Nichts Besonderes

I've been meaning to publish this for... a long time.

2009-10-24T13:38:00.001-06:00

Enjoy.

Two Weeks - Grizzly Bear from Gabe Askew on Vimeo.

Actually i want to see this... oddly enough

2009-10-24T13:37:00.002-06:00

Kirk Cameron V the world

2009-10-16T02:58:00.000-06:00

Kirk Cameron and I have had our disagreements in the past. Indeed, we've almost settled the question: are we both human? No resolution yet on the gender question yet.

Actually Kirk and I disagree, respectfully on my part at least, when it comes to religion and more importantly: proselytizing your religion. I'm not one who feels you must go forth and convert the masses. K Cameron on the otherhand feels differently. Like so much of the bible, when skillfully read, you can make the point in either direction.

More importantly though, Kirk and I disagree on this nation. Which is HUGE. I am under the impression that separation of church and state established an important division of labour between the management of law in our nation and the adherence to your religious backing (either of g-d, al-ah, or other religious entity of preference). In doing so, not only was it established that religions of all works were free to coexist in this new union, but that the religion of not having one and even an ambivalence/lack of practicing a religion could exist peacefully. In exchange, the laws of the nation would be dictated by the people, not the religion.

In truth the second half (the laws of men not religion) is difficult to achieve completely. As it happens, when a rapid crowd believes fervently that... you cannot sell alcohol on Sundays, have your gay relationship recognized, adopt a child out of wedlock, or run a grocery store on the Sabbath (whichever day that is for your religion) - they tend to make laws that reflect this EVEN IF they are well aware that others (quite possibly a silent majority of the nation) do not agree with them.

And so too is my problem with K Cameron: he believes so much in his version of his faith that he feels the need to share it always and actively with others even to the suppression of rights for those that disagree with him. Now i have no issue with him having his beliefs, or sharing them. There is however a fine line between sharing what you feel is the truth and converting the masses to your brand of thought by force. (Which some might feel Nichts Besonderes does as well - except I am happy to agree to disagree with you on just about everything (civil equality notwithstanding obviously).

His latest escapade is an effort to persuade people to his ideology in a method that is not entirely honest. Rather than bore you with more words, here is a video clip on the subject. You can find his version out there too. Enjoy:

It keeps getting better

2009-09-10T01:34:00.000-06:00

Here's some more marriage nom nom goodness to watch:

Brian Brown, take II

2009-09-10T01:16:00.000-06:00

Yes, this is the man i'm afraid of instead of Fred Phelps.

Vote NO

2009-09-09T20:52:00.000-06:00

Or your babies will all die of herpes, in back allies.

Legos + Stop Animation = ... pt 1

2009-09-08T03:42:00.002-06:00

I'm still a sucker for these:

We shouldn't worry about the next Fred Phelps.

2009-09-07T21:19:00.000-06:00

A lot of people are worried about who shall become the next Fred Phelps or James Dobson. It's not the next Pat Robertson. No, it's the Brian Brown's of the world that I worry over. Mr Brown, for the missing, is a leader within NOM. The Mr Browns of the world are sane and articulate. They are capable and credible. Not only are they fluent and level headed, but they don't use an extreme inane argument. These arguments (such as: the bible lacks gay marriage, therefore, so shall we as a nation lack them) tend to be greeted by a public collective eye roll. Instead, they speak plainly and clearly, using arguments that are better received.

No, Brian Brown argues against it by saying polls showing gay marriage acceptance are temporary as when people mature, they will adjust their opinion (just as the polls show he implies). This might be true, but not to the extreme he implies. Nichts Besonderes has a mum that was a crazy lefty radical as a child. She fought for such silly things as: balanced budgets, civil rights (gay black otherwise), abortion rights, and omg all those other lefty things. Today, as a mature mum in her own right: she now thinks... Gays should have equal rights, always; abortion rights are good, and well she didn't really shift any of her opinions. My mother is more progressive than her mother who is more progressive than her mother. My Great Grandmother never fully accepted that my grandfather was not from the same religion. Oh the horror! These polls cannot be used to argue shifting trends amid aging unless we somehow are capable of tracking the same people over the course of their life in such a way to prove it is age that changes the opinion, and nothing else.

