Whitaker's comments (member since Jun 16, 2009)

Whitaker's comments from the Gay fiction/non-fiction group.

Rambling Reader wrote: "Then why did Barry make promises and led us to elect him President. He ticked off many thing off his agenda, and removed all of his promises for gay rights off his agenda on his website. That reall..."

So this means you're voting Republican the next time?

Ted wrote: "I The problem is, as soon as he opens his mouth and utters the word "gay," everyone's gonna be on his case. "Mr. President, you mean th..."

Right said, Ted!

And the right wing radio nuts will start going, oh my god, he's not only black and Muslim, he's also a gay. Ahhhh! He's the Anti-Christ!

Ok, I'm being facetious. But the way your media just focuses on the most attention grabbing issues that forments more heat than light really does leave much to be desired. I mean, really, why does Obama have to defend himself against Cheney when that man is just so yesterday? Because the media gave Cheney air time. Talk about sucking the air out of a conversation man. And gues what, Obama lost Guantanamo. What makes you think he's going to do any better with gay marriage if he opens his mouth about it?

Ralph wrote: "Even if it's not his number 1 priority, he should at least be doing something. Whether it's repelling DADT, DOMA or doing research on the issue and discussing possible solutions. There are a lot of problems in our country right now, but that doesn't mean we should just sit here and say "oh he'll get to it eventually."

Those things cost brownie points. Plus your news media have only so much air time, and your population has only so much attention that they have to give. He fights this:
-- he loses brownie points
-- he loses air time and attention on other issues
-- he looks out of touch with the rest of the country
-- he galvanises the opposition

Time and brownie points are zero-sum games. How is any of this going to help in the long-term? Choose your targets. It seems to me that there's plenty you guys can do to help make it easier for a right-minded Executive branch to get things through if you soften the ground for it first.

Look, honestly, I don't get it. Ten years ago, the best Bill Clinton could get was Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Four years ago, you were staring down the gun barrel of right-wing domination. Now you have gay marriage in several states. How is that a losing position? I'm not saying, don't fight for it. I am saying, figure out the best target. Why fight the guy who's more likely to be friend than enemy? Right now, state rights seems to be the right target. Also, dog poop. Get brownie points. Then, go for the guns. It's not whether, it's how.

Ralph wrote: "We're supposed to be the most powerful and influential nation on the planet, yet we're falling behind in our duties. Our country is too worried about military strength than furthering education and civil liberties. It's no wonder the rest of the world doesn't look up to us any more."

As someone from "the rest of the world", I can assure you that the rest of the world is a lot more concerned about your economy and how you're going to deal with the Middle East and Kim Il Jung. Your gay rights issues? Not a blip. We got our own problems to worry about. Like staying out of a nuclear war and finding jobs to feed our people.

Sometimes you've got to step back and look at the bigger picture. You can't win without a strategy that takes the bigger picture into account. Yes, I know about Milk and his give no quarter arguments, but even he had strategy. You really think he cared about dog poop?

And whatever happened to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country? How many of you are involved with pushing green reform, economic reform and health care reform? Sure, it looks like dog poop, but like I said....

First, caveat: I'm not American and maybe it's not place to comment on this topic. I generally support the idea of gay marriage and gay rights.

Looking in from the outside, I agree with Ted. The one thing about your system that continually surprises me is both its resiliency (my god, you could actually "bounce" back from Dubya and his evil Svengali, Cheney) and how fractured it is. Fractured in terms of how hard it is to get things done. Where I come from, what the Executive wants, the Executive (mostly) gets. However, even here, there's a lot of horse trading that takes place behind scenes, and a certain calibration of how far you can push the population to accept something they won't accept.

It seems even more the case in your system but in public. I have a friend who sits on the Exco of a fairly prominent women's rights group in my country. Recently, there was a huge public blow up about the group's position on lesbians led by none other than our favourite friends, the rabid Christian right. The government generally let it be known that they weren't happy about religious organisations getting involved in secular affairs. On the other hand, the average mom and pop weren't happy at the notion of their daughters being taught that being lesbian was okay (the rabble rousing related to sex education materials prepared for use in schools).

The whole affair has quietened down. But the point is, my friend and I were having a chat with another friend about the whole thing. And my friend was saying that some people in the organisation were now pushing for an even stronger line on lesbian rights because they were so upset about the whole thing, and she's having a hard time persuading them that now was not the time to push. My other friend, who happens to be lesbian, got upset and started saying why not? And I basically pointed out that the group is losing funding now because a lot of people and organisations are reluctant to be associated with it. It needs to win them back over again and that will take time. In the meantime, if you push, you just lose more support.

And I said, it's better to be a player who's willing to wait a bit than to be a right non-player. Yes, you might have right on your side, but what's the point of being right if you're shouting into the wind? What's the point of being right and losing? I'd rather win. Even if it means having to wait.

