Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Can you be arrested for tapping your foot?

Like most gay people I've been enjoying the Larry Craig scandal as it unfolds. It's always gratifying to see an anti-gay Republican being exposed as a hypocrite. My friend Jeff though made me stop to look into this matter further. What did he actually do to be accused of a crime? I read the police report.

Senator Craig:

He looked through the cracks of a stall

He tapped his foot

He put his foot on the officer's foot

He moved his fingers around under a stall

I had to stop and think. Is this worthy of a criminal arrest?? He wasn't playing with his privates at the urinal or peeking at others. He didn't show his privates under the stall or something.

I had to think - would I be "dancing on his grave" so gleefully if it had happened to someone else. What if it was openly gay Senator Barney Frank? I'd probably think it was embarrassing for my people but much ado about nothing really. I'd probably think the same thing I thought when George Michael got busted "Why is he looking for sex in a public bathroom??? He has cash and could pay for it. At the very least chat someone up and take them home"

What if it was a celebrity who we truly loved? What if it was John Travolta? (not saying he's gay - ALLEGEDLY as Kathy Griffin would say) I'd probably think "Why doesn't he just come out?" and again he could afford an escort.

I'm not defending people having sex in public bathrooms. They are not intended for that. However I would think at least there should be something more suggestive than that.

I'm a gay man. What if an attractive officer smiled at me in the rest room, if I smile back and act interested can I be arrested? Where does flirting and soliciting for sex cross the line?

What if the officer is playing with himself at the urinal? Is that entrapment if a gay man responds to that action?

Part of the reaction to this scandal is very appealing - the hypocritical gay bashing Senator getting caught soliciting gay sex. Another part makes me sad - He is in his 60's so he was alive pre-Stonewall, maybe he is a victim of homophobia he was taught. A self hating gay man having public sex - that is sad.

The other reaction I have is defensive. Some of the people reacting to this scandal are not reacting negatively because he was soliciting for sex. There are people reacting negatively because he is Gay. There is lots of Homophobia swirling around this debate from the Republicans. (and the Press - Tucker Carlson was making Gay bashing jokes)

This is a scandal because he pleaded guilty, his anti-gay voting record and the past complaints leveled against him. But I ask you - should people be arrested for tapping their foot?

Friday, August 24, 2007

No End In Sight - You must see this film!

I saw the documentary NO END IN SIGHT about the war in Iraq and it's haunting me. I had made many assumptions about why the Iraq war had gone so horribly wrong. I thought I knew the whole story. I didn't and I blame our truly inept media. (another blog on that is coming)

I had an assumption that the military and especially the leaders of the military were totally on board with every decision coming from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Paul Bremer. Despite the public face supporting The White House the military did not agree with key decisions being made.

The current insurgency that is causing the high loss of life for the Iraqi people and wounding/killing our own soldiers is a direct result of several bad decisions. (Here are a few - just a teeny tiny sampling)

#1. Not having a plan for reconstruction or what happened after Saddam was out of power.

This has caused food shortages, water shortages, electricity shortages and deteriorating conditions that have led to a lack of respect for American occupation in Iraq. The constant horrible conditions and frustrations have caused the Iraqi people to turn against us.

This also caused major looting of weapons later used against our soldiers.

#2. The decision to disband the ba'th party - the political leaders who were already working with our military to come up with a post-Saddam infrastructure for Iraq. Making them unemployable and vocal critics of the Americans who they were supporting previous to that action.

Once there was no semblance of rule the different factions in Iraq have gone on a power hungry struggle throwing the country into civil war. This has led to people grabbing power who may even be worse than Saddam Hussein.

#3. The worst decision of all - disbanding the Iraqi army. Making an enormous group of young military trained (and armed) men unable to find work to support their families. They were willing to work with the American military but once that happened they turned against us. They are the insurgents killing our soldiers now.

If only we had done the correct things - none of this had to happen.

Worst of all - the military leaders on the ground in Iraq knew all this. They were trying to tell the leaders all this information (and did) but the leaders had made up their mind what they were going to do. Out of political ignorance and arrogance our soldiers are now losing their lives. (and creating extremists and/or terrorists)

This had a huge effect - now the Military had to look at Iraqis as "the enemy". They started putting Iraqis in prisons, raiding their homes etc etc to keep themselves safe. (and yes some abuses followed too) This caused the Iraqis to hate us further - no longer liberators but occupiers. (this image helps extremists gain new members)

To the American Military the Iraqis no longer became the people they were working with but the people to be afraid of.

Paul Bremer should be held accountable for every death that has occurred since he was put in charge of Iraq. He has so much blood on his hands. Of course he can share it with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and more.

The funny thing about this documentary was that I didn't feel it was hugely "anti-Bush" - if anything he comes across as detached and delegating the decisions to others. It's like Ronald Reagan with the AIDS crisis - you can't prove he knew what was going on but you can blame him for NOT knowing.

It isn't a Michael Moore hatchet job or partisan propaganda film.(and unfortunately not a laugh to be had unlike Moore's films) People from the Bush administration, military leaders, soldiers are all interviewed. I think it's very fair in that way. You can't tell this story without placing blame.

Overall I came across with a feeling of sadness and hopelessness. We can't now go back and correct those things we didn't get right. If we stay we can't fix it and nothing good is going to happen if we go. However since it's not going to make any difference either way I say "Bring our boys home".

The fact that I got more information on the different factions in Iraq, the reasons things went downhill and the current state of affairs from a documentary and not our news outlets is staggering. (but I sure know lots about Paris Hilton!)

I think it's your duty to see NO END IN SIGHT. I'm just warning you that you will not forget it.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Why gay men love Tammy Faye!

I'm mourning the loss of Tammy Faye. Not because I'm religious - I'm not. Not because she was larger than life - she was. Not because she was a camp classic - that's a given. I'm mourning Tammy Faye because she was a televangelist/religious personality who didn't discriminate against gay people. She embraced them and shared her love with them.

Tammy Faye didn't play it safe when it came to gay people. On her PTL show she embraced gay men who were dying of AIDS - she didn't call it "God's wrath"like her contemporaries were doing. She was there to hold a hand and offer comfort.

