's still too much stigma in this puritan nation about sexual health. We're literally dying and our medical community is failing us. Just pisses me the fuck off.

Monday, March 16, 2009

The Sissy

Sorry for the long absence. I went on a spring break (the joys of being a student once again) and let me tell ya, spring break loses its luster when you're 25. I did not get drunk, run around naked, or do unmentionables with a hula hoop. Nor did I wake up with someone new every morning. And I had no desire to do any of those things. In fact, I spent almost my entire break with my parents and it was wonderful.

That said, onto the first post of this week:

Why does everyone hate sissies?

It's not just the straight world anymore. I have met more than one gay guy who claims to be "straight-acting" and isn't interested in "femmes." Go onto or and count how many profiles state that they want a "real man" or someone who's "proud to be a man" and is only interested in those who "don't act gay." Go head, I'll wait.....


.........back? Okay. A lot has been written on the blogosphere about the gay rights movement and how gays should be portrayed on television. Many gays get mad about such shows as "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" because they showcased easy gay stereotypes. I'll grant you that point. However, those stereotypes are there for a reason.

Because they exist.

Some of us gay guys are whirling, twirling dervishes of fabulousness and proud of it, dammit. And it's those guys who take the most shit...from other gay guys. (I can't speak from experience but I'd imagine butch lesbians probably get more grief than, say, the bombshell femme. Of course, I could be wrong. Lesbians? Bi-sexuals? Any thoughts?)

Here we are fighting for social equality and we're already putting down ourselves? Seriously?

It's not too hard to figure out. We want to be accepted by straight culture and so there's more and more pressure to "act straight." We want our straight friends to say, "I have a gay friend but, you know, he's not *that* gay or anything." Admit it, guys, you want to be the "can't tell if he's gay" fag, don't ya?

Problem is, most of us aren't straight acting. Truth be told, most gay guys are in the middle when it comes to mannerisms and those are the guys that can't stand the flamers the most. They project their own insecurity onto some unsuspecting sissy who wants nothing more than to dance the night away with wrists a-flayed and hips a-cocked (no pun intended). And I say, "Good for the flamer!" It takes guts in this society to be flamingly gay. People will cast their eye upon them and know without a shadow of a doubt that he is GAY with a capital G.

And all the "in the middle" guys wouldn't be caught dead walking next to a flamer because they too could be labeled as gay by passer-by's. That's really what the anti-flamer crowd is afraid of. They're "out" but they want to pass through straight culture almost undetected. They long to be a Stealthy Gay, and anyone who could blow their cover (again, no pun intended) is not well liked.

We're all guilty of thinking this way. We're taught early that men under no circumstances should ever have feminine traits. Boys don't cry, etc. etc. And many of us gay guys are still holding out for essentially our father's approval, for our families not to be embarrassed of us. We, again, want the people of our lives to say, "Well he's gay but not *that* gay." This is a stupid reason for any kind of self hatred, especially self-hatred that is projected onto somebody else.

I don't mind effeminate guys. (In fact, I can be pretty effeminate myself.) And just admitting that the reason I had steered clear of flamers is because they bring to the forefront my own homophobia and fear has allowed me to be more comfortable with strangers, friends, and myself. Truth be told, like a good morning orgasm, we all need a little sparkles in our lives and there are plenty of out and proud flames that will bring a smile to your face.

And they should get your respect too. They're tougher than you or I because they take all the shit from the entire world.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Eve of Justice

I had the privilege to be a part of the team that organized the Eve of Justice March on March 4th (Get it? March Forth on March Fourth? Clever? No? Fine...) in Los Angeles. This candlelight march was to bring visibility to the following days event: the Supreme Court Oral Hearings.

...Not sure what I'm talking about, eh? Well, in a nutshell, it was an oral debate from both sides to the CA Supreme Court over three items: 1.) If the 18,000 gay marriages that were performed legally before Prop 8 passed will be annulled or not, 2.) If Prop 8 will be upheld or overturned, and 3.) if Prop 8 will be an amendment or a revision to the Constitution. Basically: "HOLY FUCK" IMPORTANT. Ya dig?

