Signs , Symbols and Prideful Assumptions....

Well now... It's been a pretty exciting  couple days.

The two recent United States Supreme Court rulings on the issue of Marriage Equality have prompted intense reaction  from all parts of the  political and social spectrum.    For proponents of equal rights, Wednesday's court victories  marked a historic  turning point in the LGBT civil rights struggle.   The two rulings which  stuck down Section 3 of the so-called  "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), and upheld a lower court ruling in California , striking down CA Proposition 8 were greeted with joy and celebration in many quarters.  The reaction in my old stomping grounds of San Francisco was jubilant.



Over on the  far right wing  of American social-politics,  there was considerably less joy.... The favorite talking point over the past  24 hours has been how granting equal rights to  Gay and Lesbian Americans is going somehow cause Straight "Christians" to be  "bashed" or taken to court for their beliefs.     Our favorite American Taliban spokesnut, and dementia patient,  Pat Robertson  drives the  Waaaambulance full speed to crazy town...

We will set  aside  for a moment,  the  ridiculous notion at  any straight person has ever been bashed by gay people  for their sexual orientation or beliefs. The death toll  of  LGBT Americans who have been killed in the name of Robertson's  twisted and sick  abuse of religion could fill hundreds of blog entries.   Rather it is  the  idea  that  people who opposed  marriage equality are  now somehow victims of some sort of "judicial attack" that I find interesting,

In response to this, a popular  graphic/meme has sprung up on the internet  making the point that opponents of equality were never able to prove how ending  discrimination against Gays and Lesbians hurts them.

One side aspect of this whole recent  Supreme Court saga has been how various sides have expressed themselves through social media platforms, most notably on Facebook and Twitter.  The Human Rights Campaign started an online trend where their familiar Blue and Yellow  equal sign logo was turned red and white (red for valentines/love and white for marriage)  and urged people to adopt the modified logo as their social media profile picture.   Hundreds of thousands of people, including Eric and I,  did.

While scrolling through facebook today  I  happened upon the profile of an old friend of mine.  He is the younger brother of an old of friend of mine, with whom I am no longer in touch.  The elder of the two, lives and  works in a fairly conservative world and promptly ended our more than twenty-five year  friendship when he found out I was Gay.   As many others  who have gone through the coming out process can attest,  there are friends who you lose as a result of being honest,  I don't fault them,  it's just part of life.

His younger brother, however  while fairly conservative  on some issues,  like the  2nd Amendment and Gun Rights,  had always seemed  more progressive  on  other social issues.  So I was somewhat surprised to see this graphic on his Facebook Profile, with the caption; "I'll see your red equality sign & raise you a blue one.  :) "

The argument being that  where showing support for LGBT rights is okay, to express the same sentiment about heterosexuals  is considered to be bigotry.   Sigh...  Every June, during  LGBT Pride Month, at some point this ridiculous argument  always pops up, and I always amazed to see it put forward by otherwise  rational  people.

It is the idea that  an overwhelming majority point of view is somehow under attack if any other point of view is given any credence.   It is the insane notion that  somehow my marriage  is an attack on his.   That by my having  equal rights,  his rights are diminished.    I have news for my friend.   EVERY month is  "Straight Pride Month".   My friend has never  been  discriminated against because of his sexuality,  he has never been denied any of the rights  and privileges of being an American because he is Straight,   His Marriage ( not his first I would add..)  has never been subjected to public vote.    He  has never faced  having to leave the United States simply to be with person he is married to.     No one has ever said  he should be ashamed of being straight,  or  that  God hates him for loving who he loves.

Yet my friend, and others who have posted the aforementioned graphic,  somehow can't see, how given the reality  of their lives, how the idea of "Straight Pride"  seems as redundant, as ridiculous and as offensive  as  "White Pride" does to many people of color.  

I have blinding flash of the obvious for my friend;  When the entire world is geared to affirm who and what you are, when most every movie, book,  TV Show,  song on the radio and cultural "norm" supports  your sexual orientation;  saying that others who are different from  you are okay too,  is NOT a viscous attack on you.  You are not being discriminated against,  you are not being attacked   you are not  a victim of "reverse bigotry".  

To claim that you are,  just makes you look remarkably stupid.

So we will go to  London's LGBT Pride celebration this weekend.  Because in a world where a straight kid  growing up doesn't need  to be told  that it's okay to like yourself for who you are,  a logo, or rainbow flag  carried in a parade celebrating  these historic court rulings, can send the  simple  message to LGBT people of all ages,  that  you are just fine the way  you are.   

Happy Pride Everyone...

DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

FROM
SCOTUSBLOG

UPDATE!   Ruling holding PROP 8  in CA unconstitutional is UPHELD!

Here is the Plaintiff's victory press conference

Here we go AGAIN - Playing the SCOTUS Waiting Game

As usual , The Onion nails it...

WASHINGTON—Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in an ongoing affirmative action lawsuit Monday, the impatient American public reportedly demanded that the nation’s highest court stop jerking around with all these other cases and just get to the gay stuff already. “Screw all these other cases, man, we’re ready for the real stuff—you know...the gay stuff,” said Indianapolis resident Eric Newcomb, 36, just one of millions of restless Americans who claimed they are sick of waiting for the Supreme Court to pull the trigger on a gay rights decision, noting that the judicial body has already had “a solid three months” to consider the constitutional issues associated with homosexual marriage and same-sex partner benefits. “Seriously, stop wasting time with all these boring appeals nobody cares about and bring on the gays. I mean, do they honestly think anyone gives a shit about any other case?” At press time, the nation had thrown up its hands in frustration upon learning that the Supreme Court was currently preparing a 46-page opinion addressing the jurisdictional conflicts raised by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard not to think they are just attention seeking drama queens on the court, where SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States),  is going to have their moment in the spotlight no matter what. And I actually can understand that if it is the case, After all the President and Congress seem to get all the limelight, I really can't blame the Justices if they use this process as a not so subtle reminder that there IS a third branch of government., and by God... attention WILL be paid!!     That being said, it still seems needlessly overdrawn and even somewhat childish how they do it.