I won't argue with the Browns of the world that children need a father and a mother. They probably do. I will argue they also need teachers, neighbors, mentors, role models, success stories, guidance, and love. Children should learn how to love one another, lend a helping hand, and become the future forefathers of the world. People get father figures from people other than their birth fathers all the time. Same is true for a mother, and mentors, and role models, and success stories. Our current president is a strong argument against this One Mother + One Father (married to her) is the only way to bring up a child. It might not always take a village, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have that much love and nurture in a child's life. That is what i argue against: you can't say there's only ONE way to succeed when we can see there are so many other ways. Sorry Mr Brown, but I just can't agree with your premise. Ever.

I can't say it any better

2009-09-03T00:32:00.002-06:00

OMG - NO. BAD. STOP.

Campaign Season

2009-09-03T00:13:00.000-06:00

Here are two great campaign efforts to help ease up the homophobia i so often rant about:

GLSEN: Think B4 You Speak.
It's not so gay, it's so clever. Word Reclamation should be a government department of the interior. Just like the Water Department of Reclamation.

This is OZ
You can't say *** on the radio, and you can't say all Ruggers hate/dislike gays. This campaign is about ending the hate, wherever it is until there is no more. Here are some photos of big names lending a hand and reminding us all: gay is ok. It's more than OK, it is what it is and that is good.

So, spread the word: gay isn't a four letter word, but f-ggot is and so is the expression that's so... you don't need me to spell it out.

Less stupid, more filling please

2009-09-02T21:47:00.000-06:00

I can't argue with this logic on equality. When it comes to Gay Rights, and social equality, the first groups i automatically think of are Habitual Swearers, people who say "Yello" instead of "Hello" generally, and the "you betcha" crowd. In fact, the last groups of people i would think of when we talk about Gay Rights are African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Women, and any other protected class of citizens.

While the writer's advice to "deal with it and move on" because we (as a nation) "don't need the 'protection of government' to live full, productive lives" might possibly be true. Agreeably, not everyone will accept me or others for who we are. This man clearly does not (as he states it is a choice, not a reality to be GLBTetc). There are people alive today that do not accept African Americans as equal (see the crazy christian churches that condemn Blacks, or other racial minorities).

I pick the African American community as an example of why the LGBTetc community should continue fighting not because they are equal fights. Nor do i find the GLBTetc community the next African American community. I pick them because we have several laws upon which to build our argument already on the books for the African American Community. Laws of course are one layer of the dreaded 'protection of government' the writer opposes.

We did in fact pass a series of laws post civil war to ensure equality. We elevated some of these laws to the level of Constitutional Amendments. If we were to believe this writer, African Americans (whom he probably finds akin as a group to people who wear tartans religiously or refuse to wear less makeup) should have accepted these attempts however feeble and difficult they were as the best government could muster. Having failed to secure racial equality, they should have given up and moved on with their lives accepting the cards as they were dealt.

We know in fact this is not how things played out. There were a series of Civil Rights bills passed long after this point, up to and including the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. These laws have among other things, forced the hand of this nation to help foster racial equality and a broader acceptance of all people despite their race.

In no way am I implying or suggesting or otherwise stating that we have achieved a racial utopia. Nor am i so bold as to say that a series of LGBTetc Community centric laws would immediately create sexuality equality in this nation. They would benefit the nation, just like past laws providing redress and protection for one minority of the nation (be it by gender, religion, race, or other) have benefited the nation as a whole.

One councilmember, the core subject of the first article, implied her vote was one to protect a vulnerable subclass of society. Is the writer vulnerable? yes. Am I for my sexuality? Absolutely. I'm not as vulnerable as Matthew Shepard was when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality. This has a lot to do with him, the laws that stemmed from that horrific crime, and how those laws (and subsequent educational campaigns) have shifted our culture. I don't have to worry about losing my job. This is not because my boss, employer, and all their resources are enlightened, supportive, and respectful of my sexuality. It is in fact because the law prevents them from firing me over my sexuality. This law by the way, also would protect the writer as well from losing his job over his sexuality as it does not specifically state which sexualities are protected.