Now, I'm still very new to activism. I only, and I mean ONLY, started to get involved in the gay rights movement about a month ago, so what I brought to the table was minimal, but it still felt better than doing a whole lot of NOTHING.

I got involved on an individual level when Prop 8 came about, like most gays did, but then my involvement tapered off in November when 8 passed and I didn't know where to go or what to do. Luckily I made some friends who are heavily involved with several grassroots organizations here in L.A., and they took me under their wings. I am starting to feel more educated, more aware, and more connected to my community as a whole. These are all great things. What I love the most, however, is that I'm not just sitting around on my ass expecting other people to fight for me. I've joined in on my own fight... and MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT.

Right, enough back story, back to the march...

Our march (there were 34 known marches in total going on in the state of California that evening) ended up quite well, all things considered. It was a Wednesday, it was raining, it was in downtown, and it started at 5:30pm. Now, if you know anything about LA, you know this is pretty much attendance suicide as is, sans the rain, but WITH the rain... oh boy, good luck! People in LA don't even want to go outside if it's cloudy, let alone risk getting wet (and not in the good way) as it would ruin our fancy clothes, water spot our pimp rides, and frump our $250 haircuts. BUT 1200 people were estimated to have been there! Wooo!

The one downfall? It was a candlelight march, as I mentioned earlier, and we had to go back and clean up all the wax to avoid being charged by the city. This was probably the only time I was thankful for the rain, as it made the wax not stick to the cement so badly.

I met a lot of tremendous people (see video below of Todd, who was on LA Ink just after the courts made gay marriage legal in California), saw some great re-commitment ceremonies, and generally felt very touched by the showing of people who believe that marriage is about love, not gender.

Some faith in humanity restored? Check.

Now we just have to wait 90 days (maximum wait) to see what the court decides. I'm a bundle of nerves here...

His tattoo is SICK and he and his husband and daughter are aaaaa-dorable.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Monday, Monday

Mondays don't have to suck...too badly. Watch this gem from Sesame Street. (Warning: might not be safe for work.)

Friday, March 6, 2009

Happy Friday!!!!!

Mornings suck, but Friday mornings are less sucky because with the rise of the sun comes the promise of an entertaining evening that's just a few hours away.  

Now because I love all of you, remember that if you do party hardy, please party responsibly. Just like our golden gals:

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Straight Sex Equals Unwanted Pregnancies; Therefore, It's Wrong And Nobody Should Choose To Be Straight

You know, I'm fine with straight long as they're not open about it. No offense, but who wants to see a straight couple holding hands in the park? My kids could see that and ask me questions about it. What kind of world are we leaving in when I have to explain to my own kids that there are people who sleep with the opposite sex....sighs. It's just wrong.

Monday, March 2, 2009


I'm in the middle of midterms, so I apologize for not posting as often as I should.  So I implore the Promo Homo and Miss Katie to write some deep insightful words....or at least post some humorous links.  

And here's to midterms!  Woot!  (I'm really not that enthusiastic, I just want them to be DONE.)

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Good morning

Here is your morning cartoon:

"I said to my girlfriend the other day, my, monsters are interesting people....."

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Gay Bars in NashTrash

So I sat down, I ate dinner, I had one glass of wine (two beer queer here), and instead of finishing my apartment, I've decided to write the following post:

I only feel comfortable hitting on a guy in a gay bar. This is the south. Any gay vibe (and I have the worst gaydar there ever was) I get from a gay in a non-gay setting, say a Barnes and Noble, he could be closeted with a wife and 2.4 kids. I say hello, and he runs away screaming. Or you get someone who's so threatened by a simple hello, how are ya, that they punch your lights out.

So no, I don't hit on anyone outside of a gay context. But here's the rub: I don't like any of the guys that I've seen/met in our gay bars.

