Gay Patriot Header Image

Where In The World/Open Thread Tuesday

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:55 am - March 7, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging

I’m up early this morning on my way to St. Louis, MO…. then the Philadelphia suburbs later this week. Meetings galore. Hopefully I’ll catch up with email and do some postings tonight at the hotel.

Also, Dan (GayPatriotWest) has had a major meltdown of his computer so he won’t be posting much until that’s fixed. Nick & John… we need you guys to fill in! *grin*

So feel free to comment on what ever floats your boat today.

Some suggested topics —

Oscar ratings were lowest since 1987, and down from last year.

The Advocate.com has stories suggesting Hollywood is homophobic due to the Best Picture snub of Brokeback (ah, the irony there….)

Supreme Court has had two UNANIMOUS rulings in the past week. Yesterday’s ruling on forcing colleges that accept Federal money to also allow ROTC recruiting. And last week was the ruling rejecting the precedent of prosecuting abortion clinic protestors under the racketeering laws. Both UNANIMOUS. What’s going on with the Roberts Court?

More later as I enjoy my cramped MD-80 flight from Charlotte to St. Louis.

-Bruce (GayPatriot… headed to the heartland)

Share

53 Comments

  1. “Tawk amongst yourselves.
    Here’s a topic:
    The internal combustion engine was neither internal nor combustion. Discuss.”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 7, 2006 @ 6:44 am - March 7, 2006

  2. How about the new Democrat candidate in Ohio who believes gays should be subject to the death penalty?

    Who wants to take bets how long it will be before HRC and NGLTF will be humping his leg and calling him “gay supportive”?

    http://thatgayconservative.wordpress.com/2006/03/07/gay-groups-new-hero/

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 7, 2006 @ 6:55 am - March 7, 2006

  3. This Ohio moon bat (Merrill Keiser Jr.) sounds like the equivelant to the Illinois Dem Plant “Andy for Illinois” (Andy Martin) running for Governor as a so called Republican. Moon bat Andy begins his radio commercial with a sanctimonious (borderline retarded) “Mr. President, bring home our heroes!” He then goes on to blame the war for any and all ills that IL is facing (soup lines implied) – never mind the current democrat governor or the democrat King of Chicago Daily. These phony plants are so obvious – aren’t they? Or do such confounded morons spontaneously surface without outside help of any kind?

    Comment by Dave — March 7, 2006 @ 7:42 am - March 7, 2006

  4. The Brokeback bust is ongoing evidence of the hypocrisy of liberal Hollywood…like the Democrats they are interested in votes and money, but seldom follow through…I also heard a very obnoxious remark from Bill Mahr about how “homosexuality is always funny”…it will be a long time before tolerance reaches into the leftist Afro-Zionist gang…

    Comment by ecp — March 7, 2006 @ 8:18 am - March 7, 2006

  5. How about giving the President line-item budget veto authority? He wants it; the Supremes have said it’s unconstitutional. Can it be crafted in such a way as to overcome the Supremes’ objection?

    Comment by Gene — March 7, 2006 @ 8:21 am - March 7, 2006

  6. Surely you have heard of The Texas Judge Who Quoted Billy Madison in denying a motion on the basis of incomprehensibility?

    “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

    I often have the same reaction to posts by Stephen and rag.

    Comment by V the K — March 7, 2006 @ 8:33 am - March 7, 2006

  7. Of course Oscar ratings were going to be down from last year. Last year, for the first time ever a considerable number of black people watched the Oscars. This year, there was no compelling reason to watch.

    Still I ask, why must Hollywood salute themselves like this. Baseball MVP selections take place behind closed doors. There is no big televised events for the PEN awards. Gimme a break.

    Comment by ralph — March 7, 2006 @ 8:50 am - March 7, 2006

  8. We need the Academy to award Oscars to movies and people so that the majority of Americans who are slack jawed, knuckle dragging troglodytes will know what they’re supposed to like. For example, now that I know I should like the movie Crash I’ll go see it and really like it regardless of how miserable it makes me feel. Furthermore, now that I know that Clooney is “proud to be out of touch” I can respect him and adopt his limousine liberal attitudes for my own even though I don’t have a limousine. See, it’s simple. We just need to be informed on how to think!