Allow me to also deliver a  small reality check for anybody who was annoyed that there weren't any "Death to DOMA" drink specials at the Big Apple Ranch, Sidetracks, Badlands or the Abbey last night, take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of bi-national same sex couples living oversees in DOMA Exile, for whom this decision literally will determine if we can ever return to  the United States, or those living in the U.S. who are facing the very real prospect of having to leave the country just to be with their spouse.

For folks like us, this whole waiting game just seems cruel....

The Daily Show tackles the myth of "anti-Christian bullying"

Brilliant....

The segment features right wing nutcase, Boise, Idaho, pastor and radio host Matt Slick attempting to make the case that Christians are becoming victims.

Defining Patriotism and Privacy in a Digital Age...

Press reports on both sides of the Atlantic have  been full of  stories about the revelations of American National Security "whistle blower"  Edward Snowden .

Snowden, a former U.S. Intelligence analyst,  spilled  the beans to the UK newspaper The Guardian, on  how  the US National Security Agency monitors electronic communications  all over the world in its efforts to thwart terrorism.    In a recent interview,  Snowden explained his motives.

Over here  in London,  the government has been quick to  say to anyone with a microphone that  civil liberties  of people living int he UK  were not violated, and "appropriate safeguards"  were in place at all times.   Uh... okay.   They of course can't say what those safeguards actaully are,  because  that's...  you know...  secret n' stuff.   

Meanwhile  back in the  United States, the same folks who were all for spying on pretty much everyone in the name of  "homeland security" back during the Bush Administration  are now,  ( wait for it....) "shocked and deeply concerned" over  what the government has been doing!

I'll be honest,  I have always just assumed  that in a post 9-11 world, the government was monitoring  everybody,  and  using PRISM, or  whatever the system is called to  search for keywords,  I.P. addresses and  suspicious activity  between people with known or  possible links to terror groups.  And I realize I am going to horrify my libertarian friends when I say...  I am pretty much okay with that...   I know  many of you  right now are screaming the  Ben Franklin quote about  liberty and safety  at  your computer screens  and  wondering why  I am not more worried about  this intrusion on our right to privacy.

Let's be clear,  I never said I wasn't worried about it,  I never said I liked it.   I am saying I have accepted it as a necessary evil.  And yes, there needs to be clear and full congressional oversight of these programs to ensure the needed safeguards for  civil liberties.  I would remind folks that  it was  the Bush Administration's lack of interest in  intercepted "chatter"  that was at least partly responsible for America being caught unaware and unprepared for the attacks of September 2001.    

Which is why, even though  I may not be joining the call to storm the NSA with pitchforks and torches.  Yet at the same time,   I also am not ready to agree with those  who say  Edward Snowden, and the American Journalist Genn Greenwald,  (who broke his story),  are traitors.  Clearly  Snowden, (rightly or wrongly)  felt  that there were not adequate safeguards or  oversight structures in place  at the NSA  to protect the civil  liberties of  all the people who's emails, phone calls, and  web usage is being monitored.  

It is very easy to side with the argument that  "if you have nothing to hide,  this shouldn't bother you..."  and there is a certain logic to that,  yet   the flip side of that  argument is the issue of privacy.   Don't we all have the right NOT to have our lives examined by total strangers?   I'll  say  what bothers me the  most  in that interview with Snowden,  is the revelation that wasn't the Government  was possibly reading my email, but rather  Booz Allen Hamilton, a private corporation that  was doing all this, as a Government contractor.    

Am I saying I trust  the  Government more than I trust a private company?  Yeah, pretty much.    The Tea Party may think government is the problem,  but the sheer lack of accountability Snowden describes is pretty unsettling.   

So  what about the question of Patriotism here?  Are Snowden and Greenwald  traitors?   Well, motives aside,  Snowden is a criminal.   He broke the law. And Glenn Greenwald, aided and abetted that criminal activity  We can, and many will,  argue the nobility of  their  reasons, and  even argue over the right or wrong nature of the laws they  broke,  but  the fact remains,  they did break the law.     The real question is;  have they  put the country, or  any person, other than themselves  in danger because of  their actions?   If you listen to voices on the poltical right in the  United States,  you would certainly think so.

Fox News  certainly  has it's own ideological  tint on all this,  but  it raises the question,  are Snowden and Greenwald  heroes who have struck a blow for  all of our civil liberties,  or are they traitors who have but the lives of Americans and  National Security at risk.   You can  make a very convincing case for both.  Yet it is worth noting,  Fox News had no problem with  the outing of CIA Agent  Valerie Plame Wilson, by the Bush Administration,  and never once asked if  Scooter Libby and his boss,  Vice President Dick Cheney should be charged with Treason. 

An interesting  side story to all this,  is  the background of the Journalist who broke the story.   Glenn Greenwald .  He is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian Newspaper . A former constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon. He is the author two recent books, highly critical of the use of executive power and the Patriot Act,  by the Bush Administration.  