Our major gay bar is Tribe, a Manhattan style place. I actually like Tribe. There's a bartender there who gives me good drinks, usually at a discounted price, and I can sit on a couch, if it's not too crowded. Alcohol + couch = happy Chris. But here's what I've noticed people watching (and all I do is people watch when I'm at bars):

All the guys come in in cliques or pairs, usually with the same styled hair and jeans. They get their drink, they bop along to Rhianna, and they stare at others in the bar, but nobody talks to anyone outside of their clique. They all just.....stare, as if marking their prey. Then they all go next door to the dance club called Play, and that's apparently where all the hookups/phone numbers are exchanged...on the loud dance floor or in the bathroom stall.

And that.....really isn't for me. But there really isn't another place for single gay men to go in Nashville. I joined a gay runner's group...they're all in their 50's. I figured the gay reading group would be the same, plus sucky gay coming out fiction. (Honestly, does any gay fiction get passed coming out in high school/college and explore other aspects of life and story and plot?)

It feels like every gay guy who came out got a hand book describing what I like to call "The Homo Telepathic Broadband System." It seems that at these bars, there's communication going on, but just like Morse Code, I don't know how to read it. I certainly don't know how to use it to my advantage. So inevitably, I feel like a dunce because everyone seems to be in on the gag, but me. So I drink my drink, I bob my head to some song I can't stand, and then I leave.

So where does someone like me, someone who isn't comfortable yelling his mini life story over insanely loud music, someone who doesn't use the dance floor to seduce and arouse, someone who doesn't like sleazy bathroom stall hand jobs with strangers....

......where does someone like that meet somebody in this town?

Happy Hump Day!!!!!


In lieu of a well written post, because I'm in the midst of a cleaning fit for a cocktail party I'm throwing this Friday, I present you Miss Bette Davis talking about working in the movies. Her advice about loving the "sweat of it" applies not just to those of us pursuing an artistic career, but to anyone going after a dream, whether it be career or relationship oriented.

There will never be another like her.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Progressive South part 2

Now that I've calm down a little bit (and I finished my accounting homework), I can explain at least the Tennessee adoption ban.

The law is proposed by Senator Paul Stanley in January of 2009. The new law would make it illegal for any unmarried couple to adopt children. (I erroneously said earlier that single people were excluded.) So in addition to the regular, rigorous investigation that the state adoption agencies perform on candidates, now they have to determine if the "roommate" is sexually active with the adopter.

This is what I like to call a "Backdoor Law." They proposed gay adoption bans and the laws failed to pass in Tennessee. Now there's no mention of homosexuals in the new law (though it would still ban them, as gay marriage is not only illegal but a constitutional amendment - which passed with 82% of the majority vote btw), so it cannot be ruled as prejudicial.

Quite clever, these bigots. Most southern people would read the law and think, "Well I don't believe children should happen outside of marriage. I agree with that." They'll vote yes without thinking of the actual consequences of this law. These bigots know that. The average person thinks only about 5 minutes ahead. The Big Picture is rarely seen. Supporters of this law aren't necessarily bad people or mean people...just short sighted people.

And once again, anti-gay legislature is hiding behind children. "We're saving the children!" Really? Denying them homes so they can spend most of their life in foster care is in the best interest of the children? These people actually believe that foster care is better than being raised by an unmarried straight couple or a committed gay couple.

Here's the rub: this law actually hurts those older children in foster care. The older a child gets, the fewer the chances he/she has to be adopted. People want brand new babies. If they can't have their own, they use fertility drugs and surgeries until they fail. Then they might adopt, but if they do, they want a brand new baby. An 8 year old and an 11 year old don't have a chance in hell.

So on top of exploiting children, lowering their chances of finding homes, and limiting the rights of one targeted minority group, these Christian policy makers are hypocrites. How many unwanted kids have they adopted today?

It's Big Brother government using Jesus Christ as a battle axe.