I wish we lived in a culture where we don't need this law. Or any other law that protects people from discrimination, hate, violence, or another crime because of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other values. The law that protects my job has in fact allowed me to prosper and thrive which in turn has benefited my employer immensely just like it has benefited me. I am well aware that I would have lost my job well before this point could have occurred had my previous boss had her way.

I'd be happy to respond to the writer's implication that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as much as prolific swearers. What about smokers (already protected), the obese (already protected), single mothers and mothers-to-be (already protected), and other groups of people like these? These comparrisons, and comparrisons to race, or gender, or religion, or the groups the writer picked are comparisons between Apples and Volkwagens and Nuclear Warheads. There are similarities and there are extreme differences. There is no need and I have no interest to be sidetracked by such a non sequtur complaint.

Protecting one class is not a detriment to the others. Some things are worth leaving to the marketplace of ideas. Some things need to be protected legally despite our abject objections. There are valid reasons to keep on the books laws that protect minors from pedophiles and equality in gender pay. These laws limit the freedom of pedophiles and chauvinists. They protect children and both genders in the workforce. Laws are best when they are written to protect both the minority but also the majority. Writing into law a protection of sexuality on the workforce protects me from a conservative employer or coworker that does not like me as much as it protects them from someone opposed to them.

I have no interest in limiting your right to swing your fist. Until you reach the bridge of my nose. The writer is free to practice his beliefs, much as i am free to practice mine. But in the common spaces of our culture, we must both sacrifice a bit of our freedom to ensure our cohabitation. I promise to tolerate scary culty Christians. That is only after i'm promised the same level of tolerance: on paper and in the common spaces of our culture. As soon as I don't have to worry about losing my job or my house or my benefits because i'm gay wherever i live in this wonderful nation of ours for any employer i am hired to work under, i can start living my life freely. I'm not sure why the writer (who isn't gay) is worried about these issues, but he too should perhaps start living his life.

When it comes to doing the right thing, you sir, are not doing the right thing

2009-09-02T20:38:00.000-06:00

In reading this article on Equality in Utah, the Governor is quoting for saying "We don’t have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and we don’t have to have a law that punishes us if we don’t."

Gary Herbert, the current Governor of Utah is probably right. When it comes to doing the right thing, people should just do the right thing. Now I'm not a legal expert when it comes to Utah laws. I'm pretty sure however they have laws about speeding. And shoplifting. And murder. And... quite a bit actually. This isn't because people aren't capable of deciding what the right thing is when it comes to shoplifting, murder, or speeding. People feel very culpable on these topics and other laws intrinsically. And yet, we set these laws (or whichever laws are on the books in Utah) not perhaps precisely because but in large part due to the fact that not everyone does the right thing always. By preventing a law on the equality in Utah (eg: Job protection, housing protection, etc), Gov. Herbert is failing to do the right thing. Ensuring the right thing is done legally (by definition, part of why we right laws) is helping do the right thing. While this could be a hindrance or a nuisance, it is what we expect. There are laws protecting religious and racial equality because, as it happens, not everyone naturally does the right thing. Weird. Wouldn't by extension of the same logic as these laws, be the protection of today's fringe minority (the LGBTetc community)?

So, in response to Mr Herbert and his quote we offer only this rebuttal: Sometimes, to do the right thing, we have to do the right thing by reminding people what the right thing is legally. Even if we all know the right thing by nature, sometimes we must nurture the right thing within our culture.

No more Acid for me please

2009-08-24T20:48:00.000-06:00

Wow. Billy Herrington - a Japanese Icon. Enjoy the clip. It's just too... acidy for normal usage. Also, NSFW.

Look what I found...

2009-08-24T20:08:00.000-06:00

I pick up new blogs from time to time. Old ones die. And i really should clean up my blog roll. Eventually mein Herrn, eventually. In the meantime, here's something new and shiny. Or are these borrowed and blue? Either way, enjoy!

