Wow
My column this week was on Oklahoma Rep Sally Kern, a Grand Old Party basher straight out of the fire 'n' brimstone cauldron. She was caught out delivering a speech on the evils of homosexuality to what she assumed was a small, captive audience, but which instead got picked up and
earned a star in the YouTube universe. You can
read more about her speech here (including the speech itself, if you can stomach it), but choice cuts include:
The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation...
Studies show, that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country.
They're going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is the acceptable lifestyle.
I honestly think it's the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.
Pretty charming stuff, to be sure. The reason I've highlighted the last quote is because it is this particularly deranged raving which has
inspired this remarkable rebuttal from an 18yo - straight - Oklahoman man whose mother died in the
1995 Oklahoma City bombing. I almost got a little teary reading this, and as people who know me will tell you, I'm not a teary sort of person - unless
ET and/or Mahler are involved.
Tucker's letter demands a reading in its entirety, but here are some of the more powerful, gut-wrenching insights from this young man:
On April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, a terrorist detonated a bomb that killed my mother and 167 others. Nineteen children died that day. Had I not had the chicken pox that day, the body count would've likely have included one more. Over 800 other Oklahomans were injured that day and many of those still suffer through their permanent wounds.
That terrorist was neither a homosexual nor was he involved in Islam. He was an extremist Christian forcing his views through a body count. He held his beliefs and made those who didn't live up to them pay with their lives.
As you were not a resident of Oklahoma on that day, it could be explained why you so carelessly chose words saying that the homosexual agenda is worse than terrorism. I can most certainly tell you through my own experience that is not true. I am sure there are many people in your voting district that laid a loved one to death after the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. I kind of doubt you'll find one of them that will agree with you...
As someone left motherless and victimized by terrorists, I say to you very clearly you are absolutely wrong. You represent a district in Oklahoma City and you very coldly express a lack of love, sympathy or understanding for what they've been through. Can I ask if you might have chosen wiser words were you a real Oklahoman that was here to share the suffering with Oklahoma City? Might your heart be a bit less cold had you been around to see the small bodies of children being pulled out of rubble and carried away by weeping firemen?...
The old saying is sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Well, your words hurt me. Your words disrespected the memory of my mom. Your words can cause others to pick up sticks and stones and hurt others.
Quite astonishing. Something tells me, however, that even Tucker can't teach Sally Kern the error of her ways. I think she's just a *tad* too far gone. You know, from reality.
(For a lighter pwning of Kern,
check out Ellen as well.)
Labels: rancid religious right, Republican Party, Sally Kern, US
10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 4
4. Iraq + US/International relations From the beginning Labor consistently opposed Australia's automatic kowtowing to the US' disastrous invasion of Iraq based on fraudulent premises. They argued, correctly, that there were still further diplomatic options to consider and that UN directives should not be pissed aside simply because what they did not suit the US warmongering agenda.
Mark Latham was/is a lot of things, but he hit the nail on the head when he identified George W Bush as 'the most dangerous and incompetent US president in living memory'. History has since shown this to be more than true. Unfortunately, due to our PM's sycophantic urge to be besties with the idiot, the rest of us had to suffer along, falsely tarred with the same brush that we were all eager to be the No. 1 ally of a government whose corruption, arrogance and utter contempt for democracy puts even our own in the shade.
Whatever happens, this time next year the world will finally be rid of the cancerous Bush, and hopefully the US citizens will come to their senses and elect a government committed to gradual withdrawal from Iraq. It is much more credible for Australia to have a government and PM that can similarly commit to this goal without having to first perform a massive about-face on its established foreign policy.
Howard would only be an uncomfortable, shadowy reminder of the Bush legacy and I imagine reluctant to work professionally and effectively with the likely Clinton Democrat administration. The Australian and US conservatives have had nearly eight years of combined government, and look where they've got us; it's time to give a more progressive combined alliance the opportunity to undo at least some of the damage.
3. ABC Conservatives have longed argued that public broadcasting is an anachronistic waste of public expenditure. No doubt, many in the Howard government think as much even if they're unable to say so publicly. But this government's relentless attack on the institution over the last 11 years is fueled not just by this ideology, but by the hatred it harbours for any outlet that dare seriously question, examine and/or expose its operation and agenda.