Their ultimate goal, by the way, is to make homosexuality illegal. They want to force all gays and lesbians into a straight, Christian lifestyle (i.e. a straight, miserable marriage that will contribute to the high divorce rate). For people arguing that homosexuality is a sinful choice, they seem to forget that Christianity is a faithful choice, one where the individual must decide for him/herself. I was raised Christian and I'm fairly certain there isn't a verse in the Gospels where Jesus beat some poor pagan into the ground with a stick until he finally relented and followed.

But that's the difference between the Jesus that's in the Bible and the Jesus that's cohabiting the $80 million mega-churches that liter the south like mansions in Beverly Hills. These churches have their own gyms, their own schools, some even have their own Starbucks. It's a world within a world, one that's exclusive. Imagine Jesus' horror at the thought of Christians building palaces to themselves in order to keep the rest of the world outside.

I'm not sure why they're trying to "Christianize" America. I've read online a belief that if they make America (and only America) a Christian country, that Jesus will come back and the Rapture can begin. Not soon enough, I think. I really wish I did believe in the Rapture: that way, these Christian Warriors can be beamed up to heaven (or whatever planet they're from) and leave the rest of us alone.

Now, there is something that we can do and that's publicly oppose this law and all like it. Anyone who lives in Tennessee and even people who don't live in Tennessee, you can email Senator Paul Stanley and the state legislature. How? Simple. Follow these links:

Email Senator Paul Stanley

Call Your TN Representative

Suggestions for Sound Arguments To Make Regarding This Law

Donate To The Tennessee Equality Project

Monday, February 23, 2009

by way of introduction

To say that I had goals when I graduated from college would not be entirely accurate. I wouldn't even say I had a plan, really. No goals, no plans, just a vague sort of leaning. I wasn't going to grad school right away and I'd just been on the receiving end of the failure of a three-year relationship; Madison seemed like as good a place as any for my reentry into the world. The fact that my ex was going to be living there too only factored a tiny percentage into my decision. Like, 10% max. Okay, maybe 25%. Okay, maybe more, we all learn from our mistakes, let's move on, DON'T JUDGE ME!!

Two months after packing up my movie posters and extra-long sheets, I was stacking slabs of plywood onto cement bricks, creating a set of hobo bookshelves in the corner of my studio apartment in the heart of downtown Madison. My "apartment" had a murphy bed and forgotten porn that the previous resident had abandoned in one of the many cabinets surrounding it. I started my new job as a tele-recruiter the next day and The Terror hadn't set in yet. I was still riding the jet streams from graduation, that delightful linear sensation of "first I'll do this, then I'll do this." I had it in my mind that I'd live in Madison for awhile and then apply to the PhD program for psychology at UW.

At least a year passed before I realized that I didn't really want to get a PhD in psychology, and although I had no idea what I was looking for in life, I certainly wouldn't find it in Madison, Wisconsin. Don't get me wrong; Madison is great. For five months out of the year, Madison is fantastic. But after another six months in the Midwest, I rented a U-Haul and got the hell out of dodge. It was around this time--sleeping on my mom's couch in Kentucky and getting up early to drive to my temp job at the University of Louisville--that The Terror really sank its claws in. It was as if all my life I'd been walking down a path in the forest. Sometimes the path was rocky, uphill; sometimes it was glorious, paved, and in the sunlight. All these 18 years of school, knowing exactly what was in front of me--more path. All these 18 years and suddenly I found myself in the middle of the fucking forest, in the space between paths, where the grass had grown up high to my knees. Surrounded by nothing but freedom.

Sweet, delicious, crippling freedom.

The Progressive South


The states of Tennessee and Kentucky are proposing laws that ban single, unmarried, or gay people from adopting.  In the case of Kentucky (I'm not sure about Tennessee), if the law passes, any parent who is single, unmarried, or gay will have their adopted child taken away from them by the state.  Because, you know, the well being of child is being threatened by singledom or gaydom, and it wouldn't traumatize the child at all to have the state take them away from their home and throw them back in foster care for an indeterminate period of time.

