Vince Vaughn

I originally wrote this last night, still steamed over Dharmasatya's comments, and still not entirely sure why she got so far under my skin.  Anyway, I'm over it now. I'm also sick as a dog.  So a bit of the fight has been taken out of me anyway today.  And finally, I've come to the realization, reinforced by Duta's comment in my lats post, that I been both way too angry and way too vulgar lately.  For about the last two months or so, I'd say. And vulgar, angry rants, while cathartic to write, and often very fun too read as well, are just not a good a habit to get into.  So I'm swearing off them (pun intended) for at least the next month or so, just to break the habit. I'm also going to try and speak in normal tone of voice - ixnay with the ALL CAPS.  With that in mind, I'm re-writing this as a more considerate, thoughful piece, that should alienate fewer people, and hopefully be taken more seriously because of it. 

There's been a lot of outrage recently over a joke which appeared in the trailer of Vince Vaughn's new movie, The Dilemma.  Now... my support for LGBT Political and Social issues is unequivocal.  In that past there have been times where I've wavered, but right now, I can safety and happily say that there is no part of the "radical gay agenda" (as the Right refers to it) that I am not behind 100%.  I'll go into what that exactly means, to me, in a moment, but suffice to say, that the LGBT community has a staunch ally and supporter in this blogger.

That being said?  This joke is fine.  This joke in not homophobic.  This joke is not even harmful  In fact... I'll go so far as to say that this joke actually illustrates the very point that outrage appears to be all about in the first place!  Now, I realize that I probably have a bunch of people saying, "You just don't GET it!" All I ask is that you give me a few paragraphs to explain my point, and show you that, yes, I actually do get it.  In fact, I can absolutely empathize with you on the very issue of casual pejoratives.

Anyway, for those who have been living under a rock, here's the joke:

"Electric cars are gay. I mean, not 'homosexual' gay but 'my parents are chaperoning the dance' gay."

OK... I am in complete agreement with GLAAD, etc...  that the word "gay" should not be used as a casual pejorative.  The thing is?  The way I interpreted this joke, when I first heard it?  Is that this is exactly what the joke is saying as well!

To me, the whole point of the joke, the only way it really works, the only interpretation by which it is the least bit funny, is as an acknowledgement that we use the word “gay” to mean “bad” or “stupid” when it shouldnt' be used that way!  The very fact that they whole joke revolves around him having to make that awkward clarification, I took as evidence that, at best, this is a clumsy descriptor, and for the sake of clear communication, if nothing else, it really needs to go.

Do I really believe that he's trying to make some profound socio-political point here? Oh, heck no!  It is Vince Vaughn, after all!  But given the context as I saw it - and hey: I could be wrong! - but given that, if you can’t see beyond the mere use of the word, and find the deeper meaning here (and you don’t have to go that deep, it is Vince Vaughn after all!) then you are just being too sensitive about it!

OK.  Now I'm sure I've really gotten some people angry at this.  And your anger is justified. Too sensitive? How dare I?! (Right?) Who am I to tell you how too feel about something?  And you have a point. So assuming I haven't put you off for good, I beg that you now allow me to put down the shovel and endeavour to climb out of this hole I'm probably in.

The first obvious problem is that, not being gay, trans, etc... myself, one might say that I have no idea how hurtful these casual pejoratives really are.

Ah... but not so.

You see... There’s a synonym for the word “gay,” when it's used in this context.

“RETARDED.”

Think about it… Almost any time someone is mis-using the word “gay,” as in, “This policy is gay!” you can almost always substitute the word, “retarded” and it will mean the same thing: “This policy is retarded!”

Well, guess what?

I have two autistic sons.

And I hate that [expletive deleted] word.

And I hate to hear someone called a “Retard.”

And I hate to hear "retarded" used to mean, "something I don't agree with or don't understand."

And I HATE anything that makes fun of the mentally handicapped.

It absolutely tears my heart out.

Now... Is it the same thing? No. No it's not.  But I offer that's it's close enough for a legitimate concession that I do, in fact, have some clue what it feels like and what's going on here. I may not  know your feeling, but I'm still somewhat familiar with the feeling.  And if you say, "Well, that's not about you, it's about your kids."  Unless you have kids, and special needs kids at that? Then it's you who doesn't know what it feels like. Because I'd give anything to make it about me instead of them.