MoHoInTx: He writes well. That's really all the hook i had to keep reading. Nothing interesting beyond that.

Homotography: I'm not really sure why I keep coming back to this one (and to be fair, in looking at my logs - coming back is a strong line: 4 visits over 5 weeks? That's not exactly a popular site in NB land). It's vapid like gawker, but with ~~less filling and virtually no content~~ just photospreads mostly that are... just... well... Homotography. You'll enjoy it.

John and Steve are Having a Baby: Who could resit this charming site? Not NB. Let's face it: Gay Couple + Baby + Modern World Reality = an NB winner.

Enjoy.

Glass Houses III

2009-08-24T19:50:00.000-06:00

Now, lord knows I've no room to complain about anyone else's spelling and grammatical habits when you consider my own. That doesn't stop me from whining about the death of the languages. Whether it's English, Spanish, German, Farsi, or any language really, please take this to mind: learn how to write clearly. There is nothing that will take away from your argument as quickly as a poorly worded argument, or one that isn't legible.

Case in point.

Also, learn how to make a strong argument. That, however, is a story for another post.

Dolla Dolla Holla

2009-08-24T02:08:00.000-06:00

Apparently, girl strippers = ok. boy strippers = society's downfall. Which explains why places like Denver Berlin New York no longer exist.

Where is the Atari again?

2009-08-24T01:15:00.002-06:00

I miss my old atari.

NOAH - or - OOOOOOOHHH That's shiny!!!

2009-08-20T05:45:00.002-06:00

This is pretty. NOAH - or the New Orleans Arcology Habitat (awkward acronym) is a concept for the future. I just think it's pretty:

Don't turn me in...

2009-08-20T04:39:00.000-06:00

Apparently, if you believe former tele-show winner Richard Hatch, I should be in jail for being gay.

"Survivor" winner Richard Hatch said in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes he was sent to prison because he's gay.

If you need me, i'll be in hiding, with the gay boys watching Ellen to make sure they don't take her away too. And reading Dan Savage. And...

PSA: Arrive alive, don't text n drive?

2009-08-20T04:31:00.000-06:00

Wow. Nice quality. I've never had this happen to me by someone texting. But close. Awkward.

More at Fast Company

I am a victim...

2009-08-16T06:23:00.000-06:00

Of Hate. We all are. Hate has held this nation back from it's greatest potential. And it will keep holding us back. So here's another video to remind us: Gay Rights really help create EQUAL Rights. Enjoy.

I'll Fight! I'll Fight! I'll Fight!

2009-08-14T16:40:00.000-06:00

Do you pee in the shower?

2009-08-14T16:36:00.002-06:00

but of course you do.

What's the story about glass houses? Take II

2009-08-11T16:56:00.000-06:00

This story on CNN is just a sample of a current theme. Some people feel the GLBTetc Community is pressing their story as the new subjugated class beneath the minority, a role previously considered the exclusive domain of the Black community. People might want to sing the blues, as this writer implies, and no one might want to live them, as he concludes, but I feel they shouldn't have to first live the blues to be qualified to sing them. No one owns the minority card, and certainly no one is exempt from it.

It's easy to pit any struggle with an "us v. them" theme. It's boys v. girls, natives v foreigners, legal immigrants v illegals, insured v. uninsured, black v. white, gay v straight, and any other of the millions of divisions we can create. In reality, life isn't this clairvoyant and simple to divide. Black v white forces us to decide between two choices. Are asians black or white? What if there were two interracial couples. Would their children be cast to different races based on their appearance? In truth, this is our historical precedent. Are transgendered and intersex people forced to pick one gender over the other today as in the past?

The written column I chose to nettle over serves as an example because it covers so many of the themes in question. For example, one of the issues near and dear to my heart is ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Created 16 years ago, this prevents people from disclosing they are gay in the military or asking others if they are. It's a terrible policy forcing some people to be less than honest about their personal lives with their brothers in arms on a topic that has no bearing to the job at hand: protecting our nation.

