Bits & Pieces: Lines That Didn’t Make the Cut – Remembering Claudia

The first in an occasional series of posts about what I end up editing out of the poems I am working on.

The revision process leaves every writer with bits and pieces of work that no longer belong to the poem or story or whatever where they first appeared. Sometimes these scraps and fragments grow to become full fledged works on their own; sometimes they get grafted onto other works-in-progress; but, as often as not, they end up in a file where the writer rarely, if ever, looks at them again. I went digging into my file recently, looking for something that I knew would fit in a poem the beginning and end of which I was having a very hard time connecting. As I read through bits and pieces I’d put in there, I began to realize that, for me, the lines that don’t make the cut as I revise a poem tend to be those in which I am either explaining to myself what I am trying to say or trying to force the language to go in a direction it just doesn’t want to go. The lines in this post fall into the latter category:

and if you imagine
that night as a film of my life,
then a thunderclap or dissonant chord
would call the moment to your attention:
layers of meaning packed hard
in the still image you’d carry home
of what it means to me to remember
that where the large oak
we put chairs beneath
for our summer concerts
now spreads its shade,
I played when I was nine
tackle football with Claudia.

In the poem this was originally part of I was writing about an evening when I went down to the garden which sits in the center of the eight-building co-op where I live to walk off some anger. Thunderclouds gathered overhead just a few minutes afterwards and the rain that fell as I made my way around the concrete path that marks the garden’s perimiter felt like small hailstones on my skin. This garden holds a lot of memories for me. My grandparents lived in the building next door to mine for nearly fifty years, and we visited them almost every Sunday from as early as I can remember until I went away to college. When I was a little boy, not much more than five or six, I made friends with a red-haired girl named Claudia who lived in the building across the way. She was–and I find myself wondering if people still use this term–a tomboy, and one of our favorite things to do was play football on what was then a dirt field between the back of her building and the back of my grandparents’. I don’t remember being invited to her house or that she ever came to my grandparents’ place when I was there. Our friendship was the kind that little kids often have; we saw each other when we saw each other; and since she knew I would be there almost every Sunday, she would just head down to the garden to see if I was there; or sometimes I would get there first and wait for her.

Anyway, in the middle of what I thought was going to be my last lap around the garden, a bolt of lightning lit that field up, lush with grass after all these years and with a gorgeous, almost mountainous tree dominating the center. (A couple of summers ago, a hawk made itself at home there.) In that flash, I suddenly remembered the last conversation I had with Claudia. We’d been friends for about five or six years by that time, so we were eleven or twelve. It was Shabbat–I’m not sure why we were visiting my grandparents on a Saturday–and so Claudia and I were both in shul, hanging around outside the sanctuary where the adults were busy praying. She was wearing a pink frilly dress, which surprised me because I’d never before seen her dressed “like a girl,” and she was huddled with a group of girls I didn’t know. I tried a couple of times to talk to her, to get her to come with me to the places in the synagogue where, when we’d met there in years past, on Rosh HaShana for example, we’d spend time together until services were over, but she kept brushing me aside. Finally, I asked her point blank if she wanted to come out to play after lunch. (Neither my family nor hers was strictly observant.) “No,” she told me, “sports and climbing trees are for boys. I’m growing up now, and I am not a boy.” As far as I recall, she and I never spoke to each other again.

The poem ended up being about something else, but this memory still makes me very sad.

Cross-posted on Because It’s All Connected.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | Comments Off on Bits & Pieces: Lines That Didn’t Make the Cut – Remembering Claudia

Mitt Romney Inadvertantly Teaches Us A Lesson About The Long Term Effects Of Bullying

mitt-romney-inadvertantly-teaches-us-a-lesson-about-the-long-term-effects-of-bullying

Yesterday we learned that Mitt Romney, in addition to being a vulture capitalist and a rank political opportunist, was also a schoolyard bully. This is my unsurprised face.

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend…

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

… “It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said.

… “He was just easy pickin’s,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.

… Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.

Read the entire article for more exciting tales of Mitt’s teenage years.