Another interesting fact about  Greenwald, who is Gay,  is he also is living in DOMA  (Defense of Marriage Act)  Exile.   He was forced to move to Brazil because his relationship with his Brazilian partner is not recognized by the U.S. Federal Government for immigration purposes.   Greenwald and his partner were recently profiled by  OUT Magazine where they told their story..

"Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition," says Greenwald, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act with the disdain he typically shows for policies he believes are eroding Americans' freedoms. Greenwald's attacks on the powerful make him a tempting target for reprisals. So it's no surprise that, soon after he started blogging, critics sometimes tried to out him in a game of "gotcha." But what upset Greenwald was the implication that he had been closeted in the first place. "There was nothing to out," he says. "I've been as out as I can be since I was 20."

CNN's Christiane Amanpour also featured Greenwald on her program

A Canadian friend of mine here in London  asked me an interesting question yesterday;  Did I think that  having to live as a DOMA Exile  may have colored Greenwald's  attitudes towards the U.S. Government,  in  a way where he maybe didn't  look as critically at the impact of breaking this story, as he might have otherwise?   In other words  did I think Greenwald might have taken some personal satisfaction  in punishing the Government that currently is treating him as  2nd class citizen, and his partner as non-existent?    I  don't have access to Greenwald's though process so I can't answer that.  However,   I will be honest enough to say it's possible.

Like most Americans,  I want the U.S. Government to do what is necessary to keep people safe and to thwart  potential threats.  These recent revelations  give  the American People a chance to examine and perhaps more clearly define  what  "doing what is necessary" actually entails.    In the meantime,  both Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald  may well be thinking of another famous quote from Benjamin Franklin...

You know it's the Tony Awards when...

The opening number STOPS THE SHOW.....

From the Huffington Post...

Neil Patrick Harris was host at 67th annual Tony Awards on Sunday night, marking the fourth time Harris has acted as ringmaster for the prestigious celebration of Broadway. That veteran status wasn't lost on him: "Stick with me, your emcee's a seasoned pro," Harris sang during the 2013 Tony Awards opening number, a raucous performance that included everything from jokes about Shia LaBeouf, Alec Baldwin and Tom Hooper's "Les Miserables" close-ups to a pretty serious magic trick to even Mike Tyson. (The former champ was the star of a one-man show on Broadway last fall.) In short, Harris owned all.

When Words Lose Their Meaning...

It's June,  and that means LGBT Pride month.  To mark this  the White House released  the President's 2013  pride month proclamation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

For more than two centuries, our Nation has struggled to transform the ideals of liberty and equality from founding promise into lasting reality. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans and their allies have been hard at work on the next great chapter of that history -- from the patrons of The Stonewall Inn who sparked a movement to service members who can finally be honest about who they love to brave young people who come out and speak out every day.

This year, we celebrate LGBT Pride Month at a moment of great hope and progress, recognizing that more needs to be done. Support for LGBT equality is growing, led by a generation which understands that, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." In the past year, for the first time, voters in multiple States affirmed marriage equality for same-sex couples. State and local governments have taken important steps to provide much-needed protections for transgender Americans.

My Administration is a proud partner in the journey toward LGBT equality. We extended hate crimes protections to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender identity and repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We lifted the HIV entry ban and ensured hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients. Together, we have investigated and addressed pervasive bullying faced by LGBT students, prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Federal housing, and extended benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Earlier this year, I signed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the implementation of any VAWA-funded program. And because LGBT rights are human rights, my Administration is implementing the first-ever Federal strategy to advance equality for LGBT people around the world.

We have witnessed real and lasting change, but our work is not complete. I continue to support a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, as well as the Respect for Marriage Act. My Administration continues to implement the Affordable Care Act, which beginning in 2014, prohibits insurers from denying coverage to consumers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which addresses the disparate impact of the HIV epidemic among certain LGBT sub-communities. We have a long way to go, but if we continue on this path together, I am confident too that one day soon, from coast to coast, all of our young people will look to the future with the same sense of promise and possibility. I am confident because I have seen the talent, passion, and commitment of LGBT advocates and their allies, and I know that when voices are joined in common purpose, they cannot be stopped.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2013 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's lengthy, it's elegantly worded and as in years past,  a powerful testament to how far we have co.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz....    Oh sorry, I seem to have nodded off  the middle of this blog post.   Mostly because we have heard  all these wonderful words before.    

Yes they are truly, wonderful, powerful and  inspiring words.    There is the problem.   On the key issues  facing the LGBT community that is  pretty much all we have had lately.   Just words.   The most recent example of this being the  Comprehensive  Immigration Reform bill (CIR) currently  working it's way through the  United States Senate.  On the issue of inclusion of  same sex couples into this key piece of legislation,  the President  has been full of  the right words.  

At a recent press conference while on a state visit to Mexico, the subject of immigration  was front and center,  the President was clear and eloquent (again)  with his wonderfully supportive words.  

It is also worth noting, that all these clear  statements of support are invariably followed up with the caveat , of how  not everyone "is going to get everything they want .."  type language.   It's hard not to become cynical when hearing  that.     It usually means that when  the President later fails to put the weight of the  executive branch behind those wonderful words, he can take cover  behind  the banner of  "bi-partisanship".  When in fact,  the truth is,  both the President and  Congressional Democrats  simply gave in to  GOP demands.    

Which is exactly what happened  in the US Senate when faced with the choice to live up to their wonderful words.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The President  could have  used the weight of the  White House to  pressure  the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to  hold their ground  on  the Leahy Amendments.   Now, I understand the  process that led  up to the massively disappointing  decision by Democrats to abandon  the provisions of  Same Sex couples that Senator Leahy has sough to include in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.   Yet  the facts are  it was an abandonment,   done  in the hopes of appeasing  Republicans who had threatened  to kill the bill  in the name of their own bigotry.