Because Group A had to wait 80 years for their military rights to be addressed fully, Group B is forced to wait a similar period as well. At least, that's what one writer at least would have you believe. While we should not have waited to desegregate the military racially, it is not sensible to continue bad inefficient policies because of an imaginary time frame under the auspices of equality.

Which group has had it the worst historically speaking in America: the GLBTetc Community or blacks? I'm sorry? Indians? Women? Asians? No no no, this writer insists there is only a parallel between the GLBTetc Community and the Black Community. Because those are the only two who have suffered in this nation. Ever. And within the GLBTetc community, the writer alleges, there is only a black-white divide. Poppycock. I refute his claim and suggest he meet a larger audience. There are racist GLBTetc community members. There are non-racists as well. There are even members that associate only on the lines of race whether that is black, white, or some other.

This line of division is evident in the general population as well. There are still pockets of black communities. And Chinatown isn't just some clever marketing slogan. People like having similar interests. Boystown, Chinatown, and black only communities are historically reinforced communities from when we legally pressured people to live in Us v Them focused communities. Does this mean the writer would rather have us bust up communities where the majority is a particular demographic? Maybe. There is nothing wrong with there being a Chinatown or even a Boystown within a city. It would be wrong if there was still a cultural pressure (conscious or otherwise) that pressured such a community into existence from the greater community.

The nation has never fully encapsulated race issues. Only in the recent history of this nation (which some trace back to 1619) has there been a black identified president. We can't cover all the divides between us without becoming exhausted. Already we have a red v blue fight, big state v small state, big city v rural farmer, banker v the taxpayer that bails them out. Does the GLBTetc Community need to continue and further address race relations? Yes. Yes it does. Does the greater community at large? Yes. Yes it does. It is easy to see the continued conflict of race issues by merely reading the newspaper.

This doesn't make the fight any more personable or relevant. It doesn't benefit the nation. Racism and race conflict still happens despite our best efforts to overcome it. So too does Sexism, homophobia, and every other form of the us v them fight taken to an extreme. In time, I'm sure we will live in a more idealised world. One where the only us v. them theme is the united us against the divided them. Can we wait 400 years for this to happen for a continued pattern of equality between two minorities? Yes we can. Should we? Hell no!

Why I'm still fighting...

2009-08-11T16:46:00.000-06:00

A ~~Facebook Friend~~ friend on Facebook said awhile back that people whining for gay rights should sit back and let the president work through some of the more pressing issues. He felt (and i have no reason to doubt that he doesn't still feel this way) that addressing the War, the Economy, health care, the financial market scandals, and just about everything else trending these days is what we need to focus on and address first and foremost. In truth, I agree these are important matters that must be addressed. In reality, I will not be quiet on gay rights, or non-gay rights, or any civil rights for that matter until these issues are addressed.

There are a variety of reasons I won't be quiet on gay rights. I should rather think that the issues at hand are obvious, but to clarify which issues we are discussing: the overarching umbrella of rights where must define specifically for the GLBTetc community the same rights responsibilities privileges and obligations that are otherwise afforded to the greater community without such definitions. Or in a less legal context, not just gay marriage and the right to serve openly in the military, but job and housing equality and all other forms of legal separation and discrimination between the GLBTetc Community and the greater community.

While this legal mouthful covers a lot of issues that converge across a wide spectrum of issues, it is equally important to address these issues as it is to address the issues regarding the war and other issues some feel are more important. Gay rights conveniently weave into each of these issues. The War issues include should gays be allowed to serve openly or would such an ability be a detriment to the military. As we debate health care rights, we must consider how gay partners (whether of one year or 50 years together) should be allowed to exercise their rights as we do not recognize their relationship. My point, is that it should be impossible to address an issue archetype (eg: military, health care reform, etc) without addressing the GLBTetc community's issue(s) under this category.