    Comment by Dave — March 7, 2006 @ 9:01 am - March 7, 2006

  9. ralph, no one watching? Are you forgetting those tens of millions of gay-friendly str8 households who rushed out to see BBM and to support, validate, and enrobe us in the warmth of that long awaited empathy for our love story? They were watching; they just don’t want to come out and announce their support of our social agenda yet.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 7, 2006 @ 9:20 am - March 7, 2006

  10. I don’t think homophobia in Hollywood quite gets it. “Unease” might be a better word. As the last few weeks passed I was increasingly struck by the nervous awkwardness of the Hollywood media concerning this film. They were little different from Fox News.

    The air-headed and bubble-bosomed creatures who inhabit shows like “Intertainment Tonight” or chase celebrities down red carpets breathlessly were a perfect barometer of sorts. They clearly wanted to talk to anyone about anything other than this movie. No celebrity within ear-shot was too minor for their oleaginous attentions. Even the cast of “Will and Grace” were ill at ease at the Globes when Brokeback came up.

    By Oscar time, it had become the big elephant in the room precisely because the issues the film raised violated so many categories otherwise reflective of the lazy pieties of Hollywood. Oh, we can deal with a man dying of AIDS, or a drag queen, or a transsexual, or (in a pinch) a happy coming out narrative in the Foreign Film category – but a married father, otherwise “straight-acting,” whose life falls apart because he loves another man secretly? For a town based on artifice and illusion, that might cut too close.

    As for the Oscar for Best Impersonator passing over poor Ennis, I am reminded of Gore Vidal’s essay, “Pink Triangle and Yellow Star” (The Nation, 1981) – a sharp meditation on the bitter rivalries among blacks, Jews and gays as competitive interest groups:

    ‘Although I would never suggest that Truman Capote’s bright wit and sweet charm as a television performer would not have easily achieved for him his present stardom had he been a heterosexualist, I do know that if he had not existed in his present form, another would have been run up on the old sewing machine because that sort of persona must be, for a whole nation, the stereotype of what a fag is. Should some macho film star like Clint Eastwood, say, decide to confess on television that he is really into same-sex sex, the cathode ray tube would blow a fuse. That could never be allowed. That is all wrong. That is how the Roman Empire fell.’

    Funny that Vidal thought to contrast Capote with an actor famed for playing, ahem, cowboys and other western archetypes. Has anything really changed in twenty-five years?

    Comment by Tom — March 7, 2006 @ 9:39 am - March 7, 2006

  11. Can someone please explain to me how a movie that many of you have stated as being less than stellar was somehow snubbed by the committee that determines the awardees?

    On editing, if a movie wins the award for best editing, why then do studios feel the need to releases a DVD that includes the edited scenes.

    Comment by ralph — March 7, 2006 @ 10:00 am - March 7, 2006

  12. I don’t think there’s anything to read into the “snub” of Bareback Mountin’ except that it just wasn’t as good as the hype. But, the snub does give the Usual Suspects leave to lay out the victim card on the table and whine about Hollywood’s “homophobia.”

    If you want to be concerned about something, look at the Democrats playing to anti-Arab prejudice via the Dubai ports deal. Hm, I wonder what other minority groups they’ll throw over the side in their quest to regain power.

    Comment by V the K — March 7, 2006 @ 10:07 am - March 7, 2006

  13. For a “hometown” look at the “Crash” win, check out the L.A. Times:

    http://theenvelope.latimes.com/columnists/insider/env-screenscrash7mar07,0,5184709.column?coll=env-home-headlines

    It makes sense.

    Comment by Gene — March 7, 2006 @ 10:24 am - March 7, 2006

  14. Let me say something here….
    #1) I did not watch Crash, and I have no plans to do so.
    #2)I Did not watch Brokeback, and I have no plans to do so.

    Ok now to the Meat and Taters…..

    The Oscars exist as a way for Hollywood to promote itself. To create value in one of their products (Actors, other talents) and to raise the value of those talents in other products (*movies*) So all Brokeback losing means is the acadamy mearly felt a Ensemble Drama (-Crash-) which was produced by an actor (a Black actor at that) who brought togther a lot of talented actors better shows Hollywood as “Art” and the myths Hollywood needs to liberate us from our disposable incomes.

    Now then… that being said. Based on reviews/scripts/etc Brokeback was no where near as good as Crash.

