I Don't Believe In Free Speech; I Think It Should Require A License

Who ever thought we’d be looking to the French for demonstrations of manhood? I’ve been a fan of Sarkozy for a while now, but I have to say I would not have expected something as daring as his current suggestion that the burqa be made illegal in France.

I was less surprised by the public outcry that followed, though I’m relieved that so far Upper West Side liberals have managed to stay out of the matter. (I’m presuming this is because the outside world only exists to them when it’s heaping praise on our own witheringly effete President, but since it could be perceived as a matter of free speech or even more to their liking, a matter of defending the very people who wish to see us wiped off the face of the earth, their silence can only be temporary).

What an interesting idea. Not banning the religion, which of course everyone would agree is not permissible and in fact, a very bad idea, but banning the elements of it that are most offensive to…humanity. Hmm. I fully support it. Obama disagrees, going so far as to say that such a law could be perceived as “hostility.” Hostility to people who blow up cafes and buses every day? Should we hide the fact that we’re hostile towards them? Is that our new policy towards Islamic extremism? I don’t see that accomplishing a great deal, personally.

As for the freedom of speech issue, which isn’t really enshrined into the French constitution the way it is here, I still frankly don’t see it but I’m not really the best person to talk to about freedom of speech. I think it’s a lot more narrow than the words would suggest, and the Supreme Court has backed me up on this one. There are certain kinds of free speech and public statements that are not covered. The Court hasn’t yet agreed with me that hate speech is on that list, but I trust that someday it will. I do not believe the U.S. Constitution covers the right to propagate violence and bloodshed. I don’t believe the Nazi’s should be allowed to march in Skokie. I don’t believe they should be allowed to march at all. I extend this ban to Fred Phelps, as well, because I do believe his words and actions have led to bloodshed (or will soon enough).

Burqas, or goddam bee-keeper suits as I prefer to think of them, should be banned in the United States. They are a symbol of enslavement. They are offensive to women, and should be offensive to men. They are patriarchal, and they are worn by the “property” of men who would happily see our nation destroyed. I do not see this as an issue of religious tolerance and respecting cultures different from our own. Muslims are not wearing cute little wooden shoes. They’re stoning women to death. Can we not agree this is a bad thing? They’re also not fans of homosexuals but they don’t make us dress up; they just kill us.

So that’s my thought. No ifs, ands, or buts. Ban the burqa, and then you can talk to me about whether or not we still need the ERA.

But of course, doing so would take balls, and we all knows that’s the one thing our president doesn’t have.

Unavailable

So for the next few days, a good friend of mine is visiting and I will be unable to blog. She's a total pinko commie eco-terrorist. I seem to attract these kinds of people. I've never understood why. Hopefully spending several days with her will give me plenty to blog about...

Barack Obama: The Failure to Lead

I was afraid of this. It's one of the (many, many) reasons I didn't vote for him. I was afraid that instead of getting a Commander in Chief...we would get a Senator in Chief. And we did.

I wish I could say it gave me pleasure to find myself vindicated in this, but it doesn't. It only gives me a growing sense of forboding, a fear of what will happen should we find ourselves in a situation that does not just require leadership, but outright demands it. I live in New York, I know that day will come. New York City is the Tel Aviv of the 21st century, we all know that day is coming. I now simply have to hope it will not happen on this man's watch.

His failure to lead by appointing cabinet members who actually paid their taxes (at a time when he is asking Americans who do not work for the government to pay higher and higher taxes). His failure to lead in moving quickly to stabilize the automative industry. His failure to lead on health care reform. His failure to close Guantanamo Bay (moving the inmates to North Dakota didn't seem to go over as well as he'd planned...as if that counted as "closing" to begin with). His failure to take decisive action on the potential revolution happening right now in Iran (still happening, change the channel from the endless Michael Jackson retrospectives and you just might catch a glimpse of it). I could go on, and on. His unstimulating stimulus. His failure to achieve military success, or even just to stop the bleeding--and yes, he inherited the problem, he inherited all these problems, but that doesn't excuse him not fixing them, does it? Wasn't that what he was elected to do? Didn't he win because he promised that only he, of all the candidates running, would be able to fix these problems?

But where it really occurred to me that we have a senator instead of a president was on the issue of gay rights. I'm gay, I pay more attention on these things. Especially since I never thought he'd be good on gay issues, and I kept hoping to be proven wrong. He never promised us he'd work towards marriage equality, but there were two big things he did promise. Repealing the ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act. Repealing the disastrous and dangerous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Since taking office, he has...accomplished the exact opposite of these.