Later Tammy hosted a show called "The Jim J. and Tammy Faye show" with openly gay (and flamboyant) Jim J. Bullock. It was hilarious to watch him make off color remarks and her go "Oh Jim!". They obviously got along great and I thought it was hilarious. (No one else watched it was gone in a flash)

She also appeared on "The Surreal Life" a reality show where "D-list" stars live together in a house. She got along with people like porn star Ron Jeremy and anger prone Vanilla Ice. She was very accepting and motherly to all of them. By the end they were all sad to leave her. She had that supportive way about her.

Tammy befriended 2 gay filmmaker Fenton Bailey & Randy Barbato. They made a documentary about her called "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" . She did lots of interviews with the gay press to promote it - always talking about love and acceptance.

Perhaps the thing that says the most about Tammy Faye Bakker is how her son Jay Bakker turned out. He rebelled against his father and family, became an addict, got lots of tattoos & piercings. He eventually cleaned up and decided he also wanted to minister but to people like himself. He started preaching in bars to the punk rockers, goth kids and tattoed outsiders.

Jay started to get a decent following and religious organizations started to fund his church. Jay met with a gay person who said they didn't attend church because they weren't welcomed there. Jay then had a revelation that this anti-gay stance the church has is un-Christian and morally wrong. Christianity should be a place of acceptance for all people.

When Jay told his congregation of his change of heart, it didn't go over well, it also didn't go well with the people funding his church. They pulled all of their money. Jay tried to spread his message of tolerance on speaking engagments but congregations didn't want to hear his message about accepting gays. (You could hear the crickets chipring at one African American church) Jay stuck to his beliefs, pretty much lost everything and had to start over.

When Jay told Tammy about what was happening she hugged him and told him to keep doing what is right. Despite everything Tammy did raise a nice boy and a good man.

I'm sad to see Tammy Faye's big heart disappear from this world.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Why "Chuck and Larry" isn't funny for gays

A new movie comes out today with Adam Sandler and Kevin James as straight firefighters who pretend to be gay to get domestic partner benefits. I haven't seen the film but supposedly it's full of stereotypes and is offensive. I don't judge movies before I see them but in this case I'm offended by the very premise of the movie, let me explain why.

Four months ago Janice Langbehn and her partner Lisa Pond (with their 3 children) were going to take a cruise from Miami to the Bahamas. (They have been partners for 18 years.) Lisa was stricken with a brain aneurysm in Miami.

The University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital did not recognize her or their children as part of Pond's family. They were not allowed to be in the emergency room and Janice could not make decisions for Lisa's care.

When Lisa was taken to the emergency room a social worker at the hospital told them they were in an "anti-gay state" and needed legal documents before Janice could see her. Legal documents were faxed authorizing Janice to make medical decisions for Lisa. She still was not invited to be with her partner or told about her condition.

The last time that Janice was able to see Lisa was when "Last Rites" were delivered. Lisa Pond died without her family being around her. If they had been legally married there would have been no question that Janice could have held Lisa's hand while life slipped away from her.

This is just one situation - there are about 20+ benefits that gay couples do not get even as domestic partners that they would get with legal marriage.

So forgive me if I don't think a comedy about straight guys wanting to have a gay marriage to get the "benefits" is funny. It's insulting and sad.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Why Sprint should be careful dumping customers

The news today said SPRINT is letting go of a thousand of their customers for calling in to customer service too much. No I'm not kidding. In their ultra competitive industry they are choosing to let customers go rather than service them.

This led me to ruminate on the service I have received as a cell phone customer. I had my first cell phone from AT&T - I had no real service problems with them. I was lazy and just kept my service with them years after my contract was up. (despite many offers to change).

Then one day I was at a AT&T cellphone stand at the Sam's club and picked up a brochure. I decided to call the customer service number and ask what kind of pricing I could get to extend my contract. The agent on the other end of the phone gave me pricing but it was exactly the same as in the brochure.

I said "I've been a customer for years, paying on time, never leaving or negotiating another price and you're offering me the same as if I walked in off the street?". The agent said "yep". I said "well I think I may cancel my account because that is ridiculous" Then she said the magic words, the words no customer service rep should say to someone threatening to leave. "that's your choice Sir!" I was shocked "you mean to tell me that you don't care if I leave you as a customer?" and she said "That's your choice Sir" - so I said "Cancel my account starting today".

Thats exactly what I did. (I didn't have a cell phone for 2 years until I was stranded out front of a friend's house and they couldn't hear me ringing the bell)
I wound up getting an account at Verizon after doing some research. Their service has been pretty good until recently.

I got a call at home from a Verizon sales rep offering me a new chocolate phone if I agreed to a 2 year contract. The phone would be $40. There was nothing wrong with my phone at all - it just seemed time for a new one. I signed up over the phone and received the phone. This is where all the fun began.

First the chocolate phone is a real lemon. It sucks in about every way possible. People can't hear me, it dials people when I don't want it to, the ringer turns off in my pocket, the camera is horrible, it doesn't register when you want to delete messages etc etc etc - it is the worst phone. (its cute - lots of compliments)

Next thing I know I get a bill for $150!!!!! They said I didn't return some paperwork they had sent so I was being reverted to the 6 month pricing. (I didn't receive this paperwork.) I was told I had to go into a store to sign the paperwork. (This is after I was verbally recorded agreeing to the deal via phone and unwrapping the phone with a warning saying I was agreeing to the deal)

I went to the store and they told me I had to do it via phone. They connected me via phone and I told them the phone doesn't work anyway so I wanted to forget the contract then. They said no deal it was past 30 days so even though the product is horrible I cannot return it. To get the $150 charge off my bill I had to argue with them on the phone. They wanted to credit me only a partial amount, kept telling me my Chocolate phone's value was such a special price etc. I had to keep saying "It doesn't work and You're getting a 2 year contract out of the deal and I'm getting nothing. I'm getting a bad phone!"

They finally credited me the $150.00 but did nothing for my inconvenience, aggravation or frustration. (I wish they'd choose to dump me!)

In the meantime I'm getting mail from AT&T every day trying to get me back as a customer. They wouldn't have lost me in the first place had they done the right thing. These cell companies should know the value of losing a customer and trying to gain a new one.

All these cell companies need to realize - how they treat their customers will come back to them twofold. When I boycott a company they are dead to me - I recently changed my landline service from AT&T (formerly Ameritech) to my cable company. I have had Ameritech my whole life but thanks to AT&T's purchase they no longer have my business. They won't get me back. Why?

