The Confounding Story of Elton and Rush--Tuesday Journal

When I heard that gay icon Elton John entertained at homophobe Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding (his fourth), I had to check on-line news sources to make sure it wasn't a hoax.  In fact, I learned that it was true.  What's more, Elton earned a million bucks for singing at the wedding of a man whose scathing public rejection of gays and gay rights makes him reprehensible in the eyes of many.

A lot of the articles I found asked "Why"?  Why would Elton John agree to appear before such a hostile right-wing crowd?  Why would he agree to work for someone who obviously regards people like him with contempt?  Surely, he didn't need the money, did he?  Didn't he realize how this would seem, at first glance, like a sellout?  Why was nothing reported until after the fact? (No doubt to prevent the potential for protesters outside of the venues.) 

What no one seemed to ask was why Limbaugh would hire such a high-profile, openly gay performer given Limbaughg's own public record of ignorance about gay issues.  (Could that rascal Limbaugh be attempting to establish some liberal credential in an eventual run for political office?  Is he that cynical?)

It then occurred to me that Elton John's sexuality made no difference in his ability to successfully entertain a festive crowd; it just surprised me that Limbaugh would so casually draw the same conclusion.  Maybe we are arriving at a more ideal world after all...  Had Limbaugh, in his characteristic reactionary ignorance, stated that he refused to hire Elton John, or any gay performer, simply because they were gay---now THAT would have justified controversy.

It began to feel, in truth, like a world devoid of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Those of us who support the repeal of this law argue that one's sexuality has nothing to do with one's ability to apply one's talents to do a job.  And if gay military personnel do not reject an entire career with an openly homophobic organization, why would we expect Elton John to do so for one lucrative gig?

Then why am I still uneasy, feeling betrayed, even?

First, for years gay people have seen Elton John become a true ally.  From his flamboyance to his philanthropy, we felt Elton was a powerful champion of our experience.  This aura of support was brought to fruition recently with his sensitive and sensational work in "Billy Elliot".  So, maybe he is, after all, merely a reluctant representative of gay people's aspirations, but he is nevertheless an icon of the gay community, with whose support he has fashioned a huge career.

And second, for many years gay people and their lives have been degraded by the commentary of Limbaugh.  He vindicates the hate of dangerous people, so that he cannot be held innocent of a general atmosphere of homophobia and violence that persists among the unshakably ignorant.

So this unlikely pairing, pundit and entertainer, while ideally a good thing, seems to be exploitative and condescending in ways that I have attempted to briefly uncover here. 

I wonder if Limbaugh, who embraces Don't Ask Don't Tell, realizes the irony of his hiring Elton John, with no questions asked?  How could he not?   Could Limbaugh's self-styled homophobia merely be a desperate and sardonic public persona that nevertheless motivates his followers to hate?

As for Elton John, he may have no personal stake in the silly political polarization of the U.S.  Still, would he, the champion of the Billy Elliots of the world and their downtrodden and ultimately accepting families--would Elton John have just as easily accepted that same million dollars to perform at a personal reception for Margaret Thatcher?

Time will reveal whether there is a satisfying explanation to this occurrence, or if we will forever second-guess the motives of this uncomfortable duo and their ideologies.

Another First Step--Monday Follow-up

(BLOGGER was out of service since last night...here's my Sunday post, a day late...hope to write more after class.  Good to be back!)

As a follow-up to my post from last evening (Saturday June 5, immediately below) I requested to be placed on a list to receive the e-newsletter for Mercy for Animals.  This is a small first step. A little regular reading is in order.  Inspiration, involvement, and power will follow.

Here's a copy of the email just received: 

Dear Friend,



Thank you for signing up to receive Mercy For Animals' monthly e-newsletter, The Voice. You have taken the first step in showing your commitment to helping prevent needless animal cruelty and build a society where all animals are treated with respect and compassion.


Now that you have joined our online community of dedicated animal activists, please consider becoming a voice for the billions of animals suffering in factory farms and slaughterhouses by becoming an official member of MFA today.


For a donation of just $15 or more, you will become an official MFA member - giving you access to exclusive MFA events, news and upcoming projects. You'll also receive a subscription to Compassionate Living, MFA's semi-annual magazine, along with a complete membership packet.