He not only failed to lead on repealing DOMA and DADT, but in fact has acted counter to this promises in defending DOMA as comparable to laws preventing polygamy and incest, and in asking the Supreme Court not to evaluate DADT. Hell, he's discharging gay soldiers at a faster rate than Bill Clinton and only slightly slower than George W.

My question is not why. It's clear why. Were he to follow through on his promises to the gay community (promises he used to extract not just votes but money), he would face an African-American backlash that could prove catastrophic to his presidency. He also, I'm certain, figures there are not enough heterosexual voters out there who will be angered enough by his betrayal of the gay community to withhold their vote. Sadly, he's probably not wrong.

I don't believe he's actually homophobic, though I do find it questionable that none of his advisors are gay. I mean, even George W. Bush was able to get a few open homo's on the payroll, as did every other president since Jimmy Carter. I believe he has made this decision...out of fear. Because yes, there's a possibility (a very slim one) that were he to do the right thing on these issues, it might endanger his reelection prospects. And he's decided not to take that risk.

My question is...isn't that sad? And worse than sad, isn't that embarrassing? That we have a president who is declining to do the right thing simply because he wants to remain in office? Is the office not bigger than the man? Don't we expect the man (or God willing someday, woman) we elect to be able to put the nation's well-being ahead of his own ambitions? Hell, haven't we impeached (or nearly impeached) several men for blatantly doing the opposite?

My sadness and embarrassment only increased when I sat down to consider it and came to see that perhaps the last president we had who did what he believed in his heart was right even though it might endanger his chances of winning reelection (or his designated successor's chances)...was Gerald Ford. He knew pardoning Nixon was the right thing to do for the country. And he knew it would almost certainly destroy any chance he had at being reelected. Perhaps had Ford ever wanted to be president in the first place, he might not have been big enough to make such a choice. No one since has managed it. In fact, other than Ford, I can only count Johnson and Truman in the second half of the 20th century who were able to put what was right ahead of what was politically convenient.

We have been waiting for moral leadership since Gerald Ford. I never imagined that I would type such a sentence, but facts are stubborn things.

I can only continue to hope and pray that true leadership and moral integrity--regardless of the electoral consequences--will not be required of President Obama. I also hope and pray he faces a challenger who has the integrity to do the right thing towards the gay community. And I suspect he just might indeed, because if you were a Republican presidential contender and wanted to really hurt him...going to his left on gay rights would be a hell of a way to do it.

Heck, even Dick Cheney knows that.

There Is No Such Thing As Reverse-Racism

So the Sotomayor confirmation hearings have made me contemplate something. No, not her abyssmal track-record when it comes to choice. Her track record on affirmative action, which is admittedly quite wonderful if you support affirmative action. The Supreme Court apparently does not, or at least they don’t agree with her definition of it as demonstrated in the last case they ruled on this year, where they overturned Justice Sotomayor’s ruling on the New Haven Fire Department’s promotion policy.

Now, with that case specifically, it’s hard to see both sides. I don’t see how the testing process could have been bad for Latinos unless it was counted against them for answering the question “Are you a Latino?” in the affirmative, but apparently Justice Sotomayor felt there was a clear case of racism in the way the test was devised. Whatever. Not really much concern to me, or anyone else, I suspect.

What this made me contemplate was this thing a lot of people opposed to her confirmation refer to as “reverse racism.” I'm personally undecided about her, but I’ve decided that phrase is just a code-word, something to hide behind if you don’t have the courage to stand up and say…racism is racism. Period. Now, I’m not afraid of being accused of racism since I spent most of last year being called a racist simply because I was prepared to vote for either Hillary or McCain but not Obama, irregardless of the fact that there were major policy differences involved in that choice as well as a level of experience and just plain old gravitas. So if I get called a racist for discussing this, well…nothing I haven’t already heard. Still not true, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

I spent two years working in admissions at the Tisch School of the Arts, one of the most prestigious arts schools in the world. We accepted 10% of our applicants, on average. And we had a lot of applicants. I met roughly 70% of them in any given admissions cycle. Personally. It’s what I did on a daily basis. And the hardest part wasn't meeting people every day who I knew were not going to be admitted (you just get to a place where you know, you can just tell). Every day I met a lot of people who were not going to get in, and by all rights , should not get in. They were not a good fit for the program, and the program was not a good fit for them.