Romney claims that he doesn’t remember the incident, but we all know that he does. We know this not just because the man is a proven liar, but because when a person carries out an act of violence like that, they remember it. Probably with a lot of pride.

The only way I would accept that Mitt doesn’t remember that particular incident is if there were so many times that he bullied and assaulted classmates he didn’t like and thought were gay that he just can’t separate one from another. Either way, the picture is pretty grim.

And not all that surprising.

Consider the kind of man Romney is. He has not a bit of compassion, empathy, or regard for people other than himself and the people he holds dear1. He casually destroys people’s lives, makes their jobs disappear, then laughs and makes jokes about it. His ever-changing political stances prove that he doesn’t hold values, he pretends them, and says whatever is politically expedient no matter who it hurts.

And he knows he can get away with it, because he’s been getting away with imposing his will on others in a violent manner since school. No teacher, no principal, no student challenged or punished him for what he did to that kid. He probably went home to his family and received praise for it.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example of why the problem of bullying needs to be addressed at all times, wherever it happens. Schools need to take responsibility, parents need to take responsibility. And this is for the good of the victim of the bullying as much as the bully themselves. Because, if gone unchecked, that bully may grow up to think victimization is acceptable. Which means that more people have to suffer because of the bully’s lack of empathy or restraint.

Any time anyone wants to give me an excuse for why they won’t take steps to stop bullying, whether it be because of some myth about the victims needing to “man up” or some bullshit about not having enough resources to deal with it, I am going to point at the nearest picture of Mitt Romney and say “people like you are the reason why Mitt Romney is the man he is. If you admire him, then you’re just as bad. If you recoil from that thought, stop making excuses and address this problem.”

Mitt Romney Inadvertantly Teaches Us A Lesson About The Long Term Effects Of Bullying — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

  1. And it is apparently limited to people. Just look at what he did to his poor dog.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 9 Comments

Something Awful

Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit drinking:

An unidentified entrepreneur admits he is trying to profit off Trayvon Martin’s death by selling gun range targets featuring the teen who’s death has sparked a nationwide controversy.

Although Martin’s face does not appear on the paper targets, they feature a hoodie with crosshairs aimed at the chest. A bag of Skittles is tucked in the pocket and a hand is holding a can resembling iced tea.

[…]

According to an advertisement for the targets that had been posted on a popular firearms auction website, the sellers stated they “support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug.”

That online ad has since been removed.

[…]

In an email exchange with reporter Mike DeForest, the seller wrote, “My main motivation was to make money off the controversy.”

The seller would not disclose how many paper targets had been made, but said in an email, “The response is overwhelming. I sold out in 2 days.”

Some of those targets were sold to two Florida gun dealers, according to the seller.

Before DeForest identified himself as a reporter, the seller claimed that targets were still available for purchase. After being informed Local 6 was investigating his online business, the seller claimed the targets would no longer be sold.

Oh, well that’s great. I mean, sure, the guy was evil enough to make a target depicting a murder victim, but heck, I’m sure he’ll totally back down now that he’s on the news.

Seriously, sometimes I think the comet can’t get here fast enough. Most people are decent, kind, caring individuals. But the worst of us are truly awful.

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 5 Comments

I Got Your Book: The Gilda Stories

Like always, we gotta start with some celebrations!

Princeless has been nominated for an Eisner!

Mary Anne Mohanraj’s collection of SF erotica looks fantastic!

Charles SaundersDamballa, was just awarded Best Pulp Novel of 2011! Here’s an excerpt of a review:

All of the wondrous trappings of pulp are here in this incredible work: action, adventure, evil scheming Nazis and a hero determined to foil their plot to embarrass the United States, politically, in the boxing ring – the key component here is that Damballa is a black man.
 
Given the classic pulp elements present in the novel, it would have been easy for Saunders to just trot out a pulp archetype and just changed the color of hero’s skin but an author of his skill and ability would not be limited to taking the easy way out. Instead Damballa has deep, African roots and an intriguing origin and supporting cast, the surface of which has only been scratched by this first adventure.
 
Hooray! NK Jemisin is working on a new trilogy!
 
Julia Rios is joining the editorial board of Strange Horizons. 
 
