Kevin Marshall's America
Protestors chant at homosexuals during Capital Pride 2011. (Photo: Philip Kamrass, Albany Times Union)
Yesterday was Capital Pride 2011, Albany’s annual showcase for its gay community to show its unity and strength in the face of what is, despite what many insist to the contrary, the last acceptable form of discrimination.
Naturally the parade drew its protestors. They came last year and they will be there next year, espousing their rhetoric and quoting passages that they believe justifies their insecurities and hate. They’re small in number and marchers are encouraged to ignore their voices and instead embrace the many, many more who are there to cheer them on and encourage them to be who they are: gay, bisexual, transgender, or as I was in last year’s march, a heterosexual ally.
Yet our efforts to dismiss them underscore a very salient point that their presence makes: in the United States, and even in liberal New York, it’s okay to hate gays.
Many will point to increased scrutiny and say otherwise. The last few years have seen an uptick in sensitivity in sports, entertainment, and media towards the homosexual community, with major stars like the NBA’s Kobe Bryant having to apologize for shouting a homosexual slur during a game. Still, it’s not enough evidence to state conclusively that we’re anywhere near where we need to be when it comes to embracing and accepting homosexuals. For every person that accepted Kobe Bryant’s apology, there were many more crying foul and accusing people of being overly sensitive. Many of these detractors cite common use of the word as their defense and state that the meaning isn’t to disparage homosexuals per se, as if that makes calling someone “f*****” any more acceptable than using the word “n*****” as a perjorative.
Words, however, don’t speak nearly as much to our shortcomings as actions, and the protestors at Capital Pride 2011 displayed that. Call them a small handful of kooks if you must, but their presence and the degree to which they are tolerated speaks volumes. Imagine, if you will, a white supremacist group demonstrating at a visible portion of the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City yesterday.
Now tell me they don’t matter.
As New York finds itself in the waning days of the legislative session, it has a chance to make history but, more importantly, can help steer us away from discrimination that’s been perpetuated by thousands of years of abuse, torture, and oppression of homosexuals. They can pass, if they have the courage to stand up to bigots like Ruben Diaz who dresses his hatred in scripture and calls it concern, a bill that will legalize gay marriage.
Sadly, part of me thinks that it won’t happen. I have met too many Assembly and Senate members who are afraid to upset one of their own on minor issues to say with certainty that this will happen. There aren’t enough selfless individuals, and not enough courage, for them to do the right thing. On the other hand, I do believe that it’s possible, but only withincreased external pressure.
Which is why in these last few days we need to contact our represenetatives in the Assembly and the Senate – particularly those that are “undecided” – and urge them to get this on the floor and pass it. Tell them that when it comes to civil rights, “not yet” is not only inexcusable, but indistinguishable from “never will.”
A Reader Asks is a feature on this blog where readers who do not have problem solving skills or access to Google can send in questions and have chronically unhappy people on the Internet, many of whom wear their emotional instabilities on their sleeves, talk at them and/or express outrage.
A Reader Asks:
I’ve been using Twitter for some time and made some great connections on it. I’ve been able to communicate with like-minded people, find reinforcement for my views, and make some actual friends.
Recently I met a girl through the service vis a vis a mutual conversation we were having with the same difficult person. We struck up a kinship in our common battle and I started following her. Although conversation did not extend past that friendly discourse, I quickly developed a bit of a crush and became smitten.
There’s a slight complication, though: we don’t talk as much as I’d like and she’s considerably younger than I am…by about 26 years, young enough to be my daughter.
So here’s my question: should I send her a picture of my erect penis?
=====
Dear District,
What is wrong with you? No, no, a thousand times no!
Actually the question isn’t just a matter of personal choice or judgment. Myself, and many others, have no right to judge how people freak. It is, however, a matter of right and wrong.
If the object of your desire was giving you some indication, flirted, or otherwise expressed romantic interest or interest in simply seeing your nether-regions, that’d be fine. The issue here isn’t the action, it’s a question of consent.
Imagine that you met this girl in a coffee house, and you only had passing conversation. Then, one day, you dropped your trousers right in front of her. You’d be arrested for it, and rightfully so.
A lot of people would write off your action and say the comparison is moot because of the nature of the internet, but that’s not the case anymore. With social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook, we’re no longer an anonymous string of characters entering rooms to discuss fringe topics. We’re easily identifiable and often recognized in public from our digital persona.The veil of anonymity has been consciously lifted, and our digital persona has become not just an extension of, but indistinguishable from us. At best, the act you propose would fall under the realm of unwelcome harassment. Some would go so far as to call it sexual assault, though I’m not quite comfortable myself crossing that line.