And while it's a little off topic, I'd like to offer an example of what may have been the worst time I had, "getting over" this, only as evidence that I can, in fact practice what I preach.

At one point, Drawn Together was my favorite TV show. I found it to be positively enlightened as well as completely hilarious when it came to most social issues like racism, sexism, sexuality, gender roles, religion, etc... See... They made fun of those things, using negative stereotypes not to make fun of the groups, but rather to make fun of the bigots who believed that nonsense about them! It took every stereotype and turned it around, to make the joke be on the racist / sexist / homophobe / etc... IMHO, It was brilliant. 

(Disclaimer: Serious, Evangelical Christians will NOT like ths show! They pretty much get savaged in every episode!)

But then I saw the episode, "The Other Cousin."

Half an hour of jokes at the expense of the mentally handicapped. And what's more?  Just a short while after my first born son was diagnosed with Autism. To say that it "hit close to home?" Is a vast understatement. So again... I think I've earned the right to say that I do have some idea what that kind of thing feels like.

And you are still absolutely welcome to disagree with me. Hey: Maybe I shouldn't have let it go.  That's certainly a legitimate point of debate.  Maybe I should have written Comedy Central, boycotted the sponsors, took to the Internet... I did when Michale Savage spouted his Autism Denial nonsense! But I chose to put that aside and keep watching.  And the rest of the series? Was absolute genius.
Am I "over it?" No, not really.

I do own all three seasons of the show in DVD, so they managed to get some money out of me.

But I still can't watch that one episode.

Now what was the point of telling you all that? Well , it brings me to the other half of what I hope will get me to at least the top of the hole, if not out of it.  As a philosophical point, I truly believe that you can joke about anything. Carlin felt the same way, and I agree with him.  It all depends on how you construct the joke.

What's the overall point? Whats the message? What the exaggeration?

For example, my problem with "The Other Cousin" was that the jokes were not about tolerance or understanding or of the challenges the handicapped face in our society, nor were they mocking society for it's stereotypes.  (THAT was the "Terms of Endearment" episode.) The jokes in "The Other Cousin" were just poking fun.  There simply was no context that would make them remotely acceptable.

And just as further roof that I'm not just being too sensitive myself, and thus being hypocritical, as proof that I CAN laugh a little at what life with autism throws at you, there are comics that I read - Clear Blue Water, On the Spectrum, Joey, just to name a few - that use Autism as a source of humor, but do it in an acceptable way.  I'm just pointing that out as further evidence that I am capable in seeing humor even in things that "hit close to home." Again: It all depends on how the joke is constructed.  What the point is.

In the case of the Vaughn joke? As I said, the only way it works, at all, is as an acknowledgement that we use this word, "gay," in ways that we shouldn't.  The message could be stronger, or clearer, fine, (again, it's Vince Vaughn - he's not trying to change the world here) but that still is the only message I see in it.

So what's the point?  What am I trying to say here? Why do I think it's important to let this slide, the same way I let the word "retarded" slide when someone uses it the same way?

Simple: Politics, pragmatism and priority. 

When we get too hung up on trying to control people's language, and trying to go that route to change their thinking? They instinctively pull back.  And it become very easy for our political opponents to simply call, "PC Police!" and, in that one instant, snag up all the moderates who we might have otherwise persuaded to join on far more important, substantive issues.  That doesn't make it right, but it sure does make it easy.

For me? I let the word "retarded" slide so I will be taken that much more seriously on issues like Autism Denial, or Autism Insurance Reform. Give the choice between having people take autism seriously and having my sons' therapy covered by insurance -or- having people stop using the word "retarded" (the same way they use "gay")?  Shoot... if it would help me win on the big issues? I'd start calling things "retarded!"  And you know what? Because of the largely Right Wing canard of "PC POLICE" or "THOUGHT POLICE," we're really not going to get both.  There is no doubt in my mind that we lose traction on the big issues when we let ourselves get hung up on the small ones

So.. . what's in for the LGBT community?  What do I think are the big issues? Those important ones that I claimed to be a strong supporter of?  How about:

Gay Marriage in all 50 states, and at the Federal level?
Company Benefits for Same Sex partners?
Regular Insurance Coverage for GRS?
Hate Crime Legislation?
Equal Employment Opportunities / Anti-Discrimination Policies?
Equal Rights for Adoption?
Striking Down Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