Here’s a discussion of the ongoing race problem in YA. 
 
Here’s a link to “The Battle of Little Big Science“, a short story by Pamela Rentz, who writes SF featuring Native characters.  
 
This coloring book features a natural diva. 
 
There are some very familiar names on this list of books to watch out for… like Walter Mosley and NK Jemisin
 
On to the review.  The Gilda Stories/Bone and Ash follow two centuries in the life of Gilda, a black lesbian vampire. She escapes from the plantation whose brutal masters claimed the life of her mother, only to be nearly raped by a slave catcher. She kills him, and is eventually found by the first Gilda, the madam of a brothel in New Orleans. This brothel, Woodard’s, will define “home” for our heroine for the next two centuries. It’s here that she learns about the power of the written word, the significance of women’s friendship, and the basics of what it means to be a life-affirming vampire. When Gilda the elder turns our heroine into a vampire, and then chooses for herself the true death, Gilda the younger must navigate a human world where her opportunities are defined by her race and gender, and an immortal world where she’s inherited a loving (though sometimes distant) family.
 
The novel’s in an episodic format, so basically we jump through moments in Gilda’s life — like her friendship with Aurelia, a black club woman passionately working against poverty in her community — and moments in American and global history — like the gradual collapse of the nation-state in light of environmental degradation. This collection of short stories is also a meditation on time, and the inevitability of outliving people and things you love. In many ways, this last contributes a kind of elegic quality to the narrative. Gilda can’t help but hold herself apart from the current of the everyday, because the waters of time will always leave her untouched. Each story explores a moment in time where Gilda is forced to confront the fallacies in her own emotional distance, where she has to navigate ephemeral relationships with no easy lines of descent or convenient resolutions. In this way, The Gilda Stories fit into a longstanding tradition in LGBT literature of exploring “a queer time and place“, as well as family and friendships that defy conventional understandings of gender and lineage. 
 
I selected this collection because it recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. Here’s a quote from the author:

Gilda being black is core and informs how she makes meaning of her world, and how she is responded to. Gilda understands the various ethnicities of the girls in the bordello. She knows that Bird is a Native American. When Gilda visits Sorrel’s salon in Yerba Buena, she understands that people look at her askance because she is black. As a female, Gilda knows she is vulnerable on the road alone so she dresses as a boy. It is from Gilda’s perspective that we learn these things. For me, people of color and women are the center of the universe; it’s natural. Assuming this centrality allowed me to address people’s racism without having the racism take over the story.

As a black woman, Gilda recognizes situations that put her in jeopardy. As a vampire she has power to overcome these situations, but she knows that other people don’t have that same privilege. She experiences life as a black woman, but she has privilege as a vampire.

Gilda’s a really quiet narrator. I think fans of Parable of the Sower will find her especially charming; she’s a really sharp narrator, not at all a kid, and navigates the ethical quandaries facing her with a surefootedness now rare in paranormal fiction. She regrets having to kill, and does so rarely, but it’s not something she hesitates over, and she never, ever spends pages and pages thinking about how she’s some sort of secret monster. Gomez also avoids defining Gilda by her vampirism; she does hunt, yeah, but she’s also a traveler, a theater person, a writer, a singer, etc.  The one thing that she carries with her throughout all these careers and adventures is her understanding of herself as part of a community of vampires, and a member of a family. She’s loved, and that love (and needing to make family outside of conventional lines of descent) are what really set this vampire apart from others.
 
If you pick up this collection in the near future, you’ll be really super lucky; Gomez is presently working on a new set of Gilda Stories. Here’s a 2011 excerpt

I Got Your Book: The Gilda Stories — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on I Got Your Book: The Gilda Stories

Portland Opera’s Production of “Candide”

So I had the great pleasure of being invited to see a dress rehearsal of the Portland Opera’s production of Candide. So much fun! The show is hilarious, just a little bit dirty, and incredibly cynical, and the performances were all terrific. I think Candide is one of those operas that even folks who don’t usually like Opera would like, so if you’re in Portland I recommend checking it out.