More than the forced conversation by relation to the topic, we should never tolerate a minority's subjection to partial rights. Separate is never equal, as demonstrated multiple times throughout this nation's history (and upheld by the supreme court). In the end, the debate centers on what sort of nation we want. I want one where nobody has to fear that their boyfriend could lose them their home or job or pension. Sexuality is no less a distinct and integral part of a person than their gender, or race, or religion. Each of these are things we have fought hard to protect. Our laws do not say all religions are protected except Unitarian Universalists. They do not say you cannot discriminate by race except hispanic-asian-native/aboriginal Americans. They say all religions are protected and that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This should be no different for the GLBTetc Community. In doing so, we have thus ensured that all rights are protected. Not only would such a blanket right ensure the rights to Gays and Lesbians but also ensure that the majority's rights shall not be infringed. Although rare, reverse discrimination does occur and that should not as well(whereas the generally accepted majority is discriminated against in certain situations by the minority - consider a non GLBTetc person being fired for such by the GLBTetc small business owner).

A solution provided by some (GLBTetc or otherwise) is to grant "special" rights to the GLBTetc community. While we prevent such things as gay marriage, we proffer up gay civil unions as the GLBTetc equivalent under the law. The difference is not just semantics. Marriage is considered a universal right widely recognized as valid in most jurisdictions (state to state, and nation to nation). Civil Unions are not. There is not a legal plethora of rulings that would support that this secondary category would be separate but still equal. Indeed, if they were separate but still equal before the law, there would be no legal cause or barrier to gay marriage. A similar case exists in public schools with open enrollment policies. Whereas neither has a restrictive membership requirement (as a public school it is rather difficult to do such), a student may be openly enrolled into either without any consequence to educational requirements. This has been reinforced again by the supreme court.

Ultimately, i have faith that this nation will unite behind equality bills and legislation that ends any separate but equal policies in place, establishes the rights for all regardless of gay rights and gives legal responsibilities to anyone despite their sexuality. No doubt, there were few considering this a pressing issue in 1776. I would doubt that any such farseeing forefathers would have been able to establish such matters. Remember, in 1776, we couldn't decide if blacks were citizens, if slavery was a good or bad economic construct, or if women should be allowed the vote (provided they were recognized as a citizen). Just like i doubt anyone in 1776 considered the rights to riding the public bus. And yet, it was a bus that helped spark a political debate on civil rights for one American community several years ago. Today, the discussion before us is on gay rights.

In truth, today's gay rights struggle is different than the fight by women, blacks, asians, and indians had in the past. No two groups face the same issues, astigmatisms, or struggles; even as we continue to debate who can serve openly in the military, own housing, or be protected on the job. As we move forward, we allow some rights to trickle out to others but not all. The greater GLBTetc Community may not need to fight for the right to vote, but only because that right has been granted to all US Citizens because of past struggles for equality.

Now some may find the responsibility of ensuring all citizens are equal to be less important that pretending to address the financial market crisis. Some may in fact not be inclined to agree on what rights we are addressing. This is not new. In each past civil rights argument, there were some who argued against the expansion of the rights. Some felt that this was not an issue in their area and therefore not a national matter. And yet, not everyone impacted lives in the GLBTetc safe areas. Not every african-american lived up north where racial discrimination was less severe than the southern states. It was the advice of some apologists to move north and avoid the discrimination. That ultimately is not what we found beneficial to the nation. Again, we should not tell people to move when we would not otherwise tell them so.

I find civil rights to be a cornerstone of this nation. I am confident we are only as free as our least free members. I cannot imagine anything more important than ensuring civil rights are protected, and available to all of our members. should we have the freedom of religion despite which religions we are discussing? Yes. Is there such a thing as a freedom of speech? Absolutely. Should we abridge these rights to certain groups and subsets of the American populace? No. Absolutely not. And should we defer the fight until some issue is discussed first? No. There is nothing in that argument that will ensure GLBTetc rights will ever be most important. We should never settle for second best. Not as a community within a community and not as a nation. We can move forward on both civil rights and the economy and we should. While i understand where my ~~Facebook Friend~~ friend on Facebook is coming from, I cannot settle someone to be second class. Not in this nation; not now, and not ever.