The Facts are,  the Democrats caved.  What's more, they caved  when they  had no good reason to do so.   The Republican Party is  a national  non-starter for  Latino voters.  The GOP desperately needs  CIR  to pass,  so they can  try to  convince  this crucial electoral demographic  that they really don't  hate them.    

Senators  Feinstein, Durbin, Schumer and Franken should have held their ground and called the Republican's  bluff.   It would have forced the GOP to vote on their own homophobia,  essentially forcing  the Republicans in the Senate,  (and  eventually the  House of Representatives as well,)  to  make a very public choice.   The choice between their long term electoral viability as a National Party, and their obsession with  hating  Gays and Lesbians.  

If the  GOP really is so stupid as to kill the bill  on this issue,  it  would have set the racism and homophobic bigotry of  the Republicans as the central issue for  for the  2014 midterms, a debate Democrats would have easily won.   Instead,  the Democrats, with the tacit approval of the White House, have  turned the clock back to  2009  and sent a very clear message to GOP that  all they have to do to effectively block  the President's legislative agenda is simply threaten to say No.

Like many,  I am always happy to hear wonderful words,    Yet there comes a point when words are not enough.   I am deeply disappointed with the Democrats choice to capitulate  to Republican fear-mongering  as quickly and as easily as they  did.

The BSA takes it's first step into the 21rst Century....

Click to enlarge

This is a first step,  (Okay,  it's an imperfect, legally problematic and contextually offensive first step that basically says;  a 17 years, and 364 day old gay person is just fine, but  24 hours later that same person is now a threat to kids..?! )   

But it IS a step FORWARD none the less. Because of the decision made today the policy on banning gay adult Scouters will very likely collapse under the weight of its own stupidity in next few years. I heard from a number of people who were "in the room" during the vote, and the fact that it passed with 61% is telling where attitudes of the BSA Membership is heading.

 I know advocates for equality would rather have had  a full victory rather than a partial one here, but the BSA was at a true crossroads yesterday, and despite hiking at a slow pace, they overwhelmingly chose the path that goes forward. No small thing, that.

Bernard Waber Beloved Author Of ' Lyle the Crocodile' Dies At 91

I was saddened to read of  Waber's passing.  Lyle the Loveable Crocodile was one my favorite bedtime stories when I was a child.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(via the Associated Press)

NEW YORK — Bernard Waber, the author of such children's favorites as "The House on East 88th Street" and "Lyle, Lyle Crocodile," has died.

Waber died May 16 at his Long Island home after a long illness, publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt announced Monday. He was 91.

Waber's "warmth, energy, artfulness, elegance, and abiding respect for children were epitomized in his books," Houghton's senior vice president and publisher of books for young readers, Betsy Groban, said in a statement. His 33 books have sold 1.75 million copies, the publishing company said.

Waber debuted as an author in 1962 with "The House on East 88th Street," which introduced readers to the loveable Lyle, first spotted in a bathtub in an Upper East Side brownstone. Lyle's story continued in "Lyle Finds His Mother," "Lyle and the Birthday Party" and other works. Waber also wrote many non-Lyle books, such as "Ira Sleeps Over," in which a boy fears he'll be teased for bringing a favorite stuffed teddy bear to a friend's house.

Waber was a native of Philadelphia and a graduate of what was then known as the Philadelphia College of Art.

He is survived by his brother, three children and four grandchildren. His final book, "Lyle Walks the Dog," was a 2010 collaboration with his daughter, Paulis.

Funny Odd Film Review - Star Trek Into Darkness

In 2009  director JJ Abrams confidently  strolled into a cultural  lions den, by re-imagining  one of the most iconic  franchises  in not just science fiction,  but  in popular culture as a whole, with his "reboot" of Star Trek.

The film worked,  and it worked  really really well.  Yes,  hard core fans (of which it can be said, I am one...)   had our  nit-picky issues  with  the film, but  overall most  "trekkers"  accepted  that  this was something  NEW,  and  as such would be  very different  from  everything that came before.   And it worked,  it showed us characters and  concepts we thought we  knew by heart,  in a brand new context and gave Star Trek, a totally new  story arc.

 It also gave  Abrams and his team the  ultimate come back to  the criticisms of  uber-nerds  who  were horrified  at the changes. "It's a whole new timeline,  everything you are complaining about never happened in this universe, so get over it!" 

Like most Star Trek fans, I embraced it, and was eager to see where JJ Abrams would take us next. SPOILER WARNING- The following review will contain key plot points from the new movie, so if you haven't seen it and don't want to know what happens, don't read any further. Otherwise read on....

Star Trek Into Darkness,  is a  really  good  sci-fi action movie.   It is (mostly) well acted,  well directed and  visually  stunning.    I know you are  hearing  the  "but...."  that  is about to come, so before  we go there,  let me tell you  what  I really liked about this movie.

The Cast.  Most of  the  core cast  have  grown  into their characters  and  turn in strong and  believable performances.   Chris Pine's  Jim Kirk is   heroic,  human and  believable.   Likewise  Zac Quinto's Spock wonderfully takes  the elements we know and love from Leonard Nimoy's Spock, and combines that with the journey this "new" Spock  has taken  since the  destruction of  his home and family in the last movie.    Zoe Saldona kicks ass,  in a major way   giving  Uhura  the gravitas  and  depth  that  must  be  making  Nichelle Nichols  very  proud.  