Fuckin' South.

If I didn't have homework to do, I'd write more about it.  But I will (don't you worry).  And I'll also provide ways that you can help defeat this archaic, harmful laws.

Another Freakin' Monday

Because it's early and I haven't had my coffee (and therefore, can barely form coherent thoughts), I shall give you a video that will hopefully take the edge of yet another freakin' Monday morning:

At the end, I was rooting for that damn hand puppet. There hasn't been an Oscar nominated film in years that's gotten the same reaction from me.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Saturday Night in NashTrash.....

As we begin round 23 of the South's menopausal season (we don't have winter, fall, or spring, per say), the temperatures plummet from the 70's of Monday to the 30's of today. The day started off sunny but now, it's cloudy and rainy and cold. Needless to say, my cheap ass is staying in.

Going out in Nashville is not expensive, especially compared to L.A. (hello $20 parking, $15 cover, and $10 drink), but it can still burn a whole in your pocket because you realize, hey, this is pretty cheap. So far. By the end of the night, you can spend $100 easy. (Unless you're like the frat boys and head to the strip clubs at the end of the evening. You might as well chuck your wallet into the Cumberland River.)

I'm doing pretty well, better than most (Nashville is, for the most part, recession proof - thank you, healthcare billing industry), but I know I have to make cut backs. I can't make the trips into town, I can't spend money on food and drink. When one beer costs $4 and a six pack costs $6, well, you can see that the six pack is a better deal.

But I'm newly single (for those of you who don't know me...which is pretty much a lot of you), and I've been single now for six months. And I'm wondering, if I don't go out much, how am I going to meet somebody? Even if it turns out to be platonic or just a fling, interaction with another gay guy is healthy and I don't have that many gay friends here in Nashville.

There's a disease in Nashtrash among the gay men and it's called "Husband-noma." If you're not going to marry them (or provide a cheap good time), they are not interested. It's the same phenomena with single women in the south. I find that people want to be married and settled down way before 30. It's like a race and the age of 30 is the finish line. We're all guilty of it down here.

I myself rushed into a relationship and made it move too fast because I thought, "I found someone! Now I'm safe." The relationship was horrible for me, because we were incompatible. Instead of being built up, my self esteem went in the toilet, I lost all self confidence, I became much more self conscious, and not because he was abusive in any way (and was a great guy in his own right), but because we weren't working and we knew it. Instead of admitting it, I tried even harder and he went the route of apathy.

Now I'm trying to learn to be okay with the silence in my apartment. I'm finally sleeping in the center of the bed and that's never happened since college. I'm mostly fine, but there are times when I miss not my ex so much as I miss being in a relationship.

So as I sit in my apartment, alone on a Saturday night, a glass of cheap red wine in one hand, a Big Lots $3 DVD of the The Good German in the other, (I'm incredibly cheap and hey! Cate Blanchett! George Clooney! Steven Soderbergh! For $3, that's a steal, ladies and gents), I wonder if I'll have to turn to the internet to meet someone. My experience with meeting men through something as banal as myspace proved disastrous. (What can work in email does not work in person.) And as a singer who does not perform musical theatre, I hang out with mostly straight guys. Fun guys. Sweet guys. Great guys. But straight guys. They'll give me a hand when I'm down, but they won't give me a handjob before going down on me.

What about the bars, you ask? Well, now that's a different post, because the gay bars down here (of which there are...4), resemble...well...why spoil the surprise? Until next post!

College eats... post college? F my life.

So, I figure this will be a good first entry. Mainly because if by the time I make my next post, and the situation isn't any better, I'll probably just off myself. Weee!

I'm SO broke (cue you: "Promo Homo, how broke ARE you?").

I'm SO broke that I just raided my pantry. I found some very expired Ramen noodles (2006 was a good year for noodles, right?), Jell-o, and some leftover peanut butter (which may or may not be for the dog). These components will make up my meals for the day.

Oh, and I signed up for unemployment today.

