Today is Tuesday, September 24, 2013. As I understand it, Republican Florida senator, Marco Rubio, nominated Dade-Miami judge, William Thomas, to the 11th circuit court, which President Obama then approved, but when Rubio found out later Thomas was an openly gay man, he stepped back from his nomination. This, after Rubio had Thomas vetted and approved. The problem is the so-called ‘Blue Slip’ rule, which says without approval from a state’s two senators, a nomination may not go through. So, Rubio’s retreat means the nomination is dead. Thomas will not be appointed. The question is why.

The last few months have been pretty difficult for Rubio with the push back from the Tea Party on Rubio’s support for comprehensive immigration reform. He is losing his luster among conservatives over this and other moderating moves Rubio has taken in the Senate. He is looking for that Republican presidential nomination in 2016 and to support an openly gay, Black man for federal judge and comprehensive immigration reform puts him in a much dimmer light for these extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party.

Rubio should take heed from the leading Senate Republicans who are now pushing back hard against Tea Party darling, Rep. Cruz from Texas, who wants to defund the ACA or shut down the government. The Senate will not cooperate with the House Republicans over this, which means Cruz and his extremist cronies will have to fight their own party to make anything happen here. Rubio should stick to his moderate positions on these issues, immigration and Judge William Thomas, if he wants to be electable in 2016. It is pretty despicable that he is running scared enough to kill Thomas’ nomination to the federal bench. He would better serve himself, his party and the American people if he showed a little more integrity.

Today is Saturday, September 21, 2013.  It gives me a certain amount of pleasure to see images and entertain ideas that juxtapose traditional America and queer culture. There has always been a certain queerness in cinema, but more recently there is a growing and expanding queer cinema in the world and over the last four or five years a number of positive gay characters have become central to various television show story lines, whether ‘Days of Our Lives’ in America or any of the number of day time and pre-prime time television programs in Europe. In the U.S., however, usually rather stereotype gay characters are found in comedy and sometimes reality shows–as if Americans can’t really handle gay/queer drama and gay people who are not affected in any way. And maybe they can’t. I really don’t know. I just know that gay men, for example, embody a full spectrum of feminine and masculine characteristics, and the stereotype of the effeminate hairdresser simply doesn’t hold. Yet American TV doesn’t really show gay men much outside the lines of that stereotype. European TV, on the other hand, goes the opposite direction and mostly shows rather strong, masculine gay men (Germany’s ‘Forbidden Love’, Finland’s ‘Secret Lives’, Britain’s ‘Ellendale’ or ‘Hollyoaks.’)

In music, you never find gay themed love songs, unless someone has used a love song and laid it over gay images to create the illusion of a gay theme. Sometimes those are well done, but mostly they’re a bit cheesy and not particularly artful. If there is any reference to gay love in music, it is normally homophobic lyrics in Hip Hop/Rap. Macklemore and Lewis countered this homophobia when they released their rap video “Same Love”, which takes a lot of the sting out of the homophobia in music. But I think that has also created a little wave of change in music.  That change and willingness on the part of the public to embrace gay themes in music can be seen in Steve Grand’s video “All American Boy” and more recently his video, “Stay.”  “All American Boy” was described by most critics as a contemporary urban country sound, and as such, given the gay-theme that is in it, was a ground-breaking innovation.

Steve Grand’s music and videos have led to a number of attempts on the part of the public to blend country-western music with gay images and post it on Youtube. Some are successful, some are not, but what intrigues me is the juxtaposition of the traditional country-western artists and sound with the queer images. One recent example I found is Josh Turner’s “Your Man” laid over very sexy images of very handsome gay men. There is another interesting ‘urban country’ music video that is, in fact, a gay themed song, “Better This Way” by Doug Strahm. It’s not the best song in the world, but the message about the internalized homophobia of an older, masculine gay man who works construction is direct and clear.  Then there’s Eli Lieb’s “Young Love”, which is more in a pop-rock style.  I’ll let you be the judge as to their artistic merit, but the following music videos say something to me about the ‘queering’ of America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6HWcwafwj0&list=PL22711FEF9CDA98E3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RoCzptoKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jPba9WJCzE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3G3xm1-spg

Commercials are also developing gay sensibilities. The following is an anthology of commercials from the U.S. and Europe that clearly show a growing queerness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52HYvrUiQiU

Today is Friday, September 20, 2013.  As it stands right now, the Republicans in Congress are in such disarray with the teapartiers once again digging their heels in over funding the government. This time they are demanding that Obamacare be defunded or they will shut down the government. Other more senior Republicans are horrified, because they remember the public reaction to the Republicans shutting down the government back in ’96. Let’s just say it wasn’t good. Not to mention the last time we went to the brink in this teaparty ‘brinkmanship’, the Republicans didn’t get much public support either. Tying the funding of the government to Obamacare is a desperate attempt to get their way, but I think it will backfire on them. Right now the housing industry is back, Dow-Jones is moving upward, unemployment is down and the overall economy seems to be making an incremental come-back. If the Republicans take the country over the cliff this time, and the economy tanks because of it, I wonder how most Americans will react.