Simon Pegg turns in a much stronger  and less cliche'd performance  as Scotty this time out,   and takes great strides in making the character his own.   I know that for many fans,   plot element of having Scotty  resign and leave the Enterprise , (over the potential risks posed by the new  "photon torpedoes")   is  unbelievable,  and something "Scotty would never do",  but  that's the point.   It is something  Jimmy Doohan's  Scotty would never do.   This Montgomery Scott,  hasn't  lived  that life, or  at least  not yet.   So  Pegg's  reboot of Scotty  works better this time around.


Bruce Greenwood brings a fatherly  presence as  Admiral  Christopher Pike and as the bad guy, "John Harrison"   Benedict Cumberbatch delivers the right balance of fire, ice  and mayhem.   Where you never really  believed   Eric Bana's  Romulan villain in the last movie  was  a serious threat to Kirk & Co.  "Harrison" (yes I know.. I keep putting his name quotes,  we'll get to that in a minute...)  is at the outset, a believable baddie.

So again,  Star Trek Into Darkness is a fun, entertaining, well made  Science Fiction Action movie.  But...   and here comes  the  "but".   This movie  simply does not work as a Star Trek film, even as a JJ Abrams "universe"  Star Trek film .    Abrams himself  said  he didn't make a movie for Star Trek fans, but rather for movie fans, and in that goal he has been very successful, but  as a Star Trek story,  the movie falls flat.  The most generous praise I can muster in this regard is, Into Darkness is to Stark Trek what "Quantum of Solace" was to James Bond.  A well made action movie that when taken in the context of its own cannon, makes absolutely no sense.

The script suffers from  a number of flaws,   John Cho,  Anton Yelchin, and Karl Uban  as  Sulu, Checkov and "Bones" McCoy,  all  try to make the best of what they are given.  Yet they can't seem to  make it work in this film.    Urban particularly  struggles to make his McCoy more than just crotchety,  but never quite gets there.

Then there are the  "Easter eggs".  A Hollywood phrase meaning small plot points or references hidden in the film  to be discovered along the way.  Inside Jokes if you will,  planted there for  Star Trek fans to find, that the average non-trekker  wouldn't  get.   These, while  amusing  for the most part,   come across as more post-it notes stuck on the movie that say "Look!  See!  It's a Star Trek reference! "     The biggest egg of course,  is the fact that  "John Harrison" is in fact  Khan.  Yes, as in "Star Trek II,  The Wrath of Khan ". The problem with this,  (well,  one of the problems, there are several...)  is while Cumberbatch is entirely believable as an ex-star fleet  special ops type hell-bent on revenge, he just is not convincing as Khan.

Which brings us to the  core problem  with this movie.  If you are going to reboot something  like Star Trek,   you have two choices. You either do a complete  re-imagining ,  as was done  with  Battlestar Galactica where  all the characters and their context is completely  changed, while putting them in basic key elements of the original cannon.

 Or,  you do as was done with Doctor Who,  you  totally redesign the look,  the feel, the sound,  but  stay  completely true  to everything that came before.   The problem with Star Trek Into Darkness,  is JJ Abrams is trying to  have it both ways.

The Easter eggs don't work. They come across as a forced rehash of Star Trek II. You can't have all the key characters be entirely recognizable as their original namesakes, and then pull out a villain we all know very very well, and completely re-image him.

 You can't redo the story from the best of the original cast films and expect it to work for Trek fans in this new context.  It feels fake, like the production team sat down and tried to think of things they could  just throw in  that would keep the Trekkers happy, while making a big budget  sci-fi action movie that  would appeal to the average movie-goer. 

Reversing the plot point of having  Kirk "die" from radiation in the engine room instead of Spock was powerfully acted and an emotional moment in the movie.   But  in the context of the story, it  was rendered  silly  when it turns out  all they need to do bring Kirk back from the dead is inject some of Khan's blood into him.  In his cameo as "Spock Prime", (another easter egg that felt forced)  Leonard Nimoy's Spock  tells  his  younger self  that  defeating  Kahn  for him and his shipmates  came at  great  cost. But in this film, while a visual roller coaster,  it all felt  just  too... easy.   

The musical score for the film by Michael Giacchino, continues the themes from the previous movie and works very well and at the end, incorporates the famous  opening bars of  Alexander Courage's  original theme.   The costumes look great, aside from the  ridiculous  dress gray starfleet uniforms with the silly over-sized caps. The Enterprise still looks like the Enterprise,  and we get to see the Klingons in this movie, forehead ridges and all.

So what's my verdict?  I really enjoyed  the movie.  It's a fun scifi roller coaster ride and  certainly  worth  going to see in the theatre and in 3D.   Yet  what is clear  from  this movie, is  JJ Abrams  needs to make a choice on which direction  he wants to take  Star Trek, because trying to go both forwards and backwards at the same time  just leaves you stuck.

Star Wars fans should take note.  JJ Abrams is set to take on that reboot next.

Thoughts on Minnesota Marriage

The "impressive clergyman" in the movie "The Princess Bride" put it best when he said "Marwiage is what bwings us togewer ... today!" The irony is, that now more than a decade into the twenty-first century, marriage and all the issues that surround it, are exactly what some folks feel is tearing America apart.

But first… let’s recap.

In the past 9 years there have been dizzying advances in Marriage equality, It started with Massachusetts back in 2004, then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome opened the floodgates on this issue when he began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in February that same year.
More than 18,000 couples got married between February 12 and March 11, 2004, before the courts stepped in an put a halt to it. 