It seems to me that a similar view could apply to your situation. There seems to be a lot of brownie and horse points trading going on even on a very public scale. Certain things are going to take a lot of brownie points to get done: reviving your economy, and reforming your health care system. There's a huge amount of political opposition to that. And no matter what "green shoots" you are seeing, you're still a sick man. You're off the artificial respirator, but you're still in intensive care.

If Obama spends his brownie points on pushing for gay marriage, because it's a niche issue that appeals only to a small segment of the population, even if it works, he loses brownie points on the rest. Your gay couple in the hospital may not be able to afford being in the hospital because even if they can get married, they won't be able to afford health care. Or your gay couple may be able to get married legally, but can't because they have no house and no job.

On the other hand, because health care reform is such a big issue and supported by 77% of your population, even though your politicos are edgy about it, if he wins on that, he gets even more brownie points which he can then spend on niche issues. Ditto for the economy. If the economy revives due to his efforts, he'll have more capital to spend. Capital which he can spend in his second term.

Which, by the way, he needs to win. And traditionally, second terms are when presidents spend their capital on pushing unpopular causes because they don't have to worry about a third term.

As for the Judiciary, given the make up of your current Supreme Court, do you really think that any argument is going to sway them? Really? Just look at them! And some of them are gonna be there a LOOOOONG time. So, honestly, whatever is said in that forum, it is in the bigger picture, only a side show. There's no way your current right-wing bench is EVER going to support gay marriage.

Oh, and have you read the rabid right-wing chatter about killing Obama and taking the country back?

So, what will it be, have Obama be a right non-player, or keep pushing for him so that he gets a second term to do some really hard lifting? For heaven's sakes, it's been less than a year! Even Dubya took longer than that to bring your country to its knees. As was once said, better to live and run away, the better to fight another day. Leave Custer's last stands to the right-wing demagogues, guys. Let them marginalise themselves more and more. You'll get there. Look how far you've come already.

Actually, I thought it was

Ted wrote: "Will we never learn to stop feeling guilty about our heros and heroins and just accept vicarious pleasure for what it is? FUN!"

Ted, I'm not sure if that was a typo or a deliberate pun, but whichever it was it was both LOL funny and superbly appropriate. Ah, Paris Hilton, the opiate of the masses.

Um, actually, it's "Yes, a little bit... Do you like to read, sir?" ("Mister" is strictly accurate, but I think sir is a closer equivalent in terms of cultural nuance.)

Ted, no, I'm not English. But I read so much Enid Blyton growing up, I almost wished (then) that I was. Ah, when I finally got to eat liquorice, I was expecting heavenly delight. But no, my reaction was, "OMG, what were they thinking???" I think it's an acquired taste (like Marmite for Australians).

Oh, Beautiful Thing is one of my all time favourites. Also very good: The Hanging Garden and Presque Rien.

Finally finished it. Here's what I thought of it:

Well-written biography of Harvey Milk. Shilts eschews the hagiographic approach adopted in the movie Milk to provide a more rounded view of Milk's life, his life work and his legacy.

Shilts portrays Milk with all his fire and passion for life: both personal and political. We see his skill as a politician with an inate sense of theatre and of justice, who built a broad support base that included not just the gay population but small business, blue collar industry and other minority groups. We also see the growth of the gay rights movement which Shilts rightly situates in the context of the social and economic changes taking place in San Francisco and the Castro at the time. And we see how gay sexual and political empowerment fed into Milk's own personal outsized life.

Going to watch the film Milk tonight. Meanwhile, I'm keeping up with reading The Mayor of Castro Street. Just finished Part II.

Part II tells the amazing story of how Harvey rose to secure his election to supervisor. He sounds like a man of incredible energy and determination. He has to go through three losses before making it on his fourth try. He also comes across as a man who genuinely cared for the underdog. His ‘hope speech’ was entirely moving (and must surely resonate with Obama’s ‘change speech’):

“I’ll never forget what is was like coming out … I’ll never forget the looks on the faces of those who have lost hope, whether it be young gays, or seniors, or blacks looking for that almost-impossible-to-find job, or Latinos trying to explain their problems and aspirations in a tongue that’s foreign to them.

No it’s not my election I want, it’s yours. It will mean that a green light is lit that says to all who feel lost and disenfranchised that you can now go forward.

It means hope and we – no – you and you and you and, yes, you, you’ve got to give them hope.”

More discussion on Part II going on here.

Got through Part I (The Years Without Hope) and put up my thoughts on that at LGBTAQ Group. Any interest in discussing the book? Click here.

Hi, all. This group's sister group, LGBTQA Group Books, is discussing Randy Shilts's bio of Harvey Milk, The Mayor of Castro Street. Whether you're reading or have read the book, or even just planning to do so, pop on over and say "hi". The discussion is going on here.

Hey, that's the funniest inadvertent link ever. The Sixth Form by Tom Dolby links to Sixth Form at Saint Clare's by Enid Blyton. ROTFL!!

I so say St Clare's should qualify. I read all of them when I was a kid and dang but all those English public schools were hotbeds for same-sex lovin'.