It’s true, our deficit and debt are still unacceptable, but again, if the Republicans weren’t so religiously tied to their trickle-down economic theories, and they took a more pragmatic approach to the problems, Congress might be able to make some bipartisan progress in resolving these structural issues that in all honesty do threaten the health of the economy. However, as long as these extremists in Congress hold the Republican Party hostage and threaten the nation with defunding Obamacare or going into default, the Party will remain incomprehensibly divided and dysfunctional, which absolutely threatens the stability of the country, both in economic and political terms.

Boehner needs to rip the heads off of these junior teapartiers who are creating this havoc. He has to get them in line or we could be facing more serious problems than ever before.

Today is September 17, 2013.  So, we had the horror in Washington DC at the Navy Shipyard–tragic and sad for the 13 people who needlessly died. That could have been, but wasn’t avoided.  I wonder whose heads will roll once the investigation is done? Speaking of avoiding violence, it seems the U.S. has avoided war with Syria–although a military option is still ‘on the table’, as they say, should Syria renege in any way on its Russian-pushed agreements. Reality is, it doesn’t look like the US will be bombing Damascus any time soon.

It seems the U.S. has been in a constant state of war since the advent of our ‘professional military.’  Some 30 years now the U.S. has been involved in one regional war or another–mostly in the Middle East. Why is that? I can’t help but think it has something to do with our professional military and the new ‘military class’ of U.S. citizen along with the growing political influence of the Pentagon.

When I was in the military (1968-1972), there were draftees and we had a serious ‘Selective Service’ that, in all truth, was very unpopular because of its inequities in ‘selection’ and because of the very unpopular Vietnam War. The War’s unpopularity can be attributed in large part to the fact so many people’s sons were drafted and sent to Vietnam. The impact of the war hit every part of American society. We watched daily body counts every evening on the nightly news, which didn’t help Johnson’s and Nixon’s war efforts, either. The point is, though, that because of the draft, almost all of America was emotionally ripped apart and the war lost social and political support within three years of its launch.

After Vietnam, the country went into a ‘malaise’, as President Carter identified it, and there was a strong anti-military sentiment that led to the elimination of the draft and the reconfiguration of the military into an all voluntary, ‘professional’ organization. Even then, though, I personally thought that was a mistake. An all-volunteer, professional military doesn’t seem compatible with democracy. The very thing I feared, I believe, has come to pass. Namely, we now have a special ‘military class’ in this country that has too much political influence.  We now feel this compulsion to ‘thank a Vet for his/her service.’ Now every veteran is a hero. Well, why? If they had been drafted, OK, I’d say thank you. To walk away from your civilian life to help the country is an amazing sacrifice.  But to volunteer knowing exactly what is expected and it’s your job for which you not only get paid, but you get incredible benefits long after your service, I’m not so sure a cultural requirement to ‘thank them’ is appropriate. It’s not heroic to do your job. We all can’t be heroes just because we wear a military uniform.

It isn’t that service people don’t make sacrifices to protect the country–of course, they do. But there is a fundamental difference between fulfilling a national, universal obligation to serve the country and an individual volunteering to participate in a professional military culture. I am still in favor of a universal draft for either civil or military service and the dismantling of this professional military and a return of the Pentagon to be completely subordinate to the civilian government.

We saw already in 1993 when Bill Clinton tried to integrate the military with gay people how much political power the Joint Chiefs had. They literally refused Clinton’s order, forcing him to back down and compromise with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I remember when Truman integrated the military for African Americans with the stroke of a pen on an Executive Order. He simply told the Pentagon, live with it or quit.  Truman was forced shortly thereafter to fire General MacArthur for insubordination and criticizing the President in public over his policies. By 1993, some fourteen years after the advent of the ‘professional military’, Clinton had no such power.