This eventually led to the passage of and fight against, California Proposition 8. Leading up to the  Perry Case to have it tossed out as Unconstitutional . 

Fast forward to 2013.

Yesterday Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize marriage equality. Joining 11 other states and the District of Columbia in legalizing same-sex marriage, meaning that about 18 percent of the population of the United States has the option to marry regardless of gender.    So let’s see... none of those 11 states have slid into the sea, burst in hell fire and brimstone, it hasn't rained frogs or locusts and as far as I can tell not one heterosexual marriage has been “destroyed” by any same sex couple getting married.

Kind of makes you wonder what all the fuss is about?

Like many people, when I hear the pundits of talk radio and cable news say that same sex marriage is a “redefinition of marriage." I have to laugh. By that standard interracial marriages was a redefinition. Doing away with polygamy was a redefinition. Not treating women as property was a redefinition. None of these self-proclaimed defenders of marriage would ever tolerate what is the true definition of “traditional marriage

Saying that letting two people of the same gender get married would in any way "redefine" the marriages of heterosexuals, is the same thing as saying that equal rights for racial minorities would "redefine" being white. That argument is a smoke screen and a scare tactic, and not even the real issue, so spare me the stale talking point. It doesn't hold up to even basic fact checking. 

And spare me the tired fear mongering rhetoric that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophile marriages, sunspots and tooth decay. The has ONLY ever been about two and ONLY two consenting adults of no direct family relation. Find me the person who truly wants to marry their dog, and find me the dog who is over 18 years old, and can sign a marriage application and clearly say the words “I do”. 

 If Shaggy and Scooby show up in a Las Vegas chapel, I might take this argument seriously, but otherwise it just makes you look desperate and stupid.

Next we have the idea that opposing Marriage Equality is "defending the very fabric of society." How is the fact that two legal adults of no direct family relation being allowed to live in a stable, monogamous legally protected and, I might add, legally binding relationship in ANY way a threat to society? How is anyone's marriage harmed or even threatened by this? It isn't. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that 

Opponents of Marriage Equality had their day in court where they were asked to prove that marriages of heterosexuals would change if same sex couples were allowed to marry, and they couldn't produce even one shred of evidence to support the claim. So they fall back on “Its about Children!” The insane notion that allowing same sex couples to marry is “denying children a Mother and a Father”. Again, where that truly the case older and infertile couples should also be denied the right to Marry, and divorce should be illegal.

Funny you don’t see Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh banging on that drum….

Then we have the argument that we have to let people vote on whether or not a minority gets equal rights. Well by that logic we would still have slavery. If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1776 you had put independence to a popular vote it would have failed. We are a democratic republic, we elect our government officials to enact laws on our behalf. The idea that the majority gets to vote on the rights of a minority is the most Un-American concept ever. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So what is the real issue here? It's the truth. Or the lack of it, in this debate over marriage. First we need to say to those who claim we need to "defend marriage." Fine, let's talk about divorce then. Let's talk about adultery, let's talk about illegitimacy. If opponents to gay marriage are serious about defending this sacred institution, then divorce, a far greater threat to marriage, needs to be much harder to get. Adultery, a far greater threat to marriage needs to punishable by criminal prosecution. Fines and perhaps even jail time. Anyone who makes a child out of wedlock should then by law be forced to marry the other parent. Or if they are already married legally adopt the child.

Strom Thurmond has never been so lucky to be dead.

Any one who says they  want to "defend marriage" and does not support the provisions I just listed, are not interested in marriage. They just don’t like Gays and Lesbians, and want to deny them equal treatment under the law. Nothing more. Now let’s be clear, as an American you have the RIGHT to dislike anyone you want. You don’t have approve of same sex marriage. If you don’t want gay marriage, it's pretty simple,   don’t get gay-married. 

Yet the same United States Constitution that protects the right to hate who you want to hate, also protects MY right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the courts have ruled that my rights do not in any way infringe on yours, that means you don’t get to infringe on mine. Yet many on the cultural and political Right in the United States can’t seem to grasp this basic truth of our democracy, and continue to put forward the idea that equal rights for all Americans is somehow an attack on them.

It is time that we call these self-proclaimed defenders of marriage what they are. There is no difference between those who say marriage is sacred and must be defended against "gay attack", and those who said racial integration was a threat to America. Wearing a cross necklace and going on TV to say Gays and Lesbians are unfit to raise children is no different from wearing a white hood, and standing in front of a burning cross and saying "the darkies are coming for your daughters."

Saying America must be defended against a radical gay agenda, saying books like “Heather has Two Mommies” are dangerous, saying the media is controlled by a gay Mafia. This is no different from those who 70 years ago posted signs saying "Germans wake up! Don't buy from Jews!”.

Government saying an entire group of people are a threat to families, government saying who can and cannot get married or raise children, is no different from a Senator waving around a list of names of people who he wanted to government to say couldn't teach, make movies, write books, or work in science, medicine or law.

Attempts to legally create second class citizens are not new. We have seem them before. They had different names though. The inquisition, Jim Crow, “States Rights”, Reich Racial Purity Laws, the blacklist. It is time we call the people who are trying to do  this again, but to gays and lesbians what they really are. They are the inquisitors, they are the brown shirts of Krystalnacht, they are the Klansmen of Mississippi burning, they are the dogs on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they are Joe McArthy's committee. They are an affront to everything our nation has ever stood for.

They are the American Taliban. A small group of even smaller minds, who would seek to take religious beliefs and codify them into civil law, then force them on everyone else. They are completely un-American, and yesterday the great state of Minnesota joined the growing number of places in the United States that have soundly rejected them. 