The list goes on and on.  And I am totally with you, 100%, on all of these.  And if I've missed one of the other heavy hitters?  Try me! I'm sure you'll find that we see eye to eye on it as well.  Because I just don't see the "radical gay agenda" as anything but a no-brainer.  Just a group of people who want to be treated the same as everybody else.  (Or course, I might point out how lousy everybody else gets treated, but that's only to say that you might want to aim a little higher, actually! LOL)

And while you can argue that we won't win on the big issues if we don't change how people think about us, I disagree.  I guarantee that you will lose on every single one of these big issues if you keep sweating the small stuff.  And honestly? I think that's a tragedy.  I think these issue are far too important to jeopardize over a lousy Vince Vaughn joke, from a movie that no one would even see if there wasn't such a controversy around it.

Seriously.  Do you know how many people will go see this movie now, for no other reason that this controversy?  (Not to mention that most of them won't see what the big deal was all about?)

Don't believe me? Well, let me ask you a question.

Who is Roger Mapplethorpe?

Unless your a Photographic Art History buff, the only reason you know the answer to that is, back in 1989, some Christian Fundamentalist group got wind of some his work that was going on display in Cincinnati of all places - that great bastion of popular culture and social significance.  It was a small showing, in a small city.  Just par for the course in an obscure art museum, trying to make a meager income attracting a handful of tourists.  But once the controversy took hold? It became a National story! It was huge! Suddenly Mappelthorpe's work is being shown in New York and Chicago!  Everyone wanted to see what all the fuss was about!  The Christian protesters did more to further Mappelthorpe's career that the Art Community had done!

It's true what they say: There is no such thing as bad publicity.

By getting hung up about the Vince Vaugh joke?  You are only helping Vince Vaughn. And you are only hurting GLAAD's and the LGBT community's credibility with moderate people who might otherwise be inclined to support you.

So, for the sake of the "radical gay agenda?"

Let. It.Go.

Worst Woman in the World...

Obscenity warning! (I’m pretty pissed off about this!)


Sharon Angle is a scumbag

With each passing day, I become less and less surprised that Conservatives' attitudes towards women are so backwards. I mean… just look at their representative sample: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle… You know, maybe if conservative women weren’t so fucking stupid, conservative men might think more highly of women in general. (Of course that doesn’t account for the stupidity of conservative MEN, but that for an entirely different post…)

But Sharon Angle has absolutely topped my list. She’s a stupid, lying, hypocritical, self-righteous, dangerous CUNT. Her latest talking point, following months of lies, distortions, misrepresentation and misinformation? She wants to lower Insurance Costs for the people of Nevada by ending that state’s mandate that insurance companies cover “Autism.”

The “quotes” were hers, BTW. She actually said “Autism” making “quotes” in the air with her fingers.

Candidate Angle? GO FUCK YOURSELF.

A bit of disclosure here: I have two children with “Autism.” No, fuck that: They have AUTISM. And no person with two brain-cells to bounce together (which would apparently exclude Sharron Angle) would deny that they have Classic, Kanner’s Syndrome AUTISM. Another undeniable fact is that the intensive speech therapy and special supports they’ve received have helped them make tremendous progress. Without these interventions, based on the work of many PhD’s and other researchers in the field (something the conservatives always seem to be sadly lacking in) the odds are that they would be (1) Non-verbal today and (2) headed towards a lifetime of being institutionalized. (And yes, that would be on the tax payers’ dime. So really, Sharon Angle’s just an idiot.)

Now… In my home state of Michigan none of this therapy is covered by insurance. Not. One. Penny. Of. It. And up until a few years ago pretty much no states covered it. Today the number is 23 and growing every few months. Autism insurance reform has met with very little resistance outside of the insurance lobby and a very few other special interest groups that put dollars ahead of families and handicapped children. IOW: Scumbags.

Now obviously I'm pretty damned far from being an unbiased debater here. I have no problem acknowledging that I have a dog (two, in fact) in this fight. But why don’t we look at the facts here and see what this “expensive mandate” REALLY costs people.

My family spends about $30,000 per year in speech therapy. Florida (the only state I’m immediately familiar with) covers up to $35,000 per child, but we spend $30K, and have TWO. So let’s use thirty-K as a worst-case number. I don’t know what the rate of Autism is these days, but the rate of “Autism” is about 1%. I’m OK putting that in quotes, because if you use that number, you will be including many children with a level of impairment that only the foremost experts will be able to detect. And they won’t need anywhere near the level of support that my boys do. BUT, in the interest of looking at a worst case scenario, we’ll use the 1% and assume that they’ll ALL need $30 per year.