I also think the regional wars over the last 30 years happened because there had to be a ‘raison d’etre’ for the Pentagon. When you have a professional military with political influence, they have to justify the amount of money spent on them and their new role in society. I can’t help but see a connection between these wars and the reality of a professional military class of citizen.  So, I’m advocating the re-institution of a universal draft that includes both civil and military service for those between 18-20  years old. If EVERYONE, no matter how rich or how poor, MUST serve the country, I believe you would see less sword-rattling and drum-beating, fewer wars, and more judicious thinking before attacking another country.

Today is Saturday, September 14, 2013.  I was gone for a week on a little mini-vacation and in that time no new topic has emerged in the news that changes our focus and attention. The same topics that were being reported and discussed a week ago, are the same topics being reported and discussed today. There was a tense build up to what many thought would be an attack on Syria, but that tension was diffused. Russia seems to be in the spot light both for the anti-gay issues and the Olympics as well as its relationship with Syria. Now, the U.N. is involved, which is something new, but it remains to be seen whether they will be able to force Syria to report on its chemical weapons within the next two weeks.

It seems Russia will play the key role here. On the one hand, they want to support Assad, but it is too embarrassing for Putin to be associated with anything like chemical weapons. He wants Russia to be an important player in the world, and letting Assad off the hook would undermine Putin’s efforts to re-create Russia as a world power with significant influence. It would put Russia in a serious international bind if the U.S. attacked Syria over this issue. I don’t think Obama ever really wanted to strike Syria, but for dramatic effect rattled swords and beat the drums. In the end, he moved to diplomacy to resolve the issue. Some will say Obama is ‘spineless’ because he didn’t attack. Others will say he was ‘brilliant’ for maneuvering the situation with Putin to get the diplomatic negotiations going. It doesn’t matter to me. At this point, an act of war has been avoided–that can only be a good thing. Russia and the U.S. are about to make an agreement regarding Syria and the U.N. has been brought into the process. I can only see this as a positive turn of events. Obama will be seen as more reasonable than impetuous and Putin will be seen as more a statesman than former KGB super spy. Assad will lose face in the Middle East and retreat to a more subordinate position relative to the UN, the US and Russia. Hopefully, all of this will be the beginning of the end for this bloody mess in Syria.

Today is Saturday, September 7, 2013. It’s a mystery to me why in Europe, North America and South America over the last thirty years there has been such a quick change of heart and mind about homosexuality, gay people, marriage equality, etc., and in places like Uganda, Nigeria, and other African nations and then Russia, the cultural climate has gotten very cold towards gay people. Especially, when it comes to Russia, I just don’t understand. They have fairly successfully come out from under the oppression of the Soviet era over the last twenty years, yet their intellectual understanding of homosexuality is stuck in early to mid 20th century. The rhetoric coming from their leadership makes it clear they have not read the studies in sexuality that have been conducted in the West since the 1940s. Among Russians there is still an unfounded connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. They still believe the old Freudian nonsense that all men are ‘latently homosexual’ and it only takes a little recruiting, a little ‘gay propaganda’, to take young boys to the dark side. They still believe that same-gender love and attraction are perversions and not just another natural orientation to the world. They still believe all this despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.  The new, anti-gay law in Russia reflects that ignorance and is the basis for the world-wide negative reaction to the law and questions about the Sochi Olympics.  World leaders reportedly have brought up the problem to Putin at the G20 conference in St. Petersburg and have met with LBGT community representatives there. But it is now clear that this codified homophobia in Russia will continue to be a problem for them within the international community.

There are religious elements in North and South America and in Europe that reject the scientific conclusions and they, too, believe like the Russians that homosexuality is not just a ‘sin’ but a perversion, illness, and yet also a ‘choice.’  Those anti-gay voices, however, are sounding shrill, ignorant and anachronistic in 2013 and I don’t worry about it here. I do worry about LBGT people in Russia. Marriage equality is spreading from state to state in the U.S., supported by Supreme Court decisions and a federal Justice Department. My husband and I, after seventeen years together, just got married on May 4th of this year in Washington State where marriage equality exists. With the changes in federal policy and rules as a result of the Supreme Court decisions in June, we are now treated no differently than any hetero married couple.  So now, any anti-gay religious fanatics really can’t bully us anymore as a result. In fact, here in ‘the West’ people are beginning to understand exactly what ‘homophobia’ is and that those who suffer from it are being inhumane and ignorant. Perhaps we should be studying homophobia to find out if homophobes are perverted, ill and in need of psychological treatment. (I say that with tongue in cheek! I really don’t think that would be helpful!)