You would have no shortage of supporters if you did send that unwelcome image and were somehow caught in the act . Some if that support would come because people simply don’t realize that your sexual advances were unwanted and unwelcome. There’s also the possibility that you could be, say, an elected Democrat and many outspoken liberals are like obnoxious sports fans and are pathologically unable to get off the bus for even a moment to take someone to task for bad behavior. But bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of party affiliation or prior voting record.
So the next time you or anyone reading this wants to send a sexual photograph of yourself to a much younger college co-ed, you better make sure this person won’t be offended. Or blog about it. It’s the last you could do.
Meet Darwin. Don't get attached.
The Marvel comics franchise “X-Men” has been lauded for its cultural sensitivities and perpetual relevance due to parallels commentators draw between its protagonist mutants and real-life ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities in the United States. The comic, naturally, has always been all too aware of the comparison, even going so far as to transform team founder and leader Professor Xavier and his ideological nemesis, Magneto, into dueling Martin Luther King and Malcolm X figures.
The latest film adaptation, “X-Men: First Class,” punctuates that comparison by inserting the mutants – identifiable from your run of the mill superhero because their powers come through natural biology rather than a convoluted scientific mishap – into the early 1960s. Any child who’s taken a social studies class can point out the relevance in placing Marvel’s mutants at the precipice of the American civil rights movement. Yet, even with that concession, the filmmakers still walk right into a stale racist trope of Hollywood at the apex of the first act when they kill off Darwin, the only black member of the team.
One thing it isn’t, though, is surprising. When discussing the comic book medium, academics, columnists, and self-styled pop culture pundits have swarmed to the “X-Men” as the perennial example of social consciousness and sophistication in comic books. The angle is almost always that the material subversively enfranchises younger minds with the concept of fairness and social justice by casting colorful heroes in the role of the oppressed. The “not just kids stuff” battle cry is carried to comic book fans and creators, who are understandably eager to grant sober, honorable recognition to the medium they love. Unfortunately, it’s not wholly accurate or sincere. With few and brief exceptions, serious societal themes in mainstream comic books have not been handled with the class and sophistication that revisionists would have you believe. The problem isn’t with the comic book form, it’s with the comic book industry, which used to cater to children and now caters to an ever-shrinking fanbase of adults that shout mandates at creators rather than absorbing and digesting the material. All of this, of course, is a nice way of saying that even though I’m a fan, comic books aren’t high art or literature and any pretense otherwise should be taken with a grain of salt.
Sadly, this quagmire carried itself into Hollywood with the release of “X-Men: First Class.”
Continue reading »
According to the New York Daily News, Assembly majority leader Sheldon Silver has essentially killed the bill to legalize MMA for this legislative session:
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver yesterday appeared to KO the latest bid to legalize ultimate fighting in New York, despite its mounting momentum in the state Capitol.
“There does not appear to be widespread support in the Assembly for this legislation,” Silver said when asked if the proposal would be approved before the June 20 end of the legislative session.
Disappointing but not altogether surprising, as this was the expected result due to the influence held by some key opposition to the measure as well as the precedence taken by the effort to legalize gay marriage and the proposed ethics bill.
I do urge folks to continue to call and/or e-mail your Assembly representatives to let them know you want MMA in New York. I’m still hopeful that it’s not too late for this session, and if anything, we need to keep the momentum going.
In a recent post (Why is Senator Roy McDonald still “undecided” about gay marriage? Friday 6/3/11) , a commenter made the assertion that marriage is a privilege, not a right:
Gov. Coumo’s historical perspective is flawed. The historical perspective is the societal one, which represented the best interests of the majority of the population. He has no mandate to change or replace the existing marriage definition. If I need to get a license to get married then it is not a right but a requirement by the state of NY. In fact driving on the highway is not a right but a privilege, which is only allowed by obtaining a permit to do so via a license.
Firstly, it’s a false comparison. The confusion comes from the term “license” which is used in reference to the legal documentation required for both. There is a difference, though, in that while you do need a license to get married restrictions aren’t placed on them like they are a drivers license. Ergo, there aren’t laws prohibiting a person from getting married or revoking a marriage because s/he is convicted of a felony.
More than a conceptual problem, there’s also legal precedent that explicitly states that marriage is a right. In 1967, the Supreme Court established marriage as a civil right in their ruling of Loving v Virginia, which struck down state laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages.