Because their Customer Service rep said "That's your choice Sir".

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Are you always tired? How I came back to life!

I'm not someone who falls asleep at the movies or on transportation. A movie can be really boring and I'm still sitting there taking it in. I don't sleep on transportation either - I didn't even sleep on a trip all the way to Australia. It just isn't me. Then something strange started happening....

I'd be watching a movie and I suddenly couldn't control my sleepiness. My head would start to fall forward even when I was engaged in the movie or a play. I feel like I didn't even see a couple of the movies or plays I was at the theatre for. Then on transportation I started falling asleep. Any distance in the car would suddenly have me nodding off and snoring for a moment. I fell asleep on a plane and was making so much snoring noise that two young girls took my picuture! embarassing but true.

I kept thinking it was my crazy sleep schedule. I would often say up late to midnight then get up early (or later on when I wasn't working sleep in late). This even started to affect my work life. I would be sitting looking at the computer and my head would start to fall forward. I could just stare at the computer. I even got in trouble because I got sleepy in a meeting at work (with the lights off) in the conference room. I think this contributed to me resigning my position at my previous company.

When I took trips with my friends they were alarmed because I stopped breathing in the middle of the night and would gasp for breath. (My mouth would be very dry in the mornings & I would have a slight headache) My friend noticed the gasping when I stayed over night at his house, he told me "I think you have sleep apnea". I had told my Doctor about being tired but once I mentioned sleep apnea he sent me for a sleep test.

The sleep test is a unique experience. It was in a nice hotel off of Michigan Ave where one entire floor of rooms are set up for sleep studies. They put you in a normal hotel room except there is a camera in the corner watching every move you make, they hook you up to a bunch of wires all over your body and then watch you sleep. After awhile (a couple hours?) they woke me up and told me I needed to use a machine to breathe so they hooked a machine up with a mask over my nose and mouth. Then I was back to sleep again. They woke me up very early (Like 5am or something) and sent me home. The report showed I DID have sleep apnea and I needed a machine to wear at night to breathe.

I received the CPAP machine in the mail. It is a machine about the size of a small loaf of bread with a big hose like thing attached (remember those old hair dryers?) and a mask to go over your face. (some go on both nose and mouth, mine is nose only) I didn't want to use it at first, I don't like things touching me while I'm sleeping but I was getting more miserable with the situation. I started using it on and off. I started noticing that when I used the machine I didn't have a headache and I had more energy. (Finally getting the REM sleep that everybody needs - the restorative sleep) It's weird to have it on at first and you do kinda look like a science fiction monster.

I eventually got used to it and started to use it every night. My whole life started to change. Suddenly I felt good again. No sleepiness, no dry mouth, no headache and an abundance of energy. I even started working out again because I didn't feel so tired anymore. I could go to the movies and pay attention again, Every car ride wasn't nap time. It was very much like coming alive again. I realized that I had not really been sleeping all those months - it was like putting in the bare minimum of fuel in a car and running on fumes.

Now I take my machine everywhere and I'm not embarassed by it at all. I took it to my friends beach house when I slept on the couch, I take it home with me when I visit my parents and I even take it on flights with me. (Airlines know them well) Since I've had it I have even started to meet others with the problem or everyone seems to know someone. (Even Rosie O'Donnell uses a CPAP to sleep)

I wanted to write this blog because had my friends not alerted me and I hadn't told my Doctor this would have kept going on and on. It was ruining the quality of my life and I didn't know it.

If you think you are having any of these symptoms please tell your Doctor right away. Now when I take a nap it's because I want to, not because I have to.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Why Isaiah Washington is just the tip of the iceberg

Isaiah Washington is livid over being fired from Grey's Anatomy for calling a cast member a "faggot". He has said he apologized enough and now he's even saying that they fired the wrong guy. Sadly he just doesn't get it. However this is not suprising it speaks to a bigger issue - homophobia in the black community.

This struck me the other day when I realized that I had seen the musical The Color Purple, had read the brilliant book and seen the movie. It got me thinking about all the documentaries, television shows and books I have read about the black experience in America. Does the African American community do the same for gay people? I think not. I know who Emmet Till is - does the majority of black americans know who Harvey Milk is? I don't think so.

Homophobia is deeply ingrained in the Black Community. Black men are taught that they have to be real men and not "punks". Being gay is not only against the religious beliefs but also the societal norms of the community. This causes the most flamboyant gay black men to exist in a "don't ask, don't tell" aspect of their community. The gay black men who can "pass" are often on the down low - pretending to be straight but having gay sex. This has ramifications for the entire community.

Exploring the "down low" issue shows how homophobic the African American community really is. The gay men in this situation are treated as evil men doing wrong to black women. What is not brought up is the reason these men are on the "down low" in the first place. It's because of the oppression they are facing from their own community to not be able to live their true life. Pointing their fingers at the men in this scenario and treating the women as victims are not taking acceptance for their own actions. It is the communities homophobia that is causing this to happen - its time to stop the blame and start taking responsilbity for the situation society has created for them.

You would think when you are a minority who is oppressed you would be more sympathetic towards others in the situation. However this is clearly not the case. I have often heard black public figures trying to distance themselves from comparing racism to homophobia. They don't want to compare the struggles because of their own bias.

You often see gay jokes in shows created by the black community. Lots of the gospel musicals have gay comic relief, skits on shows like In Living Color with feminine gay characters and most of the black comedians do some sort of gay schtick. Since gay people are oppressed in the community I think this should be compared to white "minstrel shows" of the past. Bring out the gays for a little humor.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the black community it is perfectly acceptable to be homophobic. Just look at the comments when former NBA player John Amechi came out of the closet. Player Tim Hardaway said "Well, you know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people." That he felt it was ok to say this in public and on the radio shows how deeply ingrained the homophobia is in his daily life and interactions.

This is not to say all African Americans are homophobic. When Coretta Scott King passed away I was visibly upset by the loss. She spoke out against homophobia despite pressure from her community and some members of her family. She was for civil rights of all people, no matter who they are. A true beacon of light and a great woman. Too bad more African American people can't live by her example.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

My evening at the Gay Porn awards! (gasp!)

My neighbors are both porn reviewers for a local gay publication. This consists of mainly watching gay porn and writing a review of the movie. This sounds like a fun job but they actually have to sit through the entire movie. (meaning the plot and dialogue - the parts most people don't watch) They also have to come up with multiple acronyms for the penis and gay sex acts which I'm sure gets old. They invited me to the GRABBYS - Chicago's annual award show for gay porn. I wasn't sure what to expect.

