Published Philosophies

On Sex Talk

Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.

On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip

There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.

On Abortion

People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.

To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.

Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.

Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.

Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.

Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.

Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”


On voting under a veil

Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.

Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.

gossip sucks it

Congratulations to Travolta and his wife on the birth of their new son. Shame on the gossip industry, which is frankly amplified by supposed legitimate media every time they recount accusations and innuendo. It is a form of bullying. When a male adult molests a young boy, he is officially NOT considered gay. Why? Because statistically supposedly they call themselves straight and go home to a wife. But Movie stars aren't given the same consideration. The man has humour enough to play a gay vampire in a Saturday Night Live skit and to play a woman in Hairspray and he has not used his fame as a bully pulpit to condemn gays so why is this constant badgering tolerated? If someone "outs" someone they claim to have been intimate with we know nothing about the accused but we know one of two things about the accuser: either the accuser is a liar exploiting someone else' fame or that person is indiscrete and reckless about his own sex partners. In either case, attention and weight is being given to the claims of a very pathetic and rotten person be it Paul Barresi or Robert Randolph.

Allegations come and go. Certain movie starts who are ostensibly straight are cool whatever the truth may be. Most of the time stories fade away and scandals tire.
Maybe they are bought off while other stars refuse to pay off. I don't think they are obligated to announce themselves as gay or bi either and embarrass their wives. Either someone's private life is his or her personal business or it isn't, simple as that. If a celebrity's private life is a gossip monger's actual profession, I have no sympathy for that career and it doesn't have to exist. Movie stars can afford hit men, so I'd like to see at least one movie about using a contract killer to deal with nosey little paracites.

New Year Crap-Clear

So I'm sorting through the gym bag that usually keeps vital work-related materials I take to the workplace, pills, work shirt, body spray and random free newspapers I have read on the subway with articles I hadn't finished importing into my brain. Garbage in, garbage out.

I can understand keeping an issue that boasts one of my letters to the editor. Those may not be thrown out except by accident. Whether I should keep them or not. But since it is perfectly acceptable and thoughtful to leave a Metro or Eye Weekly on the subway seat, I have chosen to stuff the most worthless material in my gym bag. So as I throw these papers out it's a review of the year's news that isn't quite news.

Jerry Lewis went to Australia and when asked if he liked playing cricket he said, "That's a faggot game" and did some physical comedy miming use of a cricket bat. So there's an article about GLAAD slapping him on the sturdy wrist and asking him for an apology. Like millions of Rat Pack fans will abandon Jerry for using the "new F-word." It amazes me how lobby groups seem to be in the business of telling people to lie to them. I don't have to pathologize Jerry for being out of touch with the latest edition of Newspeak. But you can understand if he has lingering resentment for the 2002 TV movie Martin and Lewis that was made about him where a guy from Will and Grace - Sean Hayes - played him. I remember saying to a friend after seeing a clip, "I didn't know Jerry Lewis was gay."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318908/

That gives an idea the kind of time and thought wastage results from reading a newspaper.
Did I have to know about that? When Issiah Washington was fired from Grey's Anatomy for calling T.R. Knight the same derogatory term for homosexual, my first instinct was that this is an over-reaction and extremely political (read: cowardly). T.R. crying on Ellen's couch didn't help boost his preferred image as the stoic leading man he was destined to be. Somehow since those articles we have more recent useless information that his role has been reduced on the show since Mr. Washington went to the Bionic Woman (much to the glee of snarky, fey critics). I'll be honest, I thought the Bionic Woman pilot episode was okay and I like Katee Sackoff as a satirical antagonist. A can't comment on Gay's Anatomy, because I've never seen an episode.

Still the new Bionic Woman pales by comparison to the original Bionic Woman and The Six Million Dollar Man which have been mired in a legal dispute between Universal and I forget what company. I try to google it and the term "Million dollar" is pretty common and "Bionic Woman" tends to bring up reference to the new-fangled version.

I seem to be finding a lot of blurbs about the apparent comeback of Tom Cruise after having supposedly killed his career. Imagine Tom Cruise in the early days of Top Gun and Rainman, with Barbara Walters bringing in a psychic to tell him this: "You will be very popular for many years until what kills your career is that you are so happy that you jump on Oprah's couch - but of course that's not enough to REALLY kill your career; you also criticise Brooke Shields."
What else hurt him? Of course Sumner Redstone making a point of saying that his behaviour hurt the box office of Mission: Impossible III. I see in another trash blurb that they have since reconciled and had lunch, but only after Tom had to become head of MGA/UA. Old Redstone seemed to be administering the death blow, and he was motivated because his lovely wife had a head full of this disposable tabloid crap. The guy manages to survive as a top Box office draw with a name like Cruise and what almost sinks him is an old man's wife reading the kind of crap I'm now finally throwing out.

What I can't have the pleasure of physically trashing is the sort of "news" feed you get signing into certain websites for e-mail. How do they choose these columnists? It has never been more true that somebody got a job by giving a blow. Do I really want to see an idiot's list of the "forgettable movies of the year" or a rant against Mel Gibson and the gossip about his marriage? Just another distraction. I have to reign myself in or I'll spend all of my time e-mailing incompetant cyber-columnists. Those that actually have a talk-back e-mail provided. Even then, likely it only bolsters the impression that people are reading the shite.

I won't mention a local Toronto film community that has a pressence on the web and sends out shameless viral marketing. I like the people involved but I've had to withdraw from involvement or the loop of promotions. It's too much. You get double and tripple versions of the same link and it takes up space in your Facebook feed even if you sellect "less from" this friend. And again I've had to confront this mentality and I've been told point blank that their columnists deliberately take extreme and controversial positions - many of which are inarticulate and non-persuasive - to get people fired up and attract feedback. I just thought why make myself crazy. Throw it all out. Ignore, ignore.

Now I'll have to look at my mostly blank Day-timer from last year, with its pages used as a notebook for some random ideas and snippets of dialogue. Maybe I'll actually have more time to plan things to do this year if I'm not wasting a little bit at a time paying attention to the sickening void of pop culture.

I should add another note for the sake of the few knee-jerks who might happen upon this blog and take offence at my issues with GLAAD and groups like them: I'm all for gay marriage and gay adoption and all of those many bench marks of progress that won't have an impact on what I want or have to do in my own life. But we live in a climate where we don't know each other and few intelligent people dare say anything that isn't affirmative. I'm not surprised to see a full-page article about the return of Andrew "Dice" Clay to comedy. People may very well need to listen to something that is expressing a very valid feeling of discomfort. I don't think discomfort should be lumped in with fear and certainly not hated to the point where someone's disinterest or a market's disinterest in something is branded "non-inclusive." I think it's great that the net version of Star Trek has introduced Captain Kirk's gay nephew, but I'm not rushing to find out how that is illustrated. Live long and prosper, as long as I don't have to pretend T.R. Knight is cool. Roddenberry was bucking the system to deal with race and staff the Enterprise with a multi-racial crew, but these days to buck the system is to be politically incorrect and outrage lobby groups.

All of this cluttering my head as I haul fresh new garbage out the door.