Remember now: these are absurdly expensive assumptions: We spend $30K on TWO kids, are very happy with the results we've gotten, and a huge portion of that 1% would not need that level of support.

So…

$30,000 per year.

…times a 1% occurrence rate = $300 per year, per family.

= $25 per month.

And that’s just for the 20% of people who pay entirely for their own insurance.

For the other 80% of folks, who’s employer picks up roughly ~80% of the tab?

$5.00 per month.

FIVE BUCKS PER MONTH! Fine: Six, if you want to give a break to the other 20% and not charge their policies extra for it.

FIVE DOLLARS, maybe SIX.

That’s what it costs the people of Nevada, and the other 23 states that have arrived in the 21st Century, to prevent the Insurance Companies from discriminating against people with Autism. To save her voters FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH, ($2.50 each, if we’re talking about a married couple) she’s willing to push tens of thousands of families to the brink of (or squarely into) bankruptcy and condemn tens of thousands of children to living out their lives in state institutions, cut off from the world, unable to communicate even their basic needs and feelings in the process.

Sharron Angle? You are not only a cold, heartless, soulless, hypocritical SCUMBAG, but you’re a cold, heartless, soulless, hypocritical scumbag who’d bad at math.

And remember folks… without that help? Most of these kids would end up in state institutions. That’s what used to happen. Again, I don’t know each what that costs, but it ain’t cheap. (Consider the cost of incarcerations, and tack on whatever you think the additional overhead would be to cover the additional medical and psychiatric staff.) That’s putting aside that this is NOT what anyone would prefer or choose for themselves or their children.

I guess that makes Sharon Angle a “Fiscal Conservative.”

I guess that makes Sharon Angle “Pro-Family.”

Personally I think it makes Sharon Angle a “scumbag.”

And, if I were Conservative, just more evidence that women have no place making public policy. Hey, with stupid bitches women like Sharron Angle serving as examples, I can almost see where their misogyny comes from.


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

BTW… I’m not throwing out the word, “hypocrite” lightly here. If you caught Keith Olberman’s WPITW on Tuesday you’d have learned that:

But our winner, Sharron Angle, the radical Republican Tea Party candidate for the Senate in Nevada. You heard her plans to phase out Social Security and Medicare and her complaints about how she has to pay for other women‘s maternity leave, and how states have to pay for kids with, air quote, autism, end air quote. They were her air quotes. And you heard her talk about how Harry Reid is a socialist or an anarchist or Marxist, or whatever he is.

Turns out Sharron Angle gets government health care insurance. Her husband is retired from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. So he gets the same federal employee health program insurance he got while he worked there. And it covers his wife Sharron, as does his pension, paid for by contributions made by current civil service employees. It‘s the civil service government equivalent of Social Security.

So the next time she whines about ending this or relieving Nevada of the burden of that, let‘s see her start by cutting off that socialist insurance she gets, her insurance that you and I pay for. Sharron Angle, hypocrite, today‘s Worst Person in the World.

Keith? I love you, man. But you're going too easy on her, and I’m going to just have to try and top you here.


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

One last note, while I’ve admitted bias in terms on my own personal interest, I want to point out that this is no Liberal / Conservative partisan bias here on my part. The majority of states that have mandated insurance coverage for Autism are in fact traditionally considered RED STATES. More Republican leaning states have passed Autism insurance reform that Democratic leaning ones. That’s a fact. An embarrassing one that many Deomcrats are working to fix, but if there’s any partisan advantage here, the benefit remains with the Republicans! (Tea-Baggers and Sharon Angle excluded.)

For a complete list, and for more information on how you can help make insurance companies do the right thing, while at the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars in the future and allowing more people to live productive and independent lives, please visit AutsimVotes.org.


And whatever you do, don’t vote for an stupid, autism denialist like Sharron Angle.

Open Letter on Climate Change

I came accross THIS, from the Guardian a couple weeks back, following a link that was in my bible.  I've been meaning to post it ever since, and invite everyone to read it, use it, reference it, send it to your friends, etc...  and I kept forgetting to.  So before I forget again, please check it out.  It's a very simple, clear, concise rebuttal to the business and politics of climate change denial in general.  It doesn't deal in specifics, but it lays clear what is really behind climate change denial... and it ain't science!