I knew the reception was starting at 6pm and I was running a little late so I grabbed a cab there. When the cab pulled up I looked out the window and my mouth literally dropped open. All these gay porn stars whom I had only seen on film before were in front of the theatre hugging each other and saying hello. I didn't expect to be starstruck but I definately was. (some were shorter & smaller than they look on film)

Once I got out I saw different entrances to the venue. One was red carpeted and someone in drag (a famous porn editor I found out) was interviewing the stars on camera one by one. I gave my ticket to the usher and decided to get a drink and hang out in the lobby and stare. All around were faces I recognized - I knew them but they didn't know me.

I saw Barrett Long who is one of my favorite performers. He's a baby faced jock looking guy with an enormous.....talent. I wanted to talk to him badly but what should I say? He seemed a little shy and I think he noticed me hovering. Luckily my neighbor came to get me and show me where we were sitting.

I found my neighbors private table and the crowd started to filter in. I was thrilled to discover that our table was next to the TITAN studios table. Titan specializes in very muscular hairy aggressive performers. The stars all filled in and they did not disappoint. All muscular wearing black TITAN wife beater t-shirts. They had muscular arms and chests but tiny waists. Real live action figures.

I didn't realize my neighbors actually voted for the winners. So the porn stars were coming over to say hello to them. This meant I got to meet some of them and luckily I brought my camera to capture this. They were very happy to be in fan photos and I got to put my arms around them...not bad. Very friendly guys who appreciate their fans. (Colin O'Neal - star & director - is a real nice guy)

The show started and it was hosted by Chi Chi LaRue - a famous porn director who dresses in drag (kinda looks like Divine) and co-hosted by local chicago drag diva Honey West. (who actually sings unlike usual lip synching drag queens) They made several crazy and wonderful costume changes throughout the evening. They kept the show moving along and several porn stars came out to present the awards. (Best C*ck, Best threesome, Best Supporting get the idea) The people who won the awards seemed genrally pleased to have won and grateful. They didn't mock them despite the hilarious nature of some of the nomination titles. (There was one crazy moment where a porn star read a nominee's name wrong - one of the Titan stars yelled out "I'm gonna knock you out!" and he was not kidding.)

Just like any awards show it went on about 20-30 minutes too long but you exepect that. The most humorous part was that the "Best Picture" nominees all had film clips shown. The Park West won't allow porn to be shown so the film clips were all "acting" or suggestive clips - no nudity. This editing was hilarious! Another highlight was famous comedy writer (and hollywood square) Bruce Vilanch getting an honorary award for attending the awards all these years. He gave a great funny speech as only he can do. (wish I could remember it)

At the intermission I finally worked up my nerve to ask Barrett Long if I could get a picture with him. He ended up being very friendly and told me "anytime" so I guess he was just shy after all. He's very handsome in person and no I didn't see his "talent". (some of the performers were in suits, others tank tops - just depended on their mood - the California awards are more formal I hear) Who wants formal porn stars????

Another favorite Jake Deckard actually said from the stage "this is what you want to see" and made out with another star onstage and rolled around on the ground with him. Later I asked him for a pic, he was super nice and ended up kissing my cheek for the photo. I felt like Marcia Brady meeting Davey Jones.

I realized that the Gay Porn awards have a different feel than the Straight Porn awards. (not that I've been there) This is because no matter how much women say they love doing it - straight porn is inherently misogynisitic. The women are being "used" for male entertainment by males running the show. At the Grabby awards you feel like everyone involved is having a fun time. Men who love having sex with Men doing it on camera and becoming "celebrities" in the process. The Grabbys feel like one big party.

I bet there's fighting, bickering and drama involved. (these are gay men after all) I'm sure it's 'All about Steve' backstage but from the audience it was all fun!

For more info go to

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

CTA Responds

From: "CTA Help" <

Thank you for your feedback.

-CTA Customer Service

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

CTA has lots of nerve threatening me!

The president of the CTA just annouced that he would have to double fares and remove bus/ train routes if he doesn't get the money he's requesting from the state. He's trying to create panic with the ridership to pressure the politicians to approve the funding. As someone who takes the CTA everyday I think he has a lot of nerve.

First let me recognize that Chicago has a great transit system compared to some cities. I literally have a train and about 6 buslines that are close to my house. However having these different options does not mean that the CTA makes it easy to be a commuter. It often leaves you wishing you had a car.

I have virtually stopped taking the Red Line train downtown unless I am forced to. I used to take it every day but now I just can't take sitting or standing on that dirty, filthy train. There are half eaten food items on the floor, wrappers, Peanut/Sunflower shells etc and it often reeks of urine. Sometimes the train has no air and is stifling hot as well. It was so bad the last time I took the train I told my Alderman about it. No one should be stuffed into an overcrowded train spelling of urine unless you are all on your way to the concentration camps.

I decided to take the bus lines instead. What's the problem with the buses? The inability of the CTA to get these buses on time or on any schedule whatsoever. They said they were going to let riders be able to track buses on their laptops soon and my resonse is "just make them on time and people won't wonder where they are!!!" In the past couple weekends I have had the following things happen - I have waited for a 147 express bus that took 45 minutes to arrive on Michigan Ave, I waited for a 151 bus that never showed up even after waiting a half hour. Now these things happened on the weekend - not at rush hour and not even the weekdays. This should be their "easy time" but it's not. (The weekdays during work hours should be better as well but alas the buses are still late)

In the mornings the buses are not spaced out correctly so we get the "full bus/empty bus" syndrome. The first bus arrives and people are packed into it. When I say packed I mean standing and jammed in with their faces pressed against the front window. Then the second bus comes a couple minutes later and its virtually empty. This means that the first bus is obviously late or there wouldn't be that many people waiting. I know things are real bad when I go to the bus stop and there is a crowd waiting.