    The Charecters in Crash (by design) appealed to everyone in the audience. If you are White you’ve been or may have been on both sides of the white race struggle in the movie…ditto if you are black and so on. The charecters do some horrible things by the way we all say we want to live, but they also do things that make you buy into the charecters.

    From a charecter driven angle alone Crash is head and shoulders above Brokeback as a film because the charecters instantly relate to the audience, they instantly bring the Audience in.

    Brokeback really the charecters have no reason to inspire sympathy in the audience ( I think no offense to the gay folks and gay friendly folks who may disagree…. I think your like the christians who wouldn’t acknowledge just how bad the acting was in The Passion of the Christ. You are to into the politics of the story and not the story itself). I think Gene Shalit(sp) had a point. Also it really wasn’t representative of the times. People had loveless marriage all the time back then. People in those loveless marriages delt with their marriages by having “fishing buddies” or helping the single lady down the road doing her “home repair”. Not only where the charecters bad, the story wasn’t realistic for the times.

    Crash on all ends was simply a better movie

    Comment by Larry Bernard — March 7, 2006 @ 10:39 am - March 7, 2006

  15. #10
    Interesting comment. , Do you remember a film called “Far From Heaven?, You could have referring to it when you said : ” but a married father, otherwise “straight-acting,” whose life falls apart because he loves another man secretly? For a town based on artifice and illusion, that might cut too close.”

    I don’t know why that film vanished . Dennis Quaid gave a wonderful performance, in a potentially shocking movie. Yet it wasn’t shocking for some reason. Why? The theme was very close to Brokebacks’.

    As far as Capote goes, it’s interesting to see you use the words “best impersonator”. My feelings exactly. It’s clear from the clips I’ve seen (haven’t seen the film and won’t ) that Mr Hoffman has the voice and mannerisms down pat. What I don’t see is the anger. I worked with Mr. Capote from 1970 through 1971, and although I was a great admirer of his writing, he was in person, to say the least, impossible. What was perceived at the time as “bright wit and gentle charm”, was (and I’m not saying something that isn’t already well known), a barbituate haze, through which he numbly dropped his “bon mots”. For me it was depressing and scary to watch, and I always worried that the real rage (which I saw often in private), would erupt on camera.

    Neverthless, he has been fodder for writers, and a real gift to “impersonators”. Robert Morse (Tony), and now Hoffman. A gold mine. Truman must be thrilled.

    Comment by hank — March 7, 2006 @ 10:51 am - March 7, 2006

  16. Neverthless, he has been fodder for writers, and a real gift to “impersonators”. Robert Morse (Tony), and now Hoffman.

    Not to mention, Brian the Dog on Family Guy.

    Comment by V the K — March 7, 2006 @ 11:12 am - March 7, 2006

  17. hank:

    Intresting that Hoffman relied so much on the tapes and old tv showings of Capote and not enough on talking to folks like you. That is a shame

    Comment by Larry Bernard — March 7, 2006 @ 11:32 am - March 7, 2006

  18. Dear 15,

    Yes, I do remember “Far From Heaven.” Interesting film. I would, however, put it in a different category. The director’s deliberate homage to the glossy weepies of Douglas Sirk was such that the film had a distancing quality that put the perfomances, fine as they were, into a technicolor land of irreality. Which, I’m afraid, is where they stayed. The “unease” that Brokeback evokes, by contrast, comes from its paradoxical expression as a simple “red state” movie. Imagine a woman sitting with her husband of fifteen years in a theater in, say, Lubbock, Texas, watching this film. There had to be some. For all she knows she may be sitting beside an Ennis Del Mar or Jack Twist. When I saw the film locally (a small college town with a rural hinterland) I was struck by how many rural, married couples in the audience were in their fifties and sixties. Almost no college kids. What secret experiences might have been in the back of some of those minds?

    A better comparison may be the English film, “Victim,” which starred Dirk Bogarde at the height of his matinee appeal in 1961. There he plays a married but closeted solicitor threatened with blackmail. And if we are talking “brave” “transgressive” films, that came out before homosexuality was decriminalized in Britain; Forster’s posthumous book, “Maurice,” would only be published ten years later. A similar tale, in fact. Moreover, Bogarde was at least “bisexual” – so, had the world of Oprah existed then, we wouldn’t have heard so much of the straight bona fides of its star.