To help protect farmed animals even more, and receive additional exclusive membership benefits, consider becoming a Monthly MFA Donor by clicking here.


Again, thank you for your kindhearted commitment toward helping save innocent lives from needless suffering and cruelty.


Sincerely,






Nathan Runkle


Executive Director

Using Movies, Writing, and All My Interests, for Unfortunate Creatures--A Saturday Journal

There are moments in every life that move you in unexpected directions.  Here I am, contentedly sharing my story, and exercising my love of writing pieces of a mosaic that is my life. 

I am gradually constructing a picture on these pages that I hope will stand as a legacy, a self-portrait, to anyone who cares about me personally, or who shares even some small portion of my interests.  I hoped readers found on these pages a kindred spirit with whom to exchange opinions and enjoy a mutual appreciation of a mayriad of seemingly unrelated subjects.  I hope they will keep doing so.

And then I saw a video last week which haunted me; and I continue to be confronted by photos, like those below, of innocent creatures caught up in man's seeming unending carelessness.  The importance of everything else fell away for few moments. And for many moments since then,  I began to see that instead of me reinvinting my life, my life was seeking to reinvent me.

And I wondered...can I be true to myself,  pursue my personal interests, and still use the life I have left to live to contribute to something as harrowing and important as the rescue, care, and advocacy of animals in harm's way? 

It is overwhelming...  Because I want to be the one to change it all....And I often succumb to emotion, and wonder if I can just pretend it's too far away, that it doesn't affect me....

Reinvention indeed.......

Now, as I think about the work I now do for the Community College; my interest in writing, and film; my undeniable love for animals; my experience in animal care, both domestic and homeless; and my hankering to conquer my home city, Chicago, ....ideas are taking shape.

I have read through the website for Mercy for Animals, which opened my eyes to horror last week, and I will visit their Chicago headquarters before this month is out.  I don't know if I will be considered too old for an internship; or how I can arrange my time to offer assistance with the organization.  But I know that before the year is over there will be something good for me to contribute, whether in person or through the keyboard...

I am writing like crazy...and through the haze of ideas, I see forming a work that I hope can be the Gone With The Wind of animal stories in screenplay form, or a novel, or even a memoir....or a regular feature in this blog.....

The time I volunteer at the Buddy Foundation, feeding and walking the homeless dogs, will take on much more resonance....I feel like I can do so much more....and will.

I will continue to re-explore various points in my life; and reconnect with my heritage (even if only by learning Italian); to understand my life from a unique LGBT perspective; to continue my lifelong love of the motion picture and offer my personal viewpoint and act as a fellow curator of the art form;  to make a comfortable and hospitable home with my partner and best friend; to compulsively read everything I can  find that is of interest; to be a good friend to a few special people; to contribute to the success of students and community members at the college; to spend time with all the dogs in my world; and to stay connected to those things (like music, art, and a budding political awareness) that define me and give me energy and purpose.

And now, it seems that  all of this is conspiring, and coming together, to point me in a direction to do something true and important to save some creatures who need help.  

I hope you will stay with me.....

My Love of Movies and Gene Siskel--Thursday Journal

Last weekend I was reminded of an early influence on my appreciation of movies, the late film critic Gene Siskel.


There was a time during the 1970's and 1980's when you could not hear Roger Ebert's name mentioned without also hearing, in the same breath, the name of Gene Siskel.  In fact, it was "Siskel and Ebert", the name of their milestone television program, that became part of the national lexicon.  Theirs was the first show to feature two critics discussing, and gloriously debating, the latest movies in release.

Each review was capped with their signature judgment: "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down".  (Once in a while after a decidedly mixed review, they might give a humorous "Thumb Sideways".)  Nationwide, newspaper movie ads used "Two Thumbs Up" as a cinematic seal of approval.  While Ebert was the daily film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, Siskel reviewed films for the rival Chicago Tribune.  Since our household had Tribune delivery, I began my love affair with movies by following Siskel's reviews.


My father would occasionally bring home a Sun-Times from the train station, giving me a chance to read Ebert.  But I remained loyal to Siskel, hung on his every word, memorized the star-ratings he awarded each movie (* to ****), and imitated his style (along with that of Pauline Kael) when I began writing reviews of my own in a junior-high-school journal.