I usually wait for the second empty bus and laugh at my fellow commuters. I do, however, understand their dilemma. They have to get to work and not be late. They may skip that bus and the next one could be equally crowded or not show up for 20 or more minutes. You just never know what's going to happen. One time the bus was so late I walked to the train and took it instead. Of couse then the train was delayed for about 30 minutes that day and I got to work late and it didn't look good. A gamble did not pay off in that choice but you never know. (Some bus lines are worse that others - I have hardly ever waited for a 36 Broadway bus in Lakeview where I didn't wait 30 minutes and have 2 arrive at the same time)

The drivers and employees of the CTA are usually not helpful in these situations. I have seen bus drivers be rude and nasty to riders asking questions. I have seen them be unsympathetic towards riders who have been waiting long periods between buses. I had one even skip the stop I was standing at only to catch up with her by taking another bus - I asked her why she skipped all of us at the bus stop and she just shrugged her shoulders. This was in front of her supervisor who was as shocked as I was. Another one yelled at me for stepping over the yellow line at the front of the bus (a woman was standing in the way blocking my exit). The worst was a driver who was mad at people who kept pulling the stop cord before their stops. He stopped the bus and sat there to "teach us a lesson" to just pull it once. Yes there are nice drivers, some very helpful but I would say they are the exception to the rule. I'm sure servicing the public (and lots of crazies) takes a toll on you but a little kindness goes a long way.

So when I stand waiting 30 to 45 minutes for a bus to arrive and 2 of them come together. (or one so packed I can't get on it) I'm not thinking of how much money will arrive from Springfield. I'm thinking that the CTA really needs to get its act together.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Does America Hate Movie Musicals?

I saw the trailer for a new movie called "Across the Universe" which is a musical based on Beatles' songs. What struck me right away was that the preview only showed a moment of someone singing and then lots of dramatic dialogue sequences. This is the same thing they did for the initial trailers for "Dreamgirls" and "Chicago" as well. Is hollywood trying to trick people into attending a musical? What is going on here?

It seems to be a cynical marketing ploy by the studios. They seem to say "I know the audience hates musicals but we'll get them to see this one by mistake" or "Maybe their husbands and/or boyfriends will agree to go if we make the trailer less musical" etc. I think this is insulting to the movie audience and not accurate to the tastes or wants of the public.

It is true that the movie musical isn't the powerful force in Hollywood it once was. There was a time when several movie musicals came out a year and were extremely popular with audiences and critics. The studio MGM became one of the most powerful studios in Hollywood due to their successful musicals.

By the 60's musicals were starting to lose ground with audiences and by the 70's they were gasping for breath. This was due to a lot of different factors. One was the end of the 'studio system' that whole heartely created musicals from the composers to the stars to all the magic inbetween. (Think Wizard of Oz) The studios became companies controlled by other industries or became merged with other companies. Add to that the lack of good musicals being made - for every "Sound of Music" or "Funny Girl" there were several big flops putting the knife in the back of the movie musical. (Clint Eastwood singing in "Paint Your Wagon" is a good example)

The 70's brought a whole new realism to the movies. They became gritty, tough and more real life than fantasy. (More "Godfather" than "Guys & Dolls") Movie musicals seemed almost passe in this movie landscape. Even material made for the era didn't seem to work (Like the disappointing "HAIR" musical or "The Wiz"). Even a couple huge musical hits didn't seem to save the downslde. (Cabaret & Grease)

By the 80's Hollywood had pretty much given up on the movie musical. They instead had some "dance" movies to take their place. (Flashdance, Dirty Dancing, Footloose, Fame) They had decided that America really didn't want to see musicals anymore and stopped making them. A self fulfilling prophecy. It took Disney to revive movie musicals starting with "The Little Mermaid" in 1989.

Througout the 90's movie musicals were mostly animated features. Some great (Beauty and the Beast) and some not so much (Hercules). These movies not only revived the genre somewhat but caused Disney to take these shows to Broadway. (The reverse path of the past musicals)

I think one more thing that added to the musicals demise was the "parody" factor. Musical numbers became an easy joke for an audience. Sitcoms, comedy movies, animated shows all started to have musical numbers in them. Some making fun of the genre and some reverent to it. (Think The Simpsons) This however also caused musicals to become "uncool" - or something to be laughed at.

However the success of "Chicago", "Dreamgirls", "Moulin Rouge" and other musicals shows that there is an audience out there for musicals. They just seem to be demanding good musicals that are made well. The Bombs (Phantom of the Opera, RENT) deserve to be bombs because they are not up to the standards of the modern audience. Audiences pack Broadway shows, Touring shows, and local theatre groups. There is a demand for this type of entertainment.

I read that "Chicago" got made because the musical numbers came from Roxy's subconscious and not just people singing their feelings. In other musicals the songs are coming from the stage like "Dreamgirls" or "Cabaret". I actually heard someone say "I don't like when people burst into song it's just not realistic" - Hollywood buys into this logic as well. I don't buy this at all. If audiences can suspend their disbelief that a grown man can crawl up a building like a spider don't tell me they can't imagine people singing.

There are so many great musicals that haven't been made into films yet. (La Cage Aux Folles, Les Miserables, Into The Woods etc) Here's hoping the genre can be revived and brought back to life. (Hairspray, Sweeney Todd, Mama Mia and others are going to try)

No matter what I hope the Hollywood marketing departments realize that musicals are not something to be ashamed of but to be proud of.

Thursday, May 3, 2007

Rosie leaving the View is bad for America

When I heard Rosie was joining The View I thought that was a great idea but considered myself a moderate Rosie fan at best. I loved her previous talk show with all the Broadway production numbers etc. I was glad she came out of the closet, supported gay parent's rights. I was dismayed that she came out when her show was ending (instead of during) and proceeded to have a nasty court battle, strange hairstyle, swearing like a sailor etc. I thought it sent a message to middle america that coming out meant she was a different person etc. However I definately have changed my mind about Rosie O'Donnell this year - to say I'm a fan is an understatement.

I will admit I wasn't even interested enough to catch the first couple episodes when Rosie joined The View but after I did I was hooked. Week after Week watching the show I could not believe how honest Rosie was with America about her life and political views.

First of all Rosie opened up and talked about her relationship with Kelly and being a Mom to their kids every day. Just the normal everyday funny and heartwarming stories of raising your children, dealing with in-laws and keeping a long term relationship going. She just put her life out there as a gay wife, mother, daughter-in-law without being careful or being political about it. It just IS - as it should be.

Then there IS the political discussions which thanks to Rosie were ratcheted up to a fever pitch. Despite the myth of the liberal media there are much more right wing views than left wing in the media. (Fox news, all the talk radio programs etc) There are some "token" shows like Real Time with Bill Maher or the struggling Air America but those are exceptions to the rule.