    Comment by Tom — March 7, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - March 7, 2006

  19. 15
    Yes I agree . The distance created by the ‘prettiness” of Far From Heaven, did give it an unreal quality. Although, the fake technicolor didn’t work for me. Too expensive to do real technicolor these days, if it’s even possible.

    Still there wasn’t even a ripple about the homosexuality. Brokeback has caused such a stir. and isn’t even half as hot as that kiss in Far From Heaven:)

    Yes, I have seen Victim. But then of course it’s English,and everybody knows that ALL Englishmen are poofs.

    Maurice for it’s delayed publishing and all , is really very bland, don’t you think?

    I didn’t know Bogarde was bi-sexual. I always loved him. Now I know why;)

    Comment by hank — March 7, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - March 7, 2006

  20. Bruce, suggestion…..if you are on American (and, odds are, going to STL you are), fly rows 20 and 21 on MD-80s. You’ll be able to get 20 more often because the seatbacks are limited-recline, but either or will work.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 7, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - March 7, 2006

  21. Yeh. I know how Dan feels. I was mucking with my computers (I have three) and screwed up the one I use for e-mail. I use linux OS’s rather than windows XP when using e-mail as that makes me immune (mostly) to most e-mail viruses, and my XP computer runs better for a longer period of time. I was reconfiguring stuff on my Debian Linux and kinda broke the windows server- i.e. the graphics interface blah. blah. blah. It’a quite fixable, but I got distracted by something else. Hey, look at that chichen!

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 7, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - March 7, 2006

  22. Q. How many kids with ADHD does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A. Wanna play soccer?

    Comment by V the K — March 7, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - March 7, 2006

  23. So, whatever happened to Steve Kemetko?

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 7, 2006 @ 1:51 pm - March 7, 2006

  24. Brokeback cry babies

    I’ve taken the liberty of compiling some of the more stupid explanations on why Brokeback Mountain did not win best picture:

    1) Author and “Brokeback” co-screenwriter Larry McMurtry thinks that because most Academy voters are from urban areas, th…

    Trackback by Pot and Kettle — March 7, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - March 7, 2006

  25. Can we please, for the love of CHRIST, let the whole Brokeback-Mountain-Crash-Academy-Awards-Hollywood-sucks thing go for JUST ONE F*CKING WEEK?!?!?!?

    Pretty please?

    Otherwise, I’m coming back here with an assault rifle and my copy of Catcher In The Rye.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 7, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - March 7, 2006

  26. Dear 19,

    Careful there! I lived in England for seventeen years. One of the things I so admired about the English was their “who cares?” sang-froid. They were amused by who and not what you were. Now involved in American higher education, I can scarcely express how much my countrymen sometimes annoy me as everyone must be a part of a larger social category. This dirigism settles on only two viable campus “gay” identities: cooing couples (mostly lesbian) and “activists for social change” (a few men here). Nothing wrong there, but it is rather limiting of human emotional and sexual – not to mention social – response. So, characteristically, the campus gay, lesbian et cetera group organized an advanced showing of “Transamerica” but didn’t know what to do about Brokeback. (Yes, this post is still about that film.) They felt its “message” was “unclear.” “Unease,” “unease”!

    Similarly, either BBC or Channel 4 over there (can’t remember which) did a two-hour documentary on Bogarde six or seven years ago. Beautifullly done – the English do them well – with constant but subtle references about Bogarde’s sexuality – often from the man himself, known there as much as a writer as an actor. Everyone had always known. That fact was just THERE. No fuss. No politization. I have a video copy of the show somewhere which, alas, won’t play on American machines. To do something similar, non-politically, on Rock Hudson (who never lived with a man at the top of his fame as Bogarde did and when it was a crime) would, I think, be an invitation for a lightning strike in the culture wars.

    “Hot kiss”? Don’t really remember it. Was that the one in the distance when the wife spied him in the Office? Whereas that second encounter in the tent …!