Oh, oh! And I've been looking into selling my eggs. I don't plan on breeding anyway, so they may as well go to some couple that wants to have kids... all while making me $20,000 richer. I'd much rather just work, so this will probably just be a pipe dream. My mother almost had a coronary when I told her. BONUS POINTS.

I love being young and living in Los Angeles. It's the best!

Single And The City

Nashville is having its annual Singles In The City event next Tuesday (Feb. 24th). Nashville Lifestyles are featuring the hottest single people in all of Nashville and they are going to be in one room at the Bound'ry. (Omg! Really? This is too much to handle!) All that hotness in one room, which you can be a part of...for only $45, of course.

All the single "celebrities," (I'm not kidding, that's how the ad copy reads...mingle with these "single celebrities") are featured in Nashville Lifestyles magazine, complete with professional photographs, mini-biographies, and cheesy questions ala People magazine. (Cheesy Question #1: What was the worst date you've ever been on?) The cover boy answered with a story about how he took a girl to a baseball game and she didn't know anything about baseball. So she kept asking questions and he couldn't enjoy the game. At the end, he says, "Maybe I should've asked her if she even wanted to go to the game."

Dude, I think I know why, despite your photo-shopped good looks, you are still single.

Now because I should be listed in this magazine...I am, after all, quite sexy and very single...I've decided to pretend I'm in this cheese fest and answer their own dorky questions:

OCCUPATION: Graduate Student, Singer/Songwriter, Blogger, Free Lance Blackmailer

HOMETOWN: Nobody knows where I've come from and nobody will ever know. Muhahaha.

WHAT THREE WORDS DESCRIBE YOU THE BEST: Resourceful, determined, bastard.


THE MOST ROMANTIC BOOK: Hannibal by Thomas Harris

THE MOST ROMANTIC SONG: Push by Matchbox Twenty (a little S&M anybody?)


A blind date. That was rescheduled because he had a bad day and needed to go to the tanning bed. I got blown off for a tanning bed. Apparently, peeps, I can't get ya hot or brown enough. We rescheduled, at the request of the friend who set us up (my immediate response was, fuck him), but instead of going for coffee, he stated that it was too cold out (Boston in March) and said we should just stay in his apartment. He brewed his own coffee (which was crappy) and then proceeded to treat me like an audition.

"So tell me something funny."


"I want to see if you can make me laugh."

"......Okay. So there's this guy who was supposed to go out with me and instead, went to a tanning bed...."

"Not funny. Tell me something interesting."

He then proceeded to quote lines from sitcoms. It took me about two minutes but then I realized, that was a Seinfeld joke. That was from Designing Women. I don't know what was sadder...the fact that he was quoting lines from syndicated reruns or the fact that I recognized lines from syndicated reruns. When he made a Golden Girls joke, I finally looked at him and said, "I know where that's from." And then told him the episode. He ran into his bedroom for a few moments, came out, and asked me to leave.

Ever since then, I've not been a fan of blind dates. Or coffee dates, for that matter.

Mission Statement this thing on?

Okay! Now, ladies and gentlemen, we begin a grand experiment. We are several mid-20, 30 somethings living in present day America in different parts of the country...the south, the midwest, the west coast...trying to figure out our lives personally and professionally. It's going to be a messy experiment, mainly because we are messy people. (We're also sometimes a profane people, so parents, keep the kiddies away!)

We represent different upbringings, different belief systems, different sexualities, and different income levels (although we're all pretty poor). Some of us are students, getting our graduate degrees or Ph D's, some are teachers, some are just working nine to five.

The blog is titled "Bi-Coastal And Questioning" not only for its sexual innuendo (of which there might be plenty of listed here) but also because we all live on different sides of the country and we're all questioning...our lives, our place, and our journey.

We hope to establish a "time capsule," if you will, of life during those turbulent years after the fun of college and before the fun of career fulfillment and retirement.

We also hope to entertain and to not bore you shitless. So, without further ado......let's get started!