To people of Minnesota, I say congratulations. To the Dobson’s, Fisher’s, Bachman’s and Brown’s of the world, I say welcome to the 21rst Century, how sad it must be to see your particular brand of snake oil isn’t selling anymore.

Catch Up Blogging....

Okay...  I admit  I have been neglecting  the blog  for  the past  few weeks,  I  don't  really have a good excuse , other than  I just  wanted to take  little break and  see how  the world unfolded  while I wasn't    paying direct attention.   While I've been  away from the keyboard  there are been a few interesting developments...

Delaware, Rhode Island  both legalized  same sex marriage, and as I write this,  the Minnesota State Senate is in it's final debate on the legalization of marriage equality in that state.    Meanwhile  the right wing nuts of the American Taliban  have pretty much slouched in to petulant  depression over  the forward march of the civil rights of people they don't like.  Clinging to the hope that States with anti-gay constitutional amendments will form a firewall for the preservation of bigotry.

Matt Baume in San Francisco  brings us up to date...



Which of course brings us to  the other front in the Marriage equality fight, where pretty much Everyone is in waiting mode...  Waiting for the United States Supreme Court  to  issue  rulings  on two key  cases.  The  Perry Case, which will decide the fate of  California's  anti-gay  Proposition 8, and the Windsor Case, which deals with the constitutionality of  sction 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA).  Both rulings are expected  by the end of June.

All of which has groups fighting for immigration rights  for  bi-national  same sex couples hopeful that the demise of DOMA  will help clear at least one path  for couples like us  to  sponsor our spouses for immigration  to the United States.   The other path is the comprehensive immigration reform effort currently in mark up  with the Senate Judiciary Committee.   The bill  is  intended  to  provide for increased  border security, added  immigration enforcement resources, a pathway to legal status  for the more than 11 million undocumented  immigrants currently living in the United States, and lastly,  provide for immigration rights for the non-american partners in bi-national same sex unions.

All good things right?  Who could  have a  problem with that?  Certainly not the Republicans, who after getting  seriously  trounced in the 2012 election, couldn't possibly want to further alienate Latino voters by trying to kill the first real effort at immigration reform since 1986, just so they can appease what is left of their base?   Or do they?

Cue Rachel with  the oh so predictable and inevitable spectacle of GOP bigotry.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Meanwhile my two favorite delusional wing nuts  Senators "Grampa Simpson"John  McCain, and "Waylon Smithers" Lindsey Graham, have respectively, gotten off his lazy-boy,  and poked his head out of his deep dark closet,  to claim that  any provisions for immigration rights for  same sex couples would "kill immigration reform".

Really?....  So just to be clear.   John McCain and his gal-pal Lindsey are willing  to  throw 11 million Latinos and Asians under the political bus, effectively ending any hope the GOP has of ever winning another national election,  just so they can show how much they hate same sex couples.

Wow... good luck with that one kids.    Oh wait,   here's the kicker.  That may actually work out for them, and get them what they want; Immigration Reform without any rights  for  same sex couples because... (wait for it....)  the  Democrats  have once again  seemingly forgotten they won the last election.  Now it is Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and MY own Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who are all too willing to trade rights for same sex couples in return for GOP playing nice.   John A, over at  Americablog  brings us all  the gory details.

Gay advocates had hoped that any immigration package would include the Uniting American Families Act, a bill that sought to put gay and lesbian couples on equal footing in the immigration system with heterosexual married couples. However, on Sunday afternoon, Sens. Schumer, Robert Menendez and Dick Durbin convened a conference call with gay rights groups to inform them that the legislation — at least the initial bill — will not include language to address LGBT concerns, a source familiar with the call told POLITICO.

“They blamed it on the Republicans…. Schumer was very matter of fact about it, very Machiavellian,” said the source, who asked not to be named. Gay advocates were told that Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) will offer an amendment in his committee to protect gay couples.

And in a classic first term-esque twister move,  the  Obama Administration  tries desperately  to  speak out of both sides of it's mouth on  this issue. Where words like  "bi-partisan" and "compromise"  once again  seem to mean,  "we are folding like a cheap card table, because we don't want the Republicans to be mean to us..."

To his credit,  Senator Leahy did  add two amendments the bill  incorporating  UAFA provisions into the bill.   It nice to see  at least one Democrat  who is willing to call the GOP's bluff, and make them choose between electoral  redemption and their own bigotry.

Computer Games and Visibility

I am not what you could call a “Gamer” by any stretch of the imagination. The only home video game system I had as a kid was the late 70’s early 80’s the epic commercial failure - RCA Studio II “home TV programming system”. It was about as basic and basic gets.

It had some simple built in games like ping pong, bowling and a very basic drawing/doodling program, and you could play others off of cartridges that you plugged into the console.   

During this time, my parents, were going through a phase in their approach to child rearing, I like to refer to as their “Stalinist thugs who didn't believe in joy” era. Hence their idea of fun computer games was essentially limited to the “schoolhouse” series of cartridges,

The 'games' included things like "History Quiz" and of course, Dad’s favorite , one thrilling and very exciting little gem called "Math Fun"...

Now I am not making this up. It was having to play “Math Fun” in tandem with one particularly incompetent 5th grade teacher that is largely responsible for my rabid aversion to mathematics which persists to this day.

A few years later my Dad noticed my interest in the works of the late, great Science Fiction/Comedy author Douglas Adams, (in whose honor this blog is named.) , and for Christmas in 1984 got me the interactive computer game for Adams’ book “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”.