    And “Maurice.” Not his best but I think it caught well the confused – sometimes cheerfully indifferent – sexuality of adolescent public school and Oxbridge men of that time and later. Lots of hanky-panky goes on or is wink-winked away. When I was a don in Cambridge, a don over at King’s, where Forster had been a Life Fellow and where the novel and film were set, used to have a little club that met on Friday’s for champagne before dinner though the host tended to pass out well before High Table. These were marvelously strange occasions for an American. The dons could get in if they were clever or important (on a good day I could pass for the latter). The undergraduate members – only men and always invited for their charm or looks – considered the invitation (“jackets or lounge suit”) the acme of social prestige in the College, intensely fought for. I doubt whether any were gay. No one cared. Everyone there was there to “have a laff” as the English say. The married Provost of the College even would sometimes turn up. I can still see one of the world’s great scholars of Oriental Languages, aged now, slumping, nearly drunkenly passed out on a window seat in the Gibbs Building, just finishing up a story about an elaborate encounter with an Indonesian hustler – decades before – which involved rimming in some obscure way. The Captains of the College Eight and the University Rugby Club looked on with bewildered fascination – or at least acute patience. The latter later named this Professor the godfather of his first child. This was six years or so ago.

    I can only imagine how many “cathode ray tubes” that tableau would burst in my present university. Doubtless we’d be arrested for some non-existent crime. But rounding back to Brokeback, these various tales show that the complex sexuality (and friendship) among men doesn’t easily fit under labels, and the story and film showed that, disturbingly to some folks even the bien-pensants of Tinseltown.

    Comment by Tom — March 7, 2006 @ 2:42 pm - March 7, 2006

  27. “They were amused by who and not what you were.”

    If what you are is what determines your accent, I think the British pay quite a bit of attention to that.

    But your main point is valid. All these strict categories and theorizing about how no-one can really be bisexual is really all about closing ranks for a fight and keeping people in uniform. And there is a fight.

    Comment by Jim — March 7, 2006 @ 3:05 pm - March 7, 2006

  28. OT:

    Jack Allen – be sure to click this discussion here.

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 4:16 pm - March 7, 2006

  29. lol. accents are importent everywhere. What does Higgins say in Pygmalion about being able pin down where a man comes from, to within three blocks, by his accent? Bad paraphrase.
    I wonder what he’d make of “nookuler”?

    As for the kiss. It was in the office as I remember. And it was hot.

    Perhaps the heat had cooled from Maurice by the time it was published.

    Oh and Tom, you do know that the french don’t bathe, and the scots are stingy . Right?:)

    Comment by hank — March 7, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - March 7, 2006

  30. Comments on Sullivan’s take on the Cato luncheon today?

    http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

    Comment by Gene — March 7, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - March 7, 2006

  31. Gene, Sully-the-whiner gets it wrong, once again.

    It’s the tired old shell game played out by the same cadre of wanna-b-fiscal tightwads during the RR Admin who argued that RR’s spending preferences whacked the deficit into the ether… without noting that it took a lot of money to reverse the rotten approps decisions of Carter and his anti-military ilk in Congress, that a 600 ship Navy and new weapons systems and the StarWars Initiative were needed to bring the Soviets to their knees and capitulation –finally ending a long Cold War started by appeasing, gutless Democrat leaders after WWII.

    Same with GeoBushII Admin; only this time it’s a global War on Terror and two major military actions in the MiddleEast… but let’s just overlook that aspect of national budgeting because it’s more fun to try to drive a wedge between GeoBushII and the fiscal conservatives in his Party.

    And for Sully to even suggest AlGore, the whore of every moneyed interest, would have been more fiscally prudent is like arguing that if we had left Saddam in power, he’d have been a good guy and not gassed his people, not laid plans for intern’l attacks with BinLaden, and kept a lid on those pesky religious emotions that bring us to today’s Iraq. With AlGore, we’d have HillaryHealthCareLite, the military would be cut back to Carter era times, and we’d still be in the hole except corrupt urban mayors like Nagin and Kilpatrick would have more money… yeah, things would be “better”.

    At some point, Sully’s intellectual dishonesty needs to be brought to his attention and he needs an intervention by peers on truth. Where’s the Sully Truth Squad?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 7, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - March 7, 2006

  32. Yes — Sully’s missing the point. Sully and the other faux-conservative crew who have suddenly rediscovered “fiscal sanity” as their anti-Bush mantra need to realize that what they advocate is the societal equivalent of “deferred maintenance”.

    The Medicare prescription drug plan is an excellent example. Medicare is split into three parts — Part A, which is hospitalization and is mandatory, Part B, which is health insurance and is optional, and now Part D, which is prescription drug coverage and is optional.