Many of Siskel's favorites eventually became my own favorites too.  "Annie Hall", "Nashville" and "Z" all made the #1 spot on his annual Top-10 lists.  He reviewed "Cabaret" twice in two weeks, the second time to urge people to see it.  He enthused that "The Last Emperor" was one of the greatest films he had seen in all his years of reviewing to that time, in a career that started in 1969. 


Siskel instilled in me an appreciation of the artistry and creative possibility of movies, giving special praise to international cinema, particularly French and Italian imports.  And he made me feel like I was "in" on the conversation about the most exciting movies of the day, many of which I yearned to see in spite of being too young, according to the then-stricter enforcement of the MPAA rating system.


I entered his "Beat Siskel" Oscar contest faithfully during my entire teen and college years.  I never won, but had a blast handicapping and second-guessing him and the Academy. 


Gene Siskel died in 1999 of a brain tumor at age 53,  It felt as though I had been cast adrift, without an anchor. 


This past weekend I attended a film at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Downtown Chicago, part of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.  It is a terrific little movie house with two comfortable screening rooms showing a great variety of classic, independent and experimantal films, as well as the occasional Hollywood revival, and interesting documentaries.

It is a showplace reminiscent of a time when college students stayed up all night to discuss and debate the latest new wave or foreign film, or to gather after class for coffee and a matinee, maybe sitting for a double feature.  I am sure that if I lived any closer to the city, I would spend as much time at the Gene Siskel Center as I did in the University screening rooms of my youth.

Mark and I saw Vittorio DeSica's 1948 neo-realist masterpiece "The Bicycle Thieves".  The print was in mint condition and I understood some of the Italian dialog without the subtitles.  This film was simple and profound: a man in post-WW2 Italy needs a bicycle for his new job.  When his is stolen on his first day, he and his son spend the day to try to find it.  Along the way they make some hard discoveries about justice and ethics and the struggle of life.  It is not romanticized at all, but its stratightforward tone and open-endedness made it extremely emotional and moving.  I think Gene would have been ecstatic to have this film showcased in the theater that bears his name. 

 

Don't Ask Don't Tell has NOT Been Repealed Yet--Tuesday Journal

dadtlanguage



Okay.  It may be a move in the right direction.  But I think some folks are too enthusiastic about the House vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which forces gay military personnel to lie about themselves in return for not being discharged from their military careers.


And I worry that many people will be too satisfied, too placated, by this gesture to ask what it really means.  Some might even scorn those (like myself) who suspect this could just be lip service, and would continue to speak out for repeal.


The Amendment the House passed (printed above) is simply a rhetorical, political statement to outline a way the military can, in its judgment, rescind its policy of discrimination against openly gay military personnel, conditionally.   But although many pundits are declaring this an historic victory, I maintain that this amendment might not guarantee a repeal.

The document as written provides for a "review" that lists a number of conditions to be met first.  But really, this could all be much simpler.  State that openly gay military personnel will no longer be discharged from the military, and immediately end the practice.   To do anything less strikes me as merely mollifying the homophobes in the ranks. 

Instead, we have a proposed list of procedures that don't immediately address discrimination, and that continues to assume that gays are a problem that need to be solved.   Not only that, the review carries NO TIME TABLE for completion.  At the top of p. 4, it all but states that if these conditions are not met, Don't Ask Don't Tell will remain in force.


Look--gay people are already serving. What will change by conducting a drawn-out review?  All this amendment does is allow politicians to claim that they addressed the issue; and those who secretly wish that it be forever caught up in bureaucracy can easily "support" it,  knowing it may never actually come to pass.


Soon after the House vote last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a direct appeal to military personnel and their families:

"Every man and woman in uniform is a vitally important part of this review. We need to hear from you and your families so that we can make these judgments in the most informed and effective manner.....So please let us know how to do this right."

This seems to me to be a stall tactic, an attempt to manufacture controversy.  Does anyone really think Gates' statement is directed toward gay personnel and their families? 

One would think that the military was preparing to place its personnel in harms way, even asking them to risk death! 

One might even think that military brass can no longer give an order and expect it to be followed. This repeal could have been ordered BEFORE a review was commenced.

I think we should be very cautious in our praise of this proposed amendment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.  I will support any real effort to end this shameful discrimination, by all means; but I can't sit back and wait patiently--or silently-- for a "review" that may well conclude that a repeal is not feasible.