In 1984 to say a computer game was “interactive” meant the display was all text. There were no graphics or sounds. The game roughly followed the basic outline of the story and featured a series of puzzles and quests, the solutions to which, were largely determined by actions and choices that you, the player made over the course the game.

I thought it was brilliant, and was hooked instantly. Even with no sounds or graphics I found the story, and the fact that my path through that story was in part determined by ME, to be irresistible. I would spend hours and hours on it.

Earlier this year, my Dad shared a story of how he and my Mother were concerned about the amount of time I was spending playing the game, and how it might be affecting my study skills. So late one night, after I had gone to bed, my Dad booted up the game and tried to play it. After a spending a futile two hours trying to get past the first puzzle, he told my Mom that if I could solve the problems in the game they needn't worry about my cognitive abilities.

HHG2TG  Game Screenshot

There was one real side effect of all this though. As a result, of being bored by the games we had with sound and animation, and getting practically addicted to a text-only experience, I never really got the “video game bug. “ 

Fast forward 15 years. While living in South Korea, my boyfriend at the time, introduced me to my first “modern” computer game. It was “Oddworld – Abe’s Odyssey” . It combined state of the art (for 1997) graphics with interactive story telling and it had a soundtrack. We would end up spending entire Saturdays playing it non-stop.

But that is pretty much where my experience with computer games ended. I have never owned a playstation, Nintendo or any other kind of gaming system. I haven’t really followed what was going on in the gaming world , and for the most part could mention only a handful of popular games, based on nothing more than having seen television commercials for them.

And, being honest, I didn't really know or care what I was missing. Computer games really were not something I was interested in or paid any attention to.

Then last year, Games makers Bioware and Electionic Arts (EA) released the third installment of their Mass Effect trilogy of games. For those of you who are not familiar with this, the “Mass Effect” games tell the story of the crew of the spaceship SSV Normandy, who have to save both Earth and the galaxy from being destroyed by a race of synthetic life forms known as “Reapers”.

The first two installments (Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2) take you through a series of adventures in the run up to what in the third game is an all out galactic war to save pretty much …well, everybody from the big bad reapers.

I immediately ran out and purchased the whole trilogy. Not because I was interested in shooting big ugly aliens and blowing up various pieces of space hardware, but rather because of news reports about the new customization options that were introduced with Mass Effect 3. In the first two games, you could always pick what gender wanted the main character to be.

There is both a Male and Female Commander Shepard. As such you were able to flirt with and have a relationship with, a whole selection of other characters in the games. But whereas flirting could go pretty much any way you wanted, (Male, Female, Human, Lizzard, whatever…) actually having a romantic relationship, was limited in games 1 and 2 just to opposite genders.  

Male & Female Commander Shepard

All That changed in Mass Effect 3. In the final installment your Shepard has the option for a romantic relationship with either a male or female partner.   You know what's coming...

 Right on cue, we have the oh-so-predictable outrage on the American wingnut conservative right….

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WED 04 APR 2012 7:49PM GMT / 3:49PM EDT / 12:49PM PDT 

EA is standing up for same sex relationships in games despite outrage from some

EA has been inundated in recent weeks with whatGamesIndustry International understands to be "several thousand" letters and emails protesting the inclusion of same sex or LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) content in its video games, most notably Mass Effect 3 and Star Wars: The Old Republic. When asked, EA confirmed that this has indeed been occurring, and unsurprisingly, EA has no plans to censor any of its games.

"Every one of EA's games includes ESRB content descriptors so it's hard to believe anyone is surprised by the content. This isn't about protecting children, it's about political harassment," Jeff Brown, VP of corporate communications told us.

The letters have been directed to EA's executive team, creative heads, its board of directors and just about anyone at a high level. Many of them threaten to boycott EA's titles if the publisher refuses to remove same-sex relationship content.

-------------------------------------------------

So essentially,  when I heard  the  American Taliban had it’s  knickers in a twist  over two soldiers of the same sex in a computer game falling in love while they save the galaxy,  how could I not run right out and buy it?   If for no other reason  than as  a vote of support  to  the makers of the game for  designing  inclusive content.

The discs sat on my bookcase for  three months  until  about two months ago I noticed them and figured  I may as well  try playing the game.   I installed  the needed odds and ends on my laptop and thought as I wasn't really all that interested in seriously playing the game  I'd just  jump in and start  with  Mass Effect 3.  I was intrigued to see who  made up the  voice cast .

Simply put the production values  were  incredible,  This is not  what I thought a computer game was.  This is  essentially a motion picture that you  are part of.     The thing  that  really grabbed me and would not let go,  was the story.   Just like in a  really good movie  you find yourself actually caring about what happens to  these characters.   Then there is the  added element of  the "customization options" that has the Wingnuts and on the right  so upset.     

The story arc  for  a same sex relationship is something you have to deliberately choose.  There isn't anyway you can accidentally  end up Gay in Mass Effect 3.    But  just like any good, believable  romantic story,  the same sex romantic plot line doesn't  force itself into the narrative.  If you choose to "go that way"  it progresses  as naturally  as you would expect any love story to,  

Only this one  also involves  blowing stuff up and saving the galaxy.  

I am thoroughly  enjoying my trip through the Mass Effect Universe and plan later this Summer when I have the time,  to go back and play the first two installments in the series.   I have no plans to become a "gamer", but  I can;t help but  be  grateful to  EA and Bioware for having the courage to make a game that  sends a clear message to  Gays and Lesbians  that they exist in the virtual  world too.