Rosie helped bring a needed voice to the airwaves at this critical time in our history. She is Anti-War but not anti-troops and certainly not anti-American. (they used to accuse everone of being a communist now they call you anti-American) She is a humanist trying to talk about the casualties of war who are not being covererd by the mainstream media. (The mainstream media is not right or left lately just incompetent) She is bringing up newsworthy topics that no one is talking about especially on network television.

Since Elizabeth Hasselback pretty much just argues Fox Television talking points it has been fun to watch Rosie poke holes in those points one by one. Elizabeth can get agitated and dramatic trying to make her points but Rosie exposes those views for what they are. Imperialistic, inhumane and greedy. Trying to watch Elizabeth defend torturing people or excuse Iraqi civilian deaths shows how disgusting those views are. It also shows how arguing with people so Republican often does no good whatsoever as far as changing their minds.

What is also important was that Elizabeth and Rosie have remained friends. Going to the theatre together, having play dates with the kids etc. Elizabeth showed that you can be Republican and not be anti-Gay. Their friendship also showed how you can overlook someone's politcal beliefs and be their friend anyway. (finding other things that make them special to you) I have had this several times in my life especially at work and coming from a Republican small town. (I do have some issues having gay Republican friends but that's another blog)

This has also made explosive televsion. You never knew what was going to happen next. Would all of them be laughing and enjoying each other's company or yelling across the table. Seeing Barbra Walters trying to maintain the cilivity and point out that everyone is entitled to their opinion has been fun as well. It has become "don't miss" television.

Where else on TV are we getting a gay person's perspective on the news? (except for the closeted Anderson Cooper that is) It was great to see an openly gay woman telling her views on gay Marriage and other topics affecting the gay community. She also talked about pop culture items from a perspective that other celebrities would be too careful to point out. (Such as American Idol making fun of perceived mentally challenged & transgendered people)

It's amazing to me how much negative attention Rosie has gotten from the press for her views. They let that certain greedy New York land baron go on every show making fat jokes, all the right wing pundits went out of their way to attack her (again calling her fat) and the mainstream press wasn't much better. I think USA TODAY listed "Rosie's Rants" which annoyed me. How is pointing out the Catholic Church moved pedophiles from one Parish to another a rant? Thats more like a fact. Just one of the examples. I don't see people talking about the Fox news pundits weight? or any men being attacked for their political beliefs like she is.

I hope that when Rosie returns to television it is not just a celebrity interview show. (We have ELLEN for that) I want to know her thoughts and beliefs on everything in the news and in the world. We need her humor. We need her humanity. Most of all we need her voice.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Why "Brothers & Sisters" is Groundbreaking for Gay Men

A family drama on a major network television station is hardly the place where you would expect to find men kissing on a regular basis. Thanks to ABC's BROTHERS & SISTERS that is exactly what is happening and I think it is a historically significant moment in network television.

There have always been gay male characters on television even if they didn't dare say they were gay. (Uncle Arthur on BEWITCHED, Dr. Smith on LOST IN SPACE etc.) In the 60's gay characters would turn up as freaky villains on cop shows or pathetic cases on hospital dramas. By the 70's gay characters could finally "come out" of the closet. They usually were not main characters but episode specific. They were there to make a social statement on acceptance. (Remember Edith's friend the Drag Queen on ALL IN THE FAMILY? One of the saddest moments on TV was when he/she was killed and Edith didn't want to celebrate Christmas anymore)

The first openly gay main character on TV was Jodie Dallas on SOAP played by Billy Crystal. He was a much loved character and made some great social statements. (for instance when his baby was taken away from him because he was gay) However when it came to love relationships SOAP took the easy way out. He had a male football player lover (whom he never touched on screen) who left him and the rest of the long series he dated women. (Yes women - even a lesbian!) This was kind of the "joke" - the gay guy that dates women. Not a very good portrayal of gay men.

In the 80's the next major character on TV was Steven Carrington on DYNASTY. The show started out with a storyline about his father not accepting his homosexuality and even killing his ex-lover accidentally. (He saw them hugging goodbye in his house - gasp!) The character then became less gay and dated women for most of the series. (Even Heather Locklear) He did have one brief boyfriend who got killed at the ridiculous wedding massacre but you never saw them kiss or be intimate. (also in the 80's many shows had positive gay episodes like DESIGNING WOMEN, THE GOLDEN GIRLS etc)

The 90's brought us a few supporting characters who were gay (NYPD BLUE etc) but WILL & GRACE was really the next important step. (thanks to ELLEN breaking the door open) This show was full of gay humor, gay references and gay culture not seen on Television before. Though often maligned for being stereotypical Sean Hayes brought a gay character to life who didn't care what anyone thought of his sexual orientation. Will Truman showed at times how tough it was to be gay and be able to "pass". This show was also criticized by the gay community for not showing more male to male affection on the show in a realistic manner. (The first male to male kiss was a joke with Will kissing Jack on the Today show) As the show progressed they did try to show more relationships (Will & the Cop) but they did play it a bit safe to appeal to a wide audience. (I still think it's one of the greatest TV shows for gay people ever - It made a big societal impact)

Now comes a huge surprise with BROTHERS & SISTERS - a dramatic show about a family including a gay brother named Kevin. The great thing about this show is that Kevin is treated like any other character on the show. He isn't on there for social statements or as a scandalous ratings ploy. His character goes on dates, fights with his siblings and is accepted by all of them as an openly gay man. There is no drama about his parents or siblings not accepting him. His being gay is just a fact of the show.

The next thing that is truly groundbreaking (and what spurred me to write this) is how it treats Kevin and relationships. He dates like his brothers and sisters do. The biggest shock of all is that he actually kisses men on screen in a romantic way and in a casual "goodbye kiss" way. The camera even shows the kisses so you can see them (not that back of the head fakery often done to not really show the kiss). It also happens often which also was surprising to me. In the past a gay male kiss might happen once - to show the character is gay but never really happen again.

It used to be that when a gay kiss was going to appear on a network television show there was lots of attention from the press. (Remember the fuss about ROSEANNE being kissed by a woman on her show? - it was a scandal and it was a back of the head fakery kiss too!) There was a scene on THIRTYSOMETHING in the 90's where two male characters (not even main characters) were shown in bed together. There were so many protests that they didn't rerun that episode and those characters disappeared from the show altogether. So far there hasn't been one protest over the show - we'll see if that changes as they push the envelope.