I didn’t have time to do illustrations as elaborate as I’ve done for past Portland Opera productions, so I did caricatures of four of the characters in the show. I’m pretty pleased with how Pangloss came out.

Also, be sure to check out the #pdxcandide tag on twitter to get links to the drawings by all the other Portland cartoonists who were invited!

Posted in Cartooning & comics | 1 Comment

President Obama Endorses Marriage Equality

From an ABC News interview:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

And:

It’s interesting, some of this is also generational. You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.

I admit, I’m a bit surprised to see him do this before the election (although perhaps he was cornered by Biden’s recent statement of support for SSM). Also, he’s still saying that this should be an issue decided by each individual state, not by the Federal government (a view I agree with, but only because I think it’s strategically the best approach for now).

Although the fight will continue mostly unchanged, this is still a landmark in the history of lgbt rights. Someone on my twitter feed (can’t find it now, so paraphrasing) wrote, “for the first time in my life, I have a President who thinks I should be fully equal.” That’s valuable.

Posted in In the news, Same-Sex Marriage | 22 Comments

Slavery, Homosexuality, And The Decision To Interpret The Bible’s Meaning Generously

(This is part of an email I recently wrote to a thoughtful Christian acquaintance, who I shall call “Linus.” Obviously, our discussion was set off by Dan Savages recent remarks. My thanks to Linus for his kind permission to include some quotes from his letter. The occasional links were added by me just now, not part of the original correspondence. –Amp]

I guess I am really taking exception to Savage’s characterization of the Bible as “pro-slavery” when a proper reading makes it clear that over the course of the narrative, the pro-slavery statements are turned on their ear and negated. By my understanding, Christians haven’t altered their views on slavery from what the Bible says; they are anti-slavery because the Bible is anti-slavery.

By labeling out-of-context statements about slavery as “bullshit”, putting forth an argument that the Bible is pro-slavery, and then equating them to different moral teachings that he disagrees with, Savage is not treating the Bible or its present-day adherents with any fairness. […]

I think it is important to reflect that while Christians hold the entirety of scripture to be inspired by God – it is still written in a historical context by a human author. Paul, in situ, is writing as a pastor to a member of his flock, instructing him on how he is to receive a returned runaway slave. I suggest you read Philemon to get a sense of the exchange, it is only a few paragraphs long, but the tone is appropriate for a pastor’s instruction in the form of a letter. A full-on command to free the slave or an emancipation declaration might not have achieved Paul’s purpose, but his wording and tone make it clear where he stands on the issue. I cannot tell you why God would use subtle language and tone in this case, or the many other cases where he is mysterious – it is a question that has the potential to be an entire theological discussion by itself.

I think your interpretation is, while not unreasonable, EXTREMELY strained. It’s the interpretation of a good person who is strongly motivated to believe the Bible doesn’t condone slavery, and who has found a way to interpret the text to support that reading.

But it’s not a straightforward, obvious reading of the text. Philemon, which you’re putting great weight on, is ambiguous at best. Especially in light of other passages of the New Testament (e.g., in Titus when Paul says “tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior”), a much more straightforward interpretation is that Paul expected Philemon to return as BOTH a slave and a brother in Christ, and would have seen nothing greatly wrong with that outcome.

This is Savage’s point (if I’ve understood it). When you genuinely want to, you subscribe to a “subtle” — I’d say generous — interpretation of the text to reconcile the NT’s condoning slavery with your own belief that condoning slavery is wrong.

If you genuinely wanted to, you could make a similar generous reconciliation for homosexuality. For instance, you argue that we should bear in mind that the scriptures were “written in a historical context by a human author.” But the human authors who wrote scripture simply didn’t have a concept of “gay and lesbian people” as we do. In Paul’s time, it’s very plausible that the homosexual acts he was condemning were between adult men and young boys, and he wasn’t familiar with the idea of two adult men or women living together in a consensual relationship.

Etc, etc. I’m sure you know the arguments; they do require you to interpret the text a bit, but not in a more extreme way than what you do to argue that the NT isn’t condoning slavery.