That wasn't the hard part. The hard part was the people I’d meet once a month, or maybe every other month…who should get in but would not. Because they were white. Or maybe, if they were very lucky, they’d get in but not be offered financial assistance and thusly would almost never be able to attend since NYU has not only one of the most prestigious arts schools in the world, but also the highest tuition of any private college in the United States. Financial assistance on occasion went to a non-minority student, and priority housing slots on occasion went to a non-minority student, and fellowships on very rare occasions went to a non-minority student, but…it was not the norm. There were not quotas per se, just unspoken rules. Or occasionally spoken rules, like the time Spike Lee, the “artistic director” of the Film Department at Tisch insulted the fuck out of the admissions staff by insisting we turn over to him for personal review every black applicant’s paperwork that had been rejected after thorough vetting because despite dealing the admissions team having handled admissions in this capacity for nearly twenty years…he thought they were clearly racists because not enough black candidates had made it to the final round of review. Since he was only able to add back in two himself (who were both later rejected), the admissions team felt pretty vindicated, but I wish I could say that type of behavior was out of the ordinary. It wasn’t. We rejected many highly qualified candidates who stood to benefit greatly from their studies at NYU—and who would have brought a great deal to NYU’s programs in turn—simply because they were not an ethnic minority and we had “enough” white candidates.

So what I'm saying is...there's no such thing as reverse-racism. There's just racism. Which I do not support. Period. In any form or capacity. I come from a very large southern family, and did not spend my early years knowing many people who were not white, but making a judgement about someone based on the color of their skin has never made sense to me, and makes even less sense the more people I come to know who are not white. It’s stupid, and hateful, and wrong. And you don't have to be white to think so.

But included in that great big "wrong?" Ever, in any circumstances, making a decision about someone’s education, employment, housing, or other benefits based on the color of their skin. Period. Even if it's because they're white.

I Am Not A Gay American

There is a phrase that I have come to detest, and in realizing this, I’ve had to ponder what exactly that means. The phrase came to us first, I believe, from former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, who in resigning office announced to the world that he was more than just your average New Jersey politician but was in fact, also, a “gay American.” (I believe he resigned for having an affair with and later being blackmailed by a member of his security detail, not because he was a gay American, but that’s the phrase that stands out five years later.)

While I’m sure at a certain level this has always been the case, it seems to me that now, nearly a decade into the 21^st century, we Americans are a tad bit obsessed with labels. We have as many words to identify ourselves as Eskimos have for snow. If I so desired, I could say “I am a gay, Irish-, Franco-, Native American” and it would be entirely truthful but I have to wonder…why would I ever want to? Why does any of that matter? Should any of that matter? Against what am I handicapping when I say those things? Do those things outweigh a lesbian, Hispanic-, Scandinavian-, carb-free American? And if not, why bother?

This made me think of a remark Theodore Roosevelt once made, when addressing the Knights of Columbus in 1915:

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.”

Now, when he said that, TR was a former president who was still considering another grab at the brass ring, and was looking down the barrel of World War I in a way most Americans were steadfastly refusing to do. He was talking about divided nationalities, but I think his words still resonate today. I mean, I was born here. My parents were born here. Their parents were born here. We’re southern, it goes back that way for quite a while. Something close to 35 generations, in fact. So while I distantly I have heritage that is not American, what bearing could that possibly have?

I'm certain I have friends and colleagues whose non-American heritage is less distant, and thusly may influence their perspective on a daily basis, but short of saying out-loud "As a Chinese-American of Female Identification, I would just like to say that ice cream gives me indigestion so could you guys try not to get an ice cream cake for my office birthday party this year?", when would such a thing be necessary to say? If one wants to hyphenate their Americanism on a racial basis, isn't it usually a little unnecessary to do so? Unless one is addressing a cluster of blind folks like the ones who wander around Chelsea all the time and keep bumping into me outside my gym. Then I guess there might be cause. But any other time? I have doubts.

And while I can easily equate my sexual orientation with my ethnic heritage, I freely accept that there are those who will choose not to do so. But I have to wonder, when they are introducing themselves as “gay Americans,” are they not asking you to evaluate them strictly through that particular lens, which they’re handing to you? And if you like them more than other gay Americans you’ve known, well, bully for them, but if you like them less, will you not always wonder if it’s just because you only chose to evaluate them through that particular lens? Which they handed you?