I know there have been Cable shows that have shown gay life honestly (SIX FEET UNDER) and even openly sexual (QUEER AS FOLK) but this is pretty big for network TV.

So cheers to ABC and the creators of BROTHERS & SISTERS for being brave enough to give Kevin a real gay life. If in future episodes he dates a woman....I'm taking it all back.

Friday, April 6, 2007

A Question of Innocence

Talking about the U.K. sailors who were recently captured by Iran President Bush made a point of saying the sailors were "innocent". He was saying that the U.K. soliders were innocent so they should not be detained. (luckily they were released) This got me thinking.

There are people being detained by the U.S. government at that horrible prison in IRAQ (Abu Ghurayb)and at Guantanemo Bay. They have no right to an attorney, they have no spokesperson, they can be detained there forever without any due process and they can be tortured into confessing. Are ALL the people who are being detained there guilty? Aren't some of those people Innocent?

I have heard justification by right wing pundits that they would rather be "safe" than worry about the rights of these people. That somehow all that activity is making us "safer" from terrorism when it is exactly the opposite. Our enemies who claim that the U.S. and it's military are evil are gaining ground. They actually have pictures of abuse to prove their point now. It's easy for them to rally people against our injustices to these people.

Do I think the people plotting against the U.S. or responsible for the Sept 11th attacks should get treated lightly? No I don't. I think they deserve an interrogation and if there is proof of their involvement they should be punished. However I am starting to doubt the validity of the "confessions" they are getting from these places.

If you torture someone daily, have dogs attacking them, stripping them of their dignity and torturing them then they will confess to anything. They will do absolutely anything to end the abuse. So when I hear that a major Al Queda figure has confessed to about 30 different things I wonder if it's true or if its just something they got him to say. Is this torture for P.R. purposes?

Just look at our own Chicago Police Department to prove the point. They got countless suspects (mostly black) to confess to crimes they didn't commit by torturing them. There has been lots of history to prove that sometimes people confess to crimes after they have been held for hours and hours because they just want to go home. (then of course they never go home) People have even confessed to murders due to this syndrome.

Imagine if you were innocent and being held in a third world filthy prison with armed foreign guards abusing you. Having dogs bite at you, peeing on you, stripping you naked, sexually violating you and torturing you - it is possible you might confess to something or anything to get away from that situation.

America should be a shining light to other nations. We are not like third world abusive countries. We give people due process, we engage in interrogation techniques that are humane, we don't abuse prisoners in our custody etc. Unfortunately right now to the world we look as evil as the dictators we despise.

So tell me Mr. Bush - a sailor in the British Military in Iran's waters is Innocent but a person who gets picked up on the street in Baghdad is presumed to be a terrorist?

My vision of America does not include torture ... period.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Second City Responds Re: The "F word"

Subject: RE: Second City uses the F word
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:33:17 -0500


Thank you very much for your e-mail. As an improv based theatre, we value the input of our audiences.

As you astutely pointed out, we do sometimes use offensive language in order to make a satirical point. In simplistic terms, sometimes the characters we portray believe and say things that we ourselves abhor. And we do believe that words have power, but by the use of satire we can rob these words of some of their venom.

We at The Second City believe nothing should be off limits to our actors. And we have used many offensive terms in our shows. Since the actors write their own material, they choose the political and social issues that they believe it is important to tackle. In this case, Brian, who happens to be gay, chose to consciously use the word “faggot”. And to your address your point, our African-American cast members have indeed used the word “nigger” in shows as well.

I would never suggest that you not be offended by something we choose to present. It is just that we believe in our inalienable “right to offend” which opens dialogue such as this and helps us all to reexamine our beliefs.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write.

Kirk Hanley

Producer – The Second City

Subject: RE: Second City uses the F word
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:22:55 -0500


Thank you so much for your e-mail.

As I stated before I would never wish or hope that Second City become concerned with political correctness. I think comedy should be open to offending anyone and everyone. I love South Park for example.

I was really addressing a concern for the society in general where "faggot" is an acceptable put down from straight man to straight man. However the "N" word would not be thrown around like that anymore. The parallel was what was nagging at my conscience.

I have been thinking a lot about gays and humor. Why every late night monologue, comedy show, etc etc - has some form of gay joke in it. What is funny about it? Is it just the uncomfortable factor among straight men about gay men etc? What is it culturally that makes it funny? That is not something I can answer and is probably worthy of a thesis paper and documentary.

If you think a gay man gets a pass in my world for saying "Faggot" - you're wrong. My friends and I do not call each other or others by it. I don't think African Americans should be throwing around the "n-word" at each other either or rapping with it etc. That is for their community to debate I guess.

In these days where actors on night time dramas, political commentators, local sports coaches and more are saying "faggot" and not knowing its wrong until there is a controversy - I thought it was worth bringing it up. (None of those people would have said the N-word) When advertisers think it's ok to have men kiss in a snickers ad to "gross out" the straight Super Bowl fans. It was worth mentioning.

I love second city - keep testing the boundaries and making us laugh. This communication was just food for thought.

If you knew me you'd know I'm not the most easily offended person. Your current show is hilarous.

Thanks for replying.


The Uptown Theatre - a dying treasure

The other day I was at a Walgreens downtown Chicago and I saw several items for tourists to buy. There were magnets with Chicago "fun facts" on them. One of them said "Chicago is the home of the largest theatre in the country - the Uptown theatre" I knew the tourists would never suspect this crown jewel of Chicago is run down, decaying and near death. It is one second from being a thing of the past.

The Uptown theatre is bigger than any other movie palace in the United States. (Even bigger than Radio City Music hall). Many other treasures of Chicago's past have recently been renovated like the Oriental theatre (incredible), the Palace theatre and The Shubert (now called LaSalle Bank Theatre). The best one of all is still sitting in rubble decaying day by day like Norma Desmond sitting alone in the dark watching her old movies.

I saw the documentary "Uptown: Portrait of a Palace" where they took you on a tour of the inside of the theatre. Despite all the years of flooding, neglect and vandalism the theatre is still incredibly gorgeous. Fine architectural details and ornamentation everywhere you look. If it was rehabbed it would be an incredible place to see a show or concert. The Oriental theatre went from being forgotten to one of the most beautiful places in the city - the Uptown would trump even that Triumph.