In an era where commercial television grows increasingly stupider, more crass and more offensive - hello,
The Farmer Wants a Wife - the role of a television station providing quality Australian programming is now crucial. Think what Aunty has given us over the years:
Four Corners, 7.30 Report, Play School, Mother and Son, GP, The Chaser/CNNNN, D-Generation, The Late Show, Kath and Kim, Enough Rope,
We Can Be Heroes, Summer Heights High, Frontline, Seachange, Rainshadow, Good News Week (the early years, obviously),
Spicks 'n' Specks,
The Librarians ... Not to mention all the various mini-series too. It's not in the commercial interests of Seven, Nine or Ten to churn out locally made news, current affairs, comedy and drama - buying overseas products is so much cheaper - so this vital role falls on the shoulders of the ABC, and even parched for funds as they are, it does so admirably.
Even
some conservatives themselves recognise the vital role of the ABC, particularly with regard to regional radio services. Other conservatives have confused the ABC's scrutiny of any government of the day and trying to hold it to account with a specific, biased attack against the Howard government. Not so.
Of course the ABC has a good friend in the Labor Party - the former's ex-journos running as candidates for the latter is testament to this. But the ABC needs a friend in government now more than ever before. It will still hold the Rudd administration accountable and no doubt piss off Labor and its senior members, just as it did under Hawke and Keating, but that is only an indication that it's doing its job properly.
More importantly, its board won't be further stacked with right-wing culture warriors intent on its gradual decimation. It will be provided with a budget (or close to) that it genuinely deserves and needs, and the pressure of 'editorial balance' - a brilliant euphemism for 'Howard government propaganda' - will be lessened. The ABC will continue to lead innovation in digital technology - anybody else excited by the thought of an ABC 3, 4, etc? And the ABC will have greater liberty to produce programming that deserves international attention and kudos, so that as commercial stations sink further into the gutter, Aunty can once again hold her head high, as she did before she was so shamelessly violated.
Almost there! I'm pooped. Woine toime now.
Labels: 2007 federal election, ABC, George W Bush, Iraq, Labor, Liberal Party, US
De river in Africa...
Mark Foley,
right up until October 2006: 'I am not gay.'
Republican senator and outspoken anti-gay marriage, anti-same-sex couple rights advocate
Larry Craig, August 2007: 'I am not gay.'
Give it time. Foley, Hayes and Callea all got there in the end.
We've
covered the sensitivities around outing or not outing. But this guy ain't no Anthony Callea. If it's true - and let's face it, 'ooh, I just had a twitchy foot going into that public toilet!' defence is equally as lame as 'I should not have pleaded guilty' - Craig will win his coveted spot in the Hypocritical Right-Wing Closeted Fag Hall of Shame.
But as always, Craig is but a sad, pathetic symptom, not necessarily a cause, of a much broader problem.
Here's an example of a typical right-wing response to anti-gay closet politicians - in the US, invariably Republicans - being outed:
Unlike Liberals, I do not believe that being gay and Republican is a crime. In fact, I don’t think it is a crime to be gay with any political persuasion. Those on the Left obviously disagree since they are obsessed with “outing” people.
Wrong. 'The Left' - or indeed, most self-respecting out and proud fags and dykes, left, right or split - are concerned (not obsessed) with hypocrisy and exposing those who wish to legislate one agenda for us, and dictate a different personal agenda for themselves.
Being gay and Republican is certainly not a crime - the hotness of some Log Cabin Republicans is - but let's not be naive about why so many Republicans (and Laborites or more likely Liberals here in Australia) choose to stay in the closet. They do so because the strongest anti-queer element invariably comes from the Right. Those who seek to deny same-sex couples fundamental civil rights or even recriminalise homosexuality are most always from the Right/conservative spectrum.
Sure, the far-left has its homophobes too - Castro springs to mind - but in the mainstream middle of Western, secular politics - the US, Australia, UK, Europe etc - you don't need to swing too far right before you find the folk hell-bent on keeping down the fags.