Please know that I don’t say that with any sense of satisfaction – it has very real implications for how I practice my personal faith – but I feel like it is the only consistent position I can take based on how I understand Christianity and the teachings of the Bible.

This is bothersome because you’re speaking as if you have no choice. You could decide that the Bible does not condemn consensual, loving same-sex relationships between adults; you have chosen not to. You could even more easily decide that the Bible doesn’t say anything about what civil law regarding same-sex marriage should be. Your understanding of the Bible, and your view of when it is and is not okay to interpret the text (as you do when considering slavery), and what that means for civil law, is not an objective fact. It is your own subjective judgment.

The Bible isn’t forcing you to treat lgbt people unequally. Nothing in the text of the Bible forces you to believe that Paul was intending to condemn two adult women living together and forming a loving family. At some level, perhaps unconsciously, you’re choosing to believe that. (And I say this without any sense of satisfaction, by the way! I would much prefer to welcome you as an ally than to disagree with you on this issue.)

[More from the letter in a later post.]

Posted in Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 15 Comments

I cry a lot because I miss people. They die and I can’t stop them. They leave me and I love them more.

R.I.P., Mr. Sendak. You created one of the great anarchic works of literature, Where the Wild Things Are, which in its brevity is far deeper than most thousand-page novels.

If you missed Sendak’s unbelievably amazing interview with Stephen Colbert, or indeed if you didn’t, please enjoy:

Posted in Cartooning & comics, Fiction, literature | 1 Comment

Were Dan Savage’s Remarks Bullying?

[Note: I’ve renamed this post from the original title, “Is Dan Savage a Bully.”]

Ever read one of those comments and you’re agreeing with it, agreeing with it, and then the writer yanks the rug out from under you?

So I was reading this comment from Jessica, on a NOMblog entry about Dan Savage’s speech that some Christian teenagers walked out of (more on that in a moment). A teacher implied that Savage’s comments were bullying, and Jessica wrote:

Bullying, bullying, bullying,

He bullies she and she bullies he and everyone bullies and get bullied.

Bullying has become politicized. That is, everyone is accusing everyone else of bullying. It is the latest tin word, thoughtlessly shot across to the other side’s ranks.

And I am so in agreement. (Perhaps because I had just read this post, by a Catholic blogger who is furious at Savage for “bullying” but sees no problem with his charming habit of calling gay and lesbian folks “brownshirts.”)

Jessica continues:

Well, I’ll tell you something, I was really bullied, at school, many years ago…

Again, I’m totally with you, Jessica. I lived your pain. I know where you’re coming from.

…and there only way yo cure it is not to have lectures and diversity meetings and talk, the only way to cure bullying is to hang the bullies from lampposts with a sign around their neck, I am a rotten bully and deserve worse.

Any survivor of bullying can tell you this, if you are willing to listen.

Eeeeek!

Jessica, please get off my side thanks so much.

Anyhow, about that Dan Savage speech.

[spoiler intro=”Transcript” title=”Dan Savage video”]“People often point out that they can’t help it. They can’t help with the anti-gay bullyings because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans that being gay is wrong. We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.

The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn’t say Christians don’t own people. Paul talks about how Christians own people. We ignore what the Bible said about slavery because the Bible got slavery wrong. Sam Harris in Letter to a Christian Nation points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong: slavery.

What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100%. The Bible says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night – that a woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night, that she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they’re not virgins. At least not yet. We don’t know where the GOP is going these days. People are dying because people can’t clear this one last hurdle. They can’t get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality.

One thing I want to talk about is – ha, so you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back in because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny that someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react to being pushed back. I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings but I have the right to defend myself, and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible and insisting that we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.”

(Transcript via Blag Hag.)[/spoiler]

1) Credit to the videographer: That is a gorgeously framed shot.

2) The thing I found most objectionable, on first listen, was Savage’s use of the term “pansy-assed” — an attack Savage has since apologized for, while standing by the rest of his speech (although admitting that his use of the word “bullshit” may not have been wise).

3) Is there really a case for calling what Savage did “bullying?” I guess it was rude to use the word “bullshit” when referring to someone’s religion. But the actual content of Savage’s statement is an argument. And I have trouble accepting that disagreeing with (some) Christians is tantamount to bullying Christians.