    Now, consider this; the point of taking prescription drugs, i.e. cholesterol-lowering drugs, is because it reduces the risk of more-severe issues, i.e. heart attacks. Heart attacks, or other serious conditions require hospitalization and continuing care covered under Part A — which has to be paid and is far more expensive than paying for the prescription drug regimen.

    So, in short, if you pay up front for prescription drugs, you lessen the risk of requiring more-expensive care later. Moreover, since Part D is covered partially by premiums (Part A is not), there is a cost recapture as well.

    Meanwhile, Part D is shifting the burden of retiree drug costs, which are among the most expensive costs one can carry, away from businesses and to government. This frees up potential funds for business reinvestment and/or coverage expansion for younger workers.

    Same with No Child Left Behind. It is cheaper to put in place a testing regimen and supports to make sure children don’t fall through the cracks than it is to support them later on welfare.

    Again, this is akin to the choice of every homeowner — do you spend a little on maintenance each year, or do you wait until disaster strikes and you have to replace something? The more-prudent answer from a financial standpoint is to maintain now rather than pay for huge damages later; the $500 overflow pipe and pan for the hot water heater may hurt now, but the $5,000 carpet and floors replacement job required when it explodes while you’re on vacation is far worse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 7, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - March 7, 2006

  33. NDT — we are constantly being told that the government needs to spend more money now to “save money in the long run.” But, somehow, the government just seems to spend ever large amounts of money regardless. Maybe government should think about saving money in the short term, since those long-term savings never seem to materialize.

    That said, I think Andrianna Sullington is full of crap. He didn’t seem so concerned with restraining government spending when he endorsed John Kerry… a man who wanted to spend two trillion dollars more than Bush.

    Comment by V the K — March 7, 2006 @ 7:42 pm - March 7, 2006

  34. I’m actually a bit delighted about Brokeback Mountain not receiving the Best Picture award. In addition to the many positive things about this film, it has now garnered the unique status of being the best film to “lose” an Academy Award for Best Picture. The absolutely stunned response and aftermath of commentary only further solidifies its status as an important story that will be remembered for many years to come.

    But, I keep in mind that in the end, its just a movie.

    Comment by Kevin — March 7, 2006 @ 8:14 pm - March 7, 2006

  35. michigan matt, never said no one watching, just that there was no compelling reason for the black people who watched last year to watch this year, even if we are homosexual love story friendly. last year we tuned in to watch c. rock, and maybe j. foxx. this yr. we had nothing.

    as for as you state the:
    gay-friendly str8 households who rushed out to see BBM and to support, validate, and enrobe us in the warmth of that long awaited empathy for our love story

    they were watching the Oscars last year and will watch again next year and the year after that

    Comment by ralph — March 7, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - March 7, 2006

  36. More later as I enjoy my cramped MD-80 flight from Charlotte to St. Louis.

    If you flew CO, you wouldn’t have that problem.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 8, 2006 @ 5:24 am - March 8, 2006

  37. Um…why is it when one clicks onto some names in these comments, one is directed to a blog, other names get an adertisement?

    Comment by Gene — March 8, 2006 @ 9:24 am - March 8, 2006

  38. ralph, to steal a line appropos of W, “Ralphie, you’re a crack up in sheer misunderstandishments”. I made those points in parody.

    As for the issue of last year’s “Oscars were the first time ever” that black households were watching, you’re also wrong. You seem to be forgetting all those Shaft nominations in 1980’s, the Oprah nominations, the Color Purple nominations, the extended MTV film featuring he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned-but-used-to-b-Prince and countless other times “da peoples” had some color on da stage.

    And I’m not being racist here; you’re the one who raised the spectre that blacks don’t watch unless blacks have a chance to grab at the brass ring, or host.

    So you really think that black households –less than 11% of US population– made a difference on Oscar viewing night? You seem to dismiss that Oscars have been losing share for the last 9 of 10 years… and this year was even lower.

    Nope, I think it has more to do with Oscars being all about politically correct indoctrination films than popular success… it sure as Hell ain’t about “art”.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 8, 2006 @ 9:41 am - March 8, 2006

  39. I don’t support hate crime legislation. But this makes me wonder.
    What do you think?
    http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4599539

    Comment by hank — March 8, 2006 @ 10:41 am - March 8, 2006

  40. Hank, thanks for the link.

    Hate-crime legislation might make me feel good, but they’re after the fact. Probably they don’t work–death penalties have not stopped murders.