Cases.
In.
Point.
The proof's also in the pudding when you think about MPs here in Oz. Out pollies: Bob Brown, Penny Wong, Penny Sharpe (NSW), John Hyde (WA), Ian Hunter (SA), Andrew Barr (ACT), formerly Brian Grieg. Political parties: Labor, Green, Democrats.
'Out' pollies in the Liberal Party (bearing in mind one had little choice in the matter): Andrew Olexander, Mark Brindal. And look how well that turned out for
both of
them.
I'm not suggesting the Labor or Green pollies have an easy time of it - I know Labor and its union affiliates have homophobes who would put their Liberal equivalents in the shade - but overall they do have an
easier time of it. They can at least win preselection without first having to hide their homo lovers or, worse, fabricate a 'happy family' complete with accessorising children.
It comes back to
what I think of as the gentlemen's cigar room syndrome, whereby closet cases will do whatever the can to get into that room and then keep lying to stay in there, until such a point that they may well come to believe they genuinely don't deserve to be both happy and openly gay.
Although men like Foley and Craig are symptoms, through this process they also become part of the cause. The message such men send out to young, struggling same-sex attracted guys - stay closeted, repressed your inherent nature, live a lie through yourself and your family - is totally unacceptable. That's why they
must be outed - for their own sake as much as everybody else's.
This is completely different from being openly gay and also choosing to be politically conservative. I deeply pity men like Christopher Pearson, David Flint, even Alan Jones, but I have a modicum of respect that they were able to get into the room without lying. During my friendship with Mark Brindal, I saw the difficulties he endured living his double life prior to being officially outed, but I admired his attempts to champion same-sex law reforms - right up to launching a failed civil unions bill in SA - from his virtually impossible position.
It's not these men who should be our focus; it's the hypocritical liars who need to be exposed. And this should be a process of liberation for them, not punishment.
Labels: Right hypocrisy, The closet, US
Gunning for a bloodbath
You really have to wonder
how many more massacres need to occur in the US before the country finally gets serious about gun control.
The fact is that guns don't kill people - the bullet exploding in people's skulls kills them. Cho Seung-Hui could not have stabbed, bludgeoned or decapitated 33 people in 2 hours without being stopped - but he could have shot that many, and did. Just as Martin Bryant shot 35 people at Port Arthur in 1996.
John Howard, in one of his few genuinely commendable, positive long-term achievements, took on the gun lobby and enacted rigid uniform national gun laws. It was a shame it took a massacre to spur him into action, although in his defence he had only just come to power - the reforms should really have happened on Keatings, Hawke's or even Fraser's watch. The reform was not cheap - $500,000 million to buy-back 600,000 semi-automatic and other types of guns - but it was a necessary investment, and the 11+ years we've since enjoyed massacre-free in Australia are testament to its effectiveness.
But Port Arthur, mercifically, is a one-off gun tragedy in Australia in terms of the number of casualties. In the US, Virginia Tech is not. They'd already had Columbine, which should have been where it ended - not a preview of worse things to come. Instead, Bush has allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire - and I'm not holding my breath that this latest bloodbath will spur him to action, given that at the time Bush was speaking about the issue, his spokesman was reinforcing the fallacy that people have a right to bear arms so long as the law is followed.
The Republican Party has always been a sock puppet of the NRA and the Democrats aren't much better. And why not? With 35% of American homes containing guns, it's a big cash industry. Bringing constitutionality into the equation gives the 'right' to bear arms an unfounded sense of authenticity. But what about the constitutional right to life and liberty? The right to expect that you can go to university without fearing that you'll be mowed down because some psychopath can too easily get his hands on an assault weapon?
Easy access to guns will continue unabated in the US so long as its residents bask in their collective paranoia of constantly being under threat, and while the sale and distribution of guns remains a big money-spinner. If citizens don't generally have easy access to land mines, ready-made bombs or nuclear warheads, why do they expect easy access for this particular WMD?
It's simply not a case of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', but rather, 'people kill people at a much faster rate, and with a much greater final body count, with guns than any other weapon'.
Labels: guns, US, Virginia Tech massacre