Although there are many Christians with other, sometimes more sophisticated, anti-gay arguments, you don’t have to talk to opponents of lgbt rights much to see that the “I believe it because it’s what’s in the Bible” comes up a lot. It’s legitimate of Savage to respond to that argument.

4) I can see an argument that Savage was wrong — rude, uncivil, and insensitive — to use the word “bullshit” three times. Savage isn’t an average man on the street; he’s a professional and seasoned speaker, who was invited to speak to an audience of minors. Under those circumstances, it’s reasonable to hold Savage to higher standards than we’d hold folks to in an average political disagreement in a bar.

5) On the other hand, this wasn’t a school assembly with a captive audience. It was a journalism conference that student journalists chose to attend; and as far as I know, all of the students had the option of simply not attending Savage’s speech. That Savage uses swear words while speaking and writing is hardly a surprise to anyone; and future journalists shouldn’t spontaneously blanch and flee because someone uses the word “bullshit” three times while making an argument they disagree with.

6) I have some doubt that this was a spontaneous walkout; the walkout starts before Savage ever swears, the students in the video are often smirking, and the video is so very nicely framed. If this was, in fact, a planned protest, that wouldn’t delegitimize the protest, so it’s not an important point.

7) When I was a teenager, I swore constantly, except when I was around grownups. Hearing the word “bullshit” was not a shocker. Are teenagers now different? Are right-wing Christian teenagers different?

8 ) Although I don’t think Savage’s words were bullying, I can see an argument that they were insensitive. The truth is, Christians in the US are used to having their beliefs treated with a great deal of deference and respect; saying that some of the Bible is “bullshit” probably isn’t the smartest way to get the point across. Savage’s argument — which I think was legitimate — has been lost, because either out of sincerity or out of opportunism, right-wingers are now shocked (or, perhaps, “shocked! shocked!”) that Savage used cuss words while discussing the Bible. Or that he criticized the Bible at all – it’s hard to tell if people are objecting to his tone or to the argument itself.

9) Although I realize the title of this post could be seen as an invitation for a discussion of Dan Savage generally, I’d rather not go there. Let’s restrict discussion to this one particular incident, please.

Posted in Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 100 Comments

Openly Gay Republican Driven Off Romney’s Team

Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin:

Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives. […]

According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign. […]

Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful. During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters. Beyond his statement, Grenell has declined further comment today.

The title of this post is a little vague. If Grenell was driven off Romney’s team, then who did the driving?

The title of Rubin’s post is “Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives,” and that’s a fair enough take on it. But I think that Grenell, a longtime Republican activist, knew from the start that some prominent conservatives, from the religious right to the National Review, would oppose his appointment. Grenell was fully prepared to take some flack.

It’s more likely that what Grenell couldn’t stand was being kept in the closet (pun intended) by the Romney campaign. Romney could have put Grenell out there on the Sunday morning shows and other gabfests and let Grenell do his job: Talking right-wing foreign policy. (A job that Grenell could have done well, and certainly better than Romney himself.) Instead, Romney chose to let right-wing anti-gays intimidate his campaign. Romney, typically, was trying to have it both ways; keeping Grenell on staff as his foreign policy spokesman (demonstrating to independent voters that Romney is not anti-gay), but not actually allowing Grenell to act as a spokesman (to placate the right wing).

I think Grenell understandably found that to be an impossible situation.

I think Grenell was driven off Romney’s team not by the entirely predictable whines of the anti-gay activists, but by Romney’s cowardly refusal to let Grenell do his job.

Although this episode usefully demonstrates how intolerant the GOP is, and how much Romney will bow to the far right, I’m not happy about it. There is a significant chance that Romney will be the next president; whoever replaces Grenell will no doubt be generally as right-wing as Grenell himself, but unlike Grenell will not be openly pro-gay rights. It’s imaginable that there could be a time, in the next four to eight years, when having someone who is pro-gay in the White House could make a difference. It would be better if Grenell had remained.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., In the news, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 13 Comments