Once again I feel like I don't know what to do. There is a group called "Friends of Uptown" who have been rallying for the theatre. (There is a petition on their website you can sign) There was a million dollars donated for the theatre but it seems like that money hasn't helped in anyway I can see. It's just too expensive an undertaking to renovate such a large theatre.

Who should we call? Can we convince Oprah to help? She's opening schools in Africa and bankrolling "The Color Purple" musical. Can she help us out? Where are the local elite - can't they be having their fundraisers to save this part of Chicago history? Where are the local actors who are now stars like Gary Sinise, John Malkovich, William Petersen, John Mahoney etc? Where are the local media covering this story? Can Richard Roeper stop chatting about Lindsay Lohan for one day and cover this piece of our history that is having it's last gasp?

Part of the problem is location. Uptown is a slowly or rapidly (depending on your point of view) gentrifying neighborhood on the far north side. It still has many challenges and problems but it's heart is beating strong. I don't think residents in the gold coast or Lincoln park care very much about what happens in Uptown. They should care.

The next time someone comes to Uptown to hear jazz at the Green Mill, see a concert at the Riviera or attend a big party at the Aragon Ballroom they should be aware of the huge lurking theatre they're not supporting. If the Uptown stays empty it does nothing good for the neighborhood or any of those venues. If it becomes condos then we all lose except the lucky few who can buy a unit.

Let's hope it doesn't befall the same fate as the Landmark Theatre in Lakeview. It has been a mall since I moved to the city in 1990. I enjoy seeing foreign and gay films there but I would have preferred a real theatre instead. If I want a mall I can go to the burbs.

So as I sit here frustrated at what to do - I know the great uptown theatre is dying and I don't know what to do about that.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

More on the F word

Imagine if an actor on a major television show called one of his co-workers the "n-word" - he would be shunned and most likely fired. Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy had been criticized for calling his co-worker T.R. Knight a "fag". It wasn't until he said "Fag" again at an awards show that he was taken to task. He ended up going to "rehab" or some other excuse. The media would not be so kind if it had been a white actor on a drama saying the "N-word".

Ann Coulter was recently let go from several of her syndicated columns for calling John Edwards a "fag." However she had already said this word several times in the media. At one point she even called Al Gore a "fag". Do people have to say this several times before the media takes notice?

Then don't even mention sports - where NBA players feel free to make homophobic comments to the media, Ozzie Guillen of our own White Sox calls a reporter a "fag" and then outright bigots like John Rocker say whatever they want.

It's time for straight men and women to stop using the "f-word" in casual conversation as a put down at each other. It's time for Americans to say enough is enough with this hateful word.

It's time for the American military to stop using homophobic language to inspire their troops. What does it say that you have to be homophobic to make yourself feel more masculine. It says "you have issues" to me.

It's time Hollywood gets involved too. Why is the Best Picture of the year "The Departed" full of homophobic "Faggot" talk?

If gay people weren't taunted every day in school for being different or killed on the streets then I would say "this word is no big deal" but until that happens it IS a big deal.

I used to hear casual homophobic language in conversation "that's so gay" etc and I would let it slide. I told myself it was all about "intent". If the person didn't mean to be homophobic I would let it go. I refuse to do that anymore. I made that decision because I think this tolerance of the language gets passed down to the children.

When the children think homophobia is ok then gay youth have to suffer. They suffer because of "self hate" or at the hands of bullies on the playground. Gay teenagers commit suicide every day in this country.

Maybe not saying "Faggot" or "That's so Gay" won't change a thing - but if it prevents one death isn't it worth it?

Second City uses the "F" word

This letter was sent to the famous Second City in Chicago:

Dear Cast of "Between Barack and a hard place" at Second City,

I caught a performace of your show and I must say I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. You are obviously a very talented group of people. It's hard to pinpoint which part of the show was my favorite there were so many. However after watching this show something began to nag at me and I thought it was worth commenting on.

In your skit lampooning the Chief Illiniwick controversy the actor portraying the school official said "Faggot" three times during the sketch. Now I realize the point of that sketch was to show the insensitivity of the school versus the Native Americans offended by the mascot. By renaming the other college groups various offensive things you were making a point.

However the fact that you feel comfortable yelling out "Faggot" onstage began to bother me. It was disturbing to me because although you said you would rename the drama club the "Faggots" you never at any time said you would rename the basketball team the "Niggers". (I'm saying the N-word for a reason - I also despise that word)

If you are daring enough to yell out "Faggot" at your shows then you certainly should be yelling out "Nigger". Part of the reason "Nigger" is offensive is because it has been used against African Americans in violent ways - sometimes even when black people were being lynched. "Faggot" has and is still used when Gay & Lesbian people are beaten with bats and murdered in the street.

Do I think comedy should be politically correct? Absolutely not. I don't think stand up comedians or improv actors should be held to the same standard as elected officials etc. I do however think it's time to remove "Faggot" from the casual conversation of the American males of this county. ('That's so gay' is another topic altogether)

If you're ashamed to say "Nigger" then you should be ashamed to say "Faggot". Period.

Cranky Cub

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Cranky Cub Introduction

I need to explain why I started this blog. First I must confess I don't read blogs unless someone sends me one. I have always thought blogs were very "self indulgent" and that blogging was like a talk radio call in show. You know those shows - where the moderator sends out a topic like 'abortion' and people call in with their opinions. I always thought "who cares what these people think??? They're just regurgitating what their parents or church told them to think" etc.

Then I started watching how blogs were changing the political landscape and actually influencing our democratic process. The documentary 'blog wars' also inspired me.

At the same time lots of things are happening in the world now that I feel like I have no control over. A war I don't agree with, Corporate greed at an all time high, people acting inhumane towards one another etc etc - and I feel frustrated about that.

I also am getting very sick of all the "casual homophobia" I have been seeing everywhere I go. I'm starting to want to call people out on it.

So what is my blog about? Well a little about current events and politics, A little about the daily struggles of living in a big city and lots about my gay american perspective on things.

I hope you enjoy my blog. I welcome all people who want to cheer me on or want to debate. Random insults without any debate happening will be ignored. What is the point of that?

Thank you for reading this!

Cranky Cub