It’s one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage because you think it should be between a man and a woman. I and now the majority of the population believe otherwise; that the genders of the two parties involved are moot so long as the love and desire for companionship is present. But to deny it on the basis that it’s not a right of the general population but rather a privilege that the government can claim ownership to and arbitrarily revoke is wrong, both in the moral and literal sense.
Yesterday, the Assembly bill to legalize MMA passed the Parks, Tourism and Sports Development Committee with a 16-3 vote.
Time is tight, however, with the Assembly nearing the end of the legislative session in a couple weeks and various other steps in the process needing to be followed through. More from the Coalition to Legalize Mixed Martial Arts in New York:
But, before we get too excited, the Assembly legislation still has several hurdles to jump. Next up is Codes, under the chairmanship of Assemblyman Joeseph R. Lentol. Assemblyman Lentol is a supporter of legalized mixed martial arts in New York and has stated as much to our Coalition. Reportedly, the bill will be on the calendar for Codes next week.
After Codes, the bill moves to Ways & Means under the chairmanship of Herman D. Farrell, Jr. Assemblyman Farrell has not been a supporter of legalized mixed martial arts in New York. This is where our next significant hurdle will be. Assemblyman Farrell must follow the mandate being set by the people of New York, the Senate, and his peers in the Assembly Tourism Committee by putting the legislation on the Ways & Means agenda.
Contact those Assemblyman, as well as your own, and let them know you want Mixed Martial Arts in New York.
Hello Kevin Marshall’s Americans.
You may have noticed quite a dust-up over the weekend after Sarah Palin made a controversial statement regarding the ride of Paul Revere. Here’s the clip:
“He who warned the—the British that they weren’t gonna take away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free!” – Sarah Palin, June 2011
The liberal mainstream media (run by Jews who hate Israel) pounced on Palin and flamed her for what they claimed was historical inaccuracy, opening themselves up to ridicule and exposing their hypocritical double-standards.
Despite what historical revisionists would have you believe, Sarah Palin is right. Paul Revere’s 150 mile ride, though decried by liberal historians who claim it was actually Israel Bissell who made that long journey (Israel – again, the Jews), is an important moment in our nation’s history. Just the mere thought of Revere riding a horse with a bell frantically ringing in one hand while firing shots into the air with his musket in the other brings tears to my eyes.
Palin, beautiful and proud woman that she is, reiterated her position and qualifications on Fox News.
It was, indeed “a shout-out, gotcha” type of question that was asked that tripped up Palin. Okay, so she may have gotten some details wrong; she forgot to mention that Paul Revere made more than one ride while ringing his bell and shooting his gun in the air. But that’s neither here nor there. It’s not fair that someone like Palin gets asked loaded questions like “so what have you been doing in Boston?” while President Barack (Hussein) Obama gets away with softballs about the Mideast and our nation’s ballooning deficit.
As a writer, I reached out to President-elect Palin (as I half-jokingly, half-hopefully refer to her) and made her an offer that she enthusiastically jumped on. With her knowledge of our nation’s history and my writing abilities, we crafted a quick and essential guide to American history that I’m sharing with you, my loyal readers, first..
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Knowing American History by Sarah Palin (with Kevin Marshall)
——-
America: land of the free, home of the brave. However, during my five years of touring this great land of ours, I have encountered a distressing level of ignorance regarding its history. Even in cities like Boston and Philadelphia, citizens of this great nation have no idea how great this nation of ours, which is great, is, and why it’s so great.
We have a quiet crisis, a term which I created just now, in our public school system. With the exception of the great State of Texas (the greatest state not Alaska), textbooks in public schools are rife with inaccurate statements and outright falsehoods. Some of the blame lay on the feet of innocent folklore that borne out of fictional works from the 17th and 18th centuries that were parlayed through a vast game of telephone. Most of it, though, is because of liberals.
So I give you, my fellow proud citizens, a brief history of our great United States so that you may share it with your family during your nightly prayers and evening reading of the pledge of allegiance.
Some people think America started in 1776, but that’s actually not true.
The foundations for our great nation and traditions were actually instilled decades earlier, when a child by the name of George Washington cut down a cherry tree and proclaimed to his astonished family “I cannot tell a lie…the cherries are ours to eat.”
At the log cabin that served as George Washington's childhood home, there is a statue of Paul Bunyan erected to commemorate their friendship.
With this proclamation, Washington set forth to carry his message of personal liberties and free enterprise throughout the land. He encountered many great men, including Johnny Appleseed (who created the world’s first multi-national food company) and Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, who themselves were touring the land with a similar message and informing trees that they were NOT going to take away our axes.
Continued after the jump.