    Until whatever allows people to find some justification in committing crimes against other persons is addressed, nothing will change.

    Nobody commits a crime thinking they’ll get caught. (I hope!)

    Such legislation only gives legislators and constituents a false hope, albeit a comforting one at the time.

    Comment by Gene — March 8, 2006 @ 11:00 am - March 8, 2006

  41. I agree with with you. But this really pisses me off.

    Comment by hank — March 8, 2006 @ 11:18 am - March 8, 2006

  42. As well it should. But we need to channel that sort of thing into making sure the existing laws are enforced fairly and completely, rather than setting up a legalized caste system based on victim status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 8, 2006 @ 11:51 am - March 8, 2006

  43. Yes I know. I have to agree, but these morons even bragged about beating up the “mother fucking faggot”.
    And this what the military finds “fit” to serve?

    Comment by hank — March 8, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - March 8, 2006

  44. Today is Cyd Charrise’s 85th birthday. Watch Singin in the Rain.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 8, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - March 8, 2006

  45. Is that Cyd Charrise in the slo-mo night club number?

    Comment by hank — March 8, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - March 8, 2006

  46. #43 – So, would your overall point be that the military is bad? Or that it has some criminals? Or it needs better recruiting standards?

    Asking because you emphasize your personal opposition to hate crimes legislation, and you must know that you’ll get no debate on GP about the badness of criminal acts and gay-bashing… it’s hard to know, then, what response you’re looking for.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - March 8, 2006

  47. Malin (Democrats’ Gannon, as Bruce has blogged earlier) was defeated yesterday in the primary for the House seat he was running for.

    PlanetOut’s article said:

    Darlene Ewing, chairwoman of the Dallas County Democratic Party, said Malin’s prostitution history made the difference “because Malin was certainly the more articulate of the candidates and knew the issues better.”…

    [Malin said of his opponent’s victory] “I respect the choice that the voters made. I think Jack Borden is an example of everything the Democratic Party stands for.”…

    Jack Borden told the PlanetOut Network he believes Malin was in the campaign simply to run against him. “Nobody heard of him until he filed,” Borden said…

    It sounds like there are some hard feelings. In that light, I can’t decide if Malin’s endorsement of the victor is exactly ringing. I mean, you could take it 2 ways, LOL 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - March 8, 2006

  48. michy matt, i realize that your comments were in parody, but as my boy gp knows, people can ignore the parody, esp when it ain’t all that and a bag of chips. (altho gp tends to do well with parody). and i also gather that with a mere 13% of the population hollywood can easily ignore us and still make bank. my point was mo’ specific to a part of the decline from 05 to 06. more goes into it, but yeah the brothas ain’t watchin.

    would like to get some of that stuff u smokin’ shaft was early 70’s, no one expected whoopi to win, cp was a spielberg production, and with two black actresses in the supporting role, lets just say it seemed like a long shot.

    politically correct indoctrination please. if the movie was good then it was good awards aside. hell homicide was the best damn show on tv but it got nothing on emmy night.

    i haven’t seen either crash or bbm cause frankly i want to know why people are hatin. as all the press i’ve read pretty much state bb was not too good not to be better

    actu

    Comment by ralph — March 8, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - March 8, 2006

  49. “I think Jack Borden is an example of everything the Democratic Party stands for.”

    And, as a prostitute, he speaks with some authority on the topic.

    Comment by V the K — March 9, 2006 @ 7:29 am - March 9, 2006

  50. Is that Cyd Charrise in the slo-mo night club number?

    Uh, yes. With the LONG legs. See here for pics and a bio.

    And turn in your queer card.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 9, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - March 9, 2006

  51. 50
    I turned it in a long time ago;)

    Comment by hank — March 9, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - March 9, 2006

  52. Excuse me, but isn’t anyone else out there a bit miffed at all this self-proclaimed “sacrifice” and heroics from a homosexual who has placed himself in the military? Sounds very narcissistic to me.

    Dan in Baltimore

    Comment by dan cobb — March 9, 2006 @ 6:35 pm - March 9, 2006

  53. You’re “miffed” at somebody else explaining their career choice, by invitation? Just don’t read it.

    Actually Dan, from your statement you are the one who sounds narcissistic.

    Comment by Calarato — March 9, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - March 9, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.