TR’s speech went on to call for sweeping immigration reform (the kind that would terrify Congress today if any politician suggested it let alone a former president), and gave a clarion call for Americans to stand together to stamp out racial and religious persecution in this country, which he only felt would be possible if we stopped thinking of ourselves as anything else before “American.” We’re in this together, or we’re not. Right?

While my sexual orientation certainly influences some of my decisions, and has absolutely colored my experience as an American differently than it would have were I heterosexual, the gays don’t have their own country. Or their own state. We have some neighborhoods, but they're not exclusive--I know for a fact most of those blind people are dyed in the wool breeders--but that’s about it. And while I absolutely believe it’s important for gays to be out in the open about their orientation, especially ones who live in the public eye, I don’t see any reason to place that before their national identity. Especially at a time when we are asking, begging, our country, our government, our neighbors to see us...as no different from themselves. Deserving of the same rights. Embodying the same qualities of compassion, concern, and patriotism.

I’m an American, first and foremost. Nothing should ever come in front of that. Nothing. With or without a hyphen.

Manifesto

The last time I attempted to write a manifesto was in graduate school, and it was not by choice. I was a first-year grad student in the Musical Theatre Writing Program at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts (which basically means I was undertaking an MFA in Homosexuality, but that’s neither here nor there). In our Art & Culture lecture, our professor asked us to craft manifestos laying forth what we hoped to accomplish as writers. Partly because I knew I was acquiring a truly shocking amount of debt for a truly shockingly non-practical degree, but also partly because I didn’t like the idea of manifestos, I kept mine simple and straight-forward.

“As a writer, I aim to create dramatic material for whoever pays me the most. Additionally, I will only write for Disney if they give me a cut of merchandising rights in lieu of the standard 3% of the gross ticket sales.”

My professor was somewhat unamused.

As I look back on that, I am able to revise my opinion of manifestos. I do not dislike them in general, but in specific. Especially as they relate to art. As a writer, I do not sit down to tell a story and ask myself, “What do I hope to accomplish with this?” or “What agenda am I going to push with this tale?” but instead…”How do I tell this story?” It’s not about the politics. Stories and characters are messy, they’re disagreeable, often I find myself loving most the ones I disagree with the most, and while the finished products often reflect an aspect of my personal belief system…I do not always see that myself until someone else points it out to me. Dramatic writers have never responded well to manifestos. We don’t do well with “isms,” and God knows we’ve tried. The biggest joke of the Red Scare and resulting Blacklist in Hollywood was that there were no Communist scripts! They sucked too badly to ever get produced! It’s better to let storytellers be storytellers, I still firmly believe that.

Editorialists, however, are a different bird altogether. As I contemplate the future of this blog, which will be a mixture of my personal beliefs (political and otherwise), my observations about the beliefs and actions of others, and occasionally random useless anecdotes and/or things I’ve encountered online and was simply amused/horrified by…I thought, perhaps now would be a good time to lay out a manifesto. It will also give those of you who choose to read it a good idea of what you can expect from the blog in the future and whether you should even bother.

So. To the manifesto. In no particular order, things I believe, think, am, like or dislike:

I believe that the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. Point blank. There it is. Everything else that follows…follows distantly.

I believe that the government has no business in the bedroom, or the boardroom; that it in fact has no right to dictate what can go into or come out of the body of any individual citizen, and that while no specific section of the Constitution lays out the individual right to privacy, every single section of our most sacred document implies that such a right exists.

Needless (but important) to say, I believe that the government cannot restrict who I am able to marry.

I believe that with every law that’s passed, we lose a little freedom and we should spend a little more time making sure those laws are worth the loss and a little less time solving every problem by passing a law.

I like boys. And I am one. But I don’t think I’m a typical gay guy, if there even is such a thing anymore. I don’t like dancing (in clubs, or in public; in my underwear at home, big fan of dancing). I don’t like parTying. I enjoy a little Lady GaGa from time to time but usually just on my iPod at the gym. I don’t live at the gym. Well, that’s not true, I sorta do right now but that’s only cause I’m unemployed and figured I might as well use this time to get abs. I don’t really know all that much about fashion, I’ve had pretty much the same “style” or “look” for the past decade or so and possibly always will. I don’t go out to the bars, I’ve been sober for three and a half years and intend to remain that way. I refuse to watch Logo. I’ve never been to Fire Island and I’m not exactly itching to go. I don’t like Speedos.