If you’re driving on the stretch of Interstate 787 that runs parallel to the border of New York State Senator Roy McDonald‘s district, you might notice a billboard urging him to support gay marriage:
The billboard is sponsored by Bombers’ Burritos and is the handiwork of its owner, local entrepreneurial socialite and blogging gadfly Matt Baumgartner. Gay Marriage is in a tight race in New York, and McDonald is one of the holdouts.
He claims he’s “undecided” on the issue. The legislative session ends June 20th, and Governor Andrew Cuomo has gone on the record stating he’d like to see gay marriage passed in the Empire State before then.
Anybody who’s ever read this blog before knows my position on gay marriage, but just in case: I’m for it. The concept of marriage is not owned by any specific church or religion, and any claims to the contrary are historical and contextual fallacies. Parishioners can have their objections noted, but it should not be used to refute any efforts to legalize it. Other arguments, even if we are to take the concerns as earnest on the part of those objecting, fail to hold water: marriage won’t make any person more gay or encourage more people to become gay, nor will any heterosexual marriage be threatened by the existence of a gay couple being granted a license to marry.
I do see it as a right, and don’t think one should be comfortable clouding it with concessions like granting gay couples the right to a “civil union.” As a right, it should not be held up to compromise or muddled with semantics. It should be clear what we are and aren’t willing to accept in this society, and no homosexual person in this country should be given a mixed message as to whether or not they are tolerated or, better yet, embraced by an American society in the throes of the 21st Century.
So I ask Senator Roy McDonald, who represents me in the State Senate: what, exactly, are you undecided on? How many of your constituents are also undecided? If you ask them, I think you’ll find a clear answer on either side.
Part of me thinks maybe you being undecided is a good thing. Perhaps you’ve grown up your entire life viewing homosexuals as one thing, but the last few decades and all the friendships and alliances you’ve cultivated with homosexuals in and around the Capital Region forced a change of heart. Maybe you’re undecided because for your entire life you were fundamentally opposed to the concept, but in your heart you now know that voting “yes” is the right thing to do.
Then there’s the cynic in me that just wonders if you’re a coward and/or are waiting for someone in the Legislature to approach you with a deal or compromise that benefits you in some way or another, wholly unrelated issue you want to address.
If you’re reading this, Roy, please don’t be offended. That’s just a part of my thought process that harbors ill will, and is granted space due to the past behaviors and attitudes of your fellow Senators. There’s a bigger part of me, though, that believes you can change and do the right thing.
I believe, just like so many others, that you can say “yes.” So please do so. Show them that you’re a better man than they think you are.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In case you haven’t heard yet: Congressman Anthony Weiner (stop giggling) of New York’s 9th Congressional District created too many opportunities for bad jokes when he – or someone from his Twitter account – sent a shot of his crotch – or someone else who took a picture of Weiner’s crotch – and sent it to a 21-year-old college student.
After initially refusing to refute the allegations and saying people should move on, Weiner had a change of heart (re: a prominent member of the Party read him the riot act over the phone) started doing brief sit-down with reporters. One from MSNBC had the idea to ask him whether or not that was his crotch, which is surprising given the ineptitude at that network.
Weiner’s reply? He can’t say “with certitude” that it isn’t his crotch.
Firstly: how is a guy not able to recognize his own crotch? When I was North of 210 pounds, I rarely saw my nether-region from an upward view and might have had some trouble, but that was some years ago now and Weiner is not a chubby guy by any means.
Secondly: couldn’t Weiner have shown the class and restraint of his peers in Congress and put that junk on Craigslist instead?
Thirdly, and perhaps most damning and alarming: what kind of weirdo says “with certitude?”
If Marilyn Monroe had survived substance abuse and self-destruction, she’d be 85 today.
On July 2nd, actress and tabloid target Lindsay Lohan will turn 25.
To compare the two seems ridiculous. Monroe is a cultural icon both revered and pitied, while Lohan is a cautionary tale both scorned and reviled. Marilyn changed the face of beauty in Hollywood forever with various star turns, while Lohan’s potential went unfulfilled.
Yet if you look at their career trajectories and shortcomings, there are more than a few parallels. Although Monroe’s resume is worlds better, Lohan did appear in a couple films that were critical darlings, and for a time it seemed she was destined to become one as well.
So what makes one an icon and the other a pariah? I put the question out there on Twitter and got what I think is the best response from a friend of mine, Sean:
Context is everything. Marilyn Monroe in the 21st Century would probably find herself in the same situation and standing as Lohan, complete with the negative press and snarky derision from those of us watching from the sidelines. It hardly seems fair, but there it is.
STALK ME