In any case, there has been a fundamental cultural shift in the West and I only hope and pray places like Russia and Uganda also make a leap forward into the 21st Century.  I’ll offer you a little entertainment here to illustrate just how far we have come in the U.S.  That a musician could make a music video that centers on the attraction of two young men is a testament to our cultural progress.

http://dannation.org/watch-steve-grands-new-video-stay-where-he-finally-gets-the-guy/

Today is Wednesday, September 4, 2013. In reading the headlines this morning, I was struck by the irony of some of the news. The G-20 Summit, for example, is meeting in the palace of the  Grand Duke Konstantin Romanov, an older cousin of Czar Nicholas.  In doing a little digging, I found that Konstantin was one of the leading cultural leaders of Turn of the Century Russia–good friends with Tchaikovsky, translator of a number of German and English classic literature pieces into Russian, a president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and, according to his own memoirs/journals, gay, or at least bi-sexual. But if you know anything about the European aristocracy of the period, homosexual relations between men in this exclusive ‘club’ was the rule not the exception. They were required to be married and have families, but the internal culture of the aristocracy separated men from women rather conveniently, leaving men to consort with each other on hunting trips, in hunting lodges, in their in-town men’s clubs, etc., and women were simply not allowed. In this all-male social milieu it is not surprising that same-sex relationships developed. Wilhelm of Germany had an entire cohort of gay men around him, many were officials within his government. Russia’s aristocratic culture was no different and Konstantin documented his relationships with other men.

The irony here is that Putin selected this palace with this very large, inconvenient ghost in the room, after having just signed the most severe anti-gay law in Europe. I would hope Obama and the other world leaders in attendance might say something to Putin about this ironic situation. I would also hope these leaders meet with representatives of the Russian LBGT community to find out first hand what the impact of the law has been and what their vision is for the Olympic Games in Sochi.

Today is September 1, 2013. So, now we have confirmation that the gas used in Syria was nerve gas. And congress has now been invited by Obama to vote to support a ‘narrow’ attack on Syria’s military infrastructure. Yet, I hear nothing but drum beating and sword rattling from the talking heads on cable news shows. Almost every so-called expert is saying the U.S. must follow through and punish Syria for using nerve gas or else risk undermining American credibility. These talking heads claim Obama has mishandled the crisis and now he risks diluting the authority of the Presidency by allowing Congress to authorize and approve any attack. This point of view is anathema to me. I understand what they’re thinking, but it’s the same mentality that created the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan wars for the U.S. And is the world any ‘safer for democracy’ afterwards? No. Are we any less likely to suffer terrorism? No. Are we any closer to developing positive relations with countries in the Middle East? No. Are we improving our relations with Russia and China? No. So, tell me please how flexing American military muscle in Syria will change anything that will lead to a positive outcome?

Is it not appropriate for a President to seek support from Congress and the people before resorting to military action, especially when the stakes are so high?  I think it is. I’m hearing on TV, though, that Obama should be ‘stronger’ and not let Congress weaken his presidency. That attitude leaves me speechless.  And if Congress says no? If the representatives of ‘we the people’ do not approve of attacking Syria, what are the potential negative outcomes?  I guess, fewer people will die and America will lose more credibility.  Somehow, I worry more that an attack on Syria will lead to another point of no return on a path to a large scale war.

So, let’s give Congress its due and the task of debating this issue. The critics are saying it’s just another delay, another way to weaken the element of surprise, another propaganda gift for Assad–OK, and so what if that’s all true? Does it help in possibly avoiding war?  How about let’s put the military toys away and get the Middle East countries who have a stake in this to settle their differences regarding Assad and urge them through negotiation to help the Syrian people?

Today is Saturday, August 31, 2013. When I first heard that Parliament had voted against cooperating with the U.S. and participating in a potential military strike against Syria, my reaction was a simple, ‘hmm.’   As I mulled this over, however, it dawned on me that this was important.  I began reading different blogs and opinions about it that suggest there is a credibility problem with the U.S. that ultimately goes back to 2003 with Colin Powell’s U.N. presentation to begin the Iraq War.

But thinking about that, something doesn’t quite ring true for me. The U.S. should have a credibility problem that goes back at least to August of 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin Incident led to the Marines landing at China Beach, Vietnam the following spring of 1965. LBJ’s lie about those events ultimately led to the deaths of some 56,000 young American men, and how many Australians and South Koreans?  Then Nixon and his not-so-secret war in Cambodia and Laos?  Then Reagan and his Iran-Contra scandal? How about beginning in 1985 Reagan’s courting of Saddam Hussein, who was known to have and use chemical weapons?  And it took Britain until the Bush Administration ostensibly lied to them to sense a credibility gap? There could be some younger minds who don’t remember the credibility history of the U.S., but I’m not buying it.  There is something else at play here in the geopolitics of war.