I do like guns. And hunting. Not so much fishing, I don’t like slippery things, it’s a texture issue. And I hate bugs, so bait would be a problem for me. I don’t use an AK-47 or hollow-point bullets so it’s of little consequence to me if they’re illegal but I think it might be better if the gun industry took such measures on its own, without government intervention. Can’t we all agree that no one needs a bazooka to hunt pheasant?

I like cars, especially older ones. The 1965 Mustang in particular is a work of art. I like looking at cars, but I really like driving them, and it’s the only thing I miss about living outside New York. There is almost no better feeling in the world than a supercharged V8 engine rumbling underneath you.

I like watching baseball, but only in person. I don’t like playing it. And that’s for the best, since it’s not one of the four or five things in the world that I’m capable of doing.

I like Ayn Rand’s novels, but have issues with Objectivism outside the books.

I love Barry Goldwater, Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher, and Hillary Clinton. With the possible exception of Gerald Ford, I find nearly every other politician in the modern era to be miles below these few men and women in stature.

But I’ve got my eye on Sarah Palin. And I’m absolutely not kidding.

I’ve spent some time in trailer parks. I’ve spent some time in the suburbs. I’ve spent the past seven years living in New York City, and I’m pretty sure it’s always going to be home regardless of whether or not I live there. My favorite thing about New York is how easy it is to find the best elements of trailer parks and the suburbs without leaving the city. It would shock you how easy it is to be poor white trash here.

As a child, my imaginary friends were Daphne from “Scooby-Doo” and Nancy Reagan. Sometimes I still miss them a little bit.

I respect Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments immensely while still holding him accountable for the governmental failures in the early years of the AIDS crisis, and I have to wonder if they weren’t big enough to almost cancel out everything else he did. And since he won the Cold War, those are some pretty big accomplishments to cancel out…

I’m very, very Meredith Grey. Every mistake she’s ever made, I’ve made first. I’m also, so I’m told, Samantha from “Sex and the City.” Minus the sex.

I have a cat named after an Ayn Rand character. Before him, I had another cat named after a different Ayn Rand character. Before him, I had one named after Zelda Fitzgerald.

I love scripted television, and refuse to watch any reality program. Ever.

I refuse to “tweet.” I don’t necessarily think we’re being desensitized by all of this technological communication, I just don’t think I’m interesting enough to merit that kind of online network. I also don’t think anyone else is interesting enough to merit it, either.

I picked the blog title knowing full well that while some people will understand it as a political reference, many will assume it means I actually think I’m never wrong. And that’s not true. I have been wrong. At least once. Twice, technically, but we all have first marriages we don’t like to talk about.

I love everything ever written by Joss Whedon and Aarok Sorkin, and almost everything by David Mamet. Even pinko commies occasionally get it right.

I staunchly support Israel, and will continue to do so almost irregardless of their actions. I’d like to see them exchange land for peace in the long-term but as long as shrapnel-rilled rockets are being launched at them every single day by the people supposedly responsible and stable enough to govern their own country, I’m not too concerned about how soon that day comes. Plus, most Israeli’s are hot, they’ve never lost a war, and they’ve killed a lot of Arab terrorists, which endears them to me.

Speaking of, I’m not opposed to preemptive strikes given conclusive evidence. I support fully the military measures taken against Afghanistan. I wish they’d gone further, and I wish our military had not become distracted by a misguided and possibly unlawful war in Iraq.

Now that we’re in Iraq, however, I fear what will happen if we pull out to the degree that has been promised. Fortunately, I do not expect said promise to be kept.

Like most New Yorkers, I like big things. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine (where I occasionally spend my Sunday mornings despite the fact that I'm not exactly what you would call an Episcopalian) is one of my favorite places on earth. But so is the Time-Warner Center.

I’ve had hundreds of protestors stand outside a theatre holding picket signs with my name on them. It’s hard to be afraid of anything after that. One of them was Barack Obama’s pastor. It’s hard to have much respect for either of them after that, too.

A United States Congressman once called me the “epicenter of moral decay in America,” and I was deeply flattered. The Village Voice theatre critic once called me “brilliant,” and I was highly skeptical. I think that says a lot.

Like everyone else in the world, and like this blog will be, I am a contradiction.

But Ayn Rand says there is no such thing as a contradiction, so maybe it’s time to examine my premises and find out which one of them is wrong…