I might be going out on a limb here, but could it not be that the Brits, and I dare say we Americans, just don’t have the stomach for more war? Seriously, I know some hard core Obama supporters and they are beside themselves over the possibility that Obama could attack Syria. It’s my opinion that to do so would seriously erode Obama’s support base both at home and abroad. Given that there are no good outcomes from an attack, no matter how ‘surgical’, it boggles the mind that Obama would allow his military advisers to convince him that Assad has crossed the ‘line in the sand’ and the U.S. must react or lose credibility.  Ironic, isn’t it?

What seems to be at play here is a misplaced macho middle school mentality that dictates a physical blow to any perceived affront to the ego. Obama said he would not tolerate any use of chemical weapons. So, now we have a nerve gas attack and Obama must respond or ‘lose face’. That’s the theory anyway. How old are these people who come up with this stuff, 13?  The White House can’t come up with a more creative, sophisticated response? Is ‘losing face’ really an issue when we’re facing a military strike against another country that could lead to a catastrophe larger than what is currently happening?

So, in the end, I’m thinking this is not about a credibility gap. The Brits did the right thing in rejecting cooperation and participation in any military action against Syria because they no longer feel their alliance with the U.S. necessarily requires rubber-stamping U.S. policy. It is a sane and healthy turn of events in the U.S. relationship with Britain. The American people should ask the government to stop rattling swords and beating the drums as well.  I still think isolating Syria both politically and economically and creating a safety net for the massive movement of refugees that would result is a much better approach than any ‘narrow’ military strike against Syria’s military infrastructure. The risk is too great and the British people understand that.

The U.S., Britain and France are struggling with a rational response to the crisis in Syria. Assad’s recent use of nerve gas against his own citizens has led to this current dilemma. Russia, China and Iran are warning that any attack on Syria can only result in chaos in the Middle East. Russia and China walked out of U.N. Security Council talks on the issue this week. The White House and Downing Street have been working together, but the British Parliament just rejected any military cooperation with the U.S. against Syria. Hollande of France, however, is still giving verbal support.  Some kind of limited military response to the situation was suggested, but with the promise that there will be no effort to remove the Assad regime. Obama has not yet remarked on Britain’s refusal to participate, so no one yet knows whether he will decide to take any action without Britain’s cooperation/participation.  In Turkey and Israel, however, people are lining up for gas masks in response to Assad’s threat that if there is any military action against Syria he will attack those in the region who have relations with ‘the West.’ That’s a direct threat to Israel and Turkey.

As I see it, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. There is no way out for the U.S. If there is no reaction to Assad’s recent crimes against humanity, it could embolden him to get even more extreme. Assad could murder tens of thousands with impunity and the world would just watch it happen. It would be another cynical propaganda feather in Syria’s hat, creating an impression of powerlessness and ineffectiveness in the Obama administration in world affairs. If there is any military action against his military infrastructure, he can use it for more propaganda purposes and drive the rest of the Middle East into an anti-West fervor. If Assad follows through with his threat against Israel, Jerusalem has promised a swift and devastating response, which would bring a region wide reaction against Israel and there could be a full-scale Middle East war that pulls the U.S. in.

Unfortunately, there are no good options. If the U.S. does nothing now, the situation in Syria will worsen and we will have blood on our hands in tacit complicity. If the U.S. and other European countries try to put the squeeze on Syria by completely isolating them economically and politically, the Syrian people will suffer even more forcing them to flee to Lebanon, Turkey, Israel and wherever else they can find refuge. However, there are no countries in the area that can really handle a massive refugee movement and we could be witness to a human catastrophe.  If the U.S. made a limited military strike against Assad, it could lead to Assad attacking Israel and Turkey, and a potentially devastating war.

My conclusion is Obama should lay these issues in front of the world in very explicit terms, isolate Assad and prepare to create a safety net for the flood of refugees. That will create its own problems, but at least the world would avoid a possible region-wide war in the Middle East. The U.N. will not respond to this situation, because Russia and China are in the Security Council and will veto any U.N. intervention. Even very limited U.S. strikes against Syrian military infrastructure could have horrific consequences that, in my opinion, serve no one’s interest.

Check out this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCBhyzRELLw