Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Gay Rights: the more things change, the more they stay the same...
The names of Seattle municipal employees who belong to an LGBT affinity group will not be released for at least a week, but the city argued yesterday before a King County judge that state law requires it to release the names to an anti-gay activist who has requested the list.
Philip Irvin, a city employee and right-wing activist who claims he’s been barred from attending the club’s meetings because he is heterosexual and opposed to gay rights, has requested that the city release the names of employees who belong to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Friends (LGBTQF) Club at Seattle City Light, a municipal electric utility.
Private lawyers for LGBTQF members, have asked the court to order the city not to release their names.
After a hearing yesterday, Judge John Erlick continued a temporary restraining order that blocks release of the names until at least next week when both sides will be back in court. Erlick could decide then what and how much should be released...
Read the full story here:
http://lgbtqnews.com/gaynews/Names-of-gay-city-employees-private-for-now-but-Seattle-argues-they-must-be-released.aspx
Friday, April 17, 2009
Independent publishing -- and bookselling -- rock!
Thanks to Vashtan at Live Journal for this:
http://community.livejournal.com/meta_writer/13973.html
And to pique your interest -- so that you buzz off over there and read the rest! -- here's a couple of choice paragraphs:
Amazon’s "Glitch" Myth Debunked
by Francine Saint Marie
I am the author of the LAMBDA Notable Book, The Secret Keeping [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419682369], as well as The Secret Trilogy [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1438240570], Girl Trouble [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1438202105] and several other popular LGBT paperbacks sold on Amazon.com.
All of my novels have been aggressively censored by Amazon since (at least) January of 2008, when they were first released as Kindle editions and promptly rigged in the Kindle store so as not to register any sales ranks and bestselling categories, or to show up properly in Amazon search results. I have also experienced mysterious "sourcing fees" applied by Amazon to the list prices of my LGBT paperbacks, as well as the deletion of five-star customer reviews of them, the removal of their "in stock" status, and a host of other handicapping techniques which are still in effect today.
Since the first quarter of 2008 to the date hereof, I (and my team) have, in vain, relentlessly pursued Amazon about their insidious censorship of my titles. Through telephone calls, e-mails and forum posts, we have repeatedly demanded that they cease and desist burying my novels in their browse tree and otherwise hindering my sales. We have also urged them to provide all authors with "equal access" to their site features and a "level playing field" upon which to compete. As Amazon can confirm, the cry "missing sales ranks" and "discrimination" was Team Saint Marie’s mantra in 2008, and it was even the title of a widely read "thread" we posted in the Kindle publishers’ forum, which Amazon hastily deleted. Indeed, "missing sales ranks" and "discrimination" was the subject of many circular (and recorded) phone conversations with Amazon’s representatives, not to mention an awesome number of e-mails!
-----end of quote!
Now, please! Go and read the rest ... and maybe Keegan won't be sounding so paranoid.
You know me: I'm a LOUD supporter of indie anything, being it writing, publishing, film making, bookselling, the works. Indie Rules. Indie is best -- globalize the "power," beat monopolization. In my world view, it's all about human rights, of which gay rights is a crucial (in fact, watershed) subcategory.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Save the planet? According to Kevin Rudd, why bother?!

Right now, you've got a rampaging Christian in the Responsibility Seat, who takes a dim view of gay marriage rights, is ambivalent about foreign policy, wants all of Australia to drop off the Internet to save a handful of parentally neglected children from the faint possibility of blundering into disgusting websites ... and frankly he doesn't give the proverbial stuff about the environment.
And I voted for this guy. Gee-Zeus. I swear it, I'm going back to voting for Daffy Duck, even though Brendan Fraser said he was (and I quote), an a$$hole to work with...
TTFN,
MK
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sneak preview!
In fact, this is the sneak preview, for readers of this blog only. The launch itself will be via newsletter tomorrow.
LEGENDS is up, it's ready, and it's open. The first eight or nine thousand words are online, plus a lot of artwork, housed in one of the most amazing templates I've ever seen. You'd hardly believe it was a blog, and you'd never guess it was working under the Blogger engine.
Here's the url to the LEADER page -- remember, being a blog it will always have the latest post up first! But if you book mark this url, you'll always hit the "cover" of the book! Here is is:
http://mel-keegan-legends.blogspot.com/2009/01/1.html
Notice that there are tabs across the top of the page (and THAT is a feat of magic in Blogger) which give you access to the Complete Contents, as well as a other stuff. The Complete Contents is just that: the direct link to every segment as it's posted, in order, identified by its title.
You can also navigate by a simple "chapter list" that's building in the left column; and you can page-forward and page-back from the top and bottom of each chapter/post. If you do get lost (and it won't be easy, because the navigation is too obvious!) go home to the Complete Contents from the tab-bar across the top of the page.
Lastly, where it says "Chapter Five is due tomorrow" ... well, this is the sneak preview. Chapter Five will actually be up a day after the site opens "to the public." Regulars on this blog are a special kind of "in group" with due privileges.
The rest of the Mel-o-Sphere is fairly dull: it's all about narrowly avoiding the hospital (not me personally), house cleaning, and being confounded by the prejudice you find in the oddest places --
In putting together the LEGENDS site, obviously it's "monetized" because the novel itself is free. So I've been looking around for an ad-server that would load a banner onto the page and pay whatever fee per thousand page impressions -- you know how it works.
I'm sure there are companies out there who would do this, but long before I found one which will work with me, I checked out the banner ad serving company that comes most highly recommended (seemed like a good place to start) and was both stunned and disgusted.
They have a problem with blogs, for a start: probably because blogs have the ability to be flexible, ephemeral, always changing, and content is uploaded so fast -- they can't hope to monitor (censor, filter, object to, haggle over) what's published. They have a problem with FOREIGN sites ...meaning, anything outside North America. They have a problem with sites that have anything to do with, or are linked to, sites about "different sexual orientation." They also have a problem with sites dealing with religion ... and on, and on.
The prejudice displayed by such a company is beyond comprehension. They come highly recommended by (surprise) American blogging pundits --
But what if you're "foreign," or Hundu, or (good grief!) GLBTI? You're persona non grata. These people refuse to serve ads to anyone who's not PLU -- heterosexual North Americans who either don't mention religion, or toe the (Republican) party line. Dominionists? Fine and dandy. Wiccan or Taoist or Hindu? I imagine they believe we're all going to burn.
Not good enough, people.I clicked out and passed on. At this point, LEGENDS is carrying Google ads, Amazon affiliate stuff, iPower and Serif (which we know inside out, can vouch for and recommend) and that's about it. I'm still hunting for an ad server without the incredible prejudice. Might take a look at Gay Ad Network. And when the traffic on LEGENDS has built up to a healthy torrent, Blog Ads should start to look attractive.
The experiment begins! Look out for a newsletter tomorrow, and I'll keep you posted as to results.
Speaking of results, it's interesting to note that the Amazon affiliate links actually do sell items. It works out to something like 10 items sold through about 2500 page impressions ... in other words, every 250 page loads, someone, somewhere, buys a book, a DVD, a CD, a jump drive, an SD card, whatever.
And of course this is the core of the experiment: can you give the book away and make enough "on the side" for the author to be reimbursed? Let's find out!
Ciao for now,
MK
Monday, January 12, 2009
More than human ... in fact,Transhuman
The biggest difference between the NARC and Hellgate "worlds" is the Transhuman element, which is the pivot point around which Crystal Genesis revolves. In the NARC stories (set a little under four centuries in our own future) people are ... well, they're still just people. There hasn't been much tinkering with the human genome to make humans over into "more" or "different." Then, along came the starship engines which pushed the frontier back so far that untold opportunities for colonization, industry ... empire ... came along. But a lot of these worlds were not quite earthlike. They were close enough to be terraformed to a degree, but the humans relocating there had to meet the new environment halfway.

And this meant the eventual acceptance of Transhuman engineering. It's a great term -- and not one I invented! It's already in use, and the ethics, protocols, politics, philosophies of Transhumanism are already being thrashed out, even here, even now, in 2009.
For a smattering of background on this, have a look at the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
While you're there, take a moment to notice that there's a new magazine on the subject. The first issue of H+ magazine came out for fall 2008, and is downloadable as a PDF from the website:
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/
I've just read quite a lot of the PDF and the whole thing interests me strangely. The world of NARC and Hellgate just came a step closer. One of the feature articles in H+ #1 is entitled, "Science Fiction gets funding."
If I could, I'd give you a little taste, to inspire you to get over to H+ and take a proper look; but the magazine is in PDF form, and -- quite understandably! -- the copy/paste feature is locked out. God knows, I lock it out on my own PDFs ... to make people get the whole thing, not just take a sniff or a bite in passing. So go here, and get the magazine:
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/hplusmag_fall_2008.pdf

Nostrakeeganus going to stick neck way out and make big prophecy: the technology will come along within the next half century, though the arguments will still be in session. However, when the technology is a reality, sooner or later someone, somewhere will notice that rich people have stopped being 60. They're all 35. And they're slim, and muscular, and healthy, goddamn it. In other words, the therapies will be expensive and administered by rogue physicians in underground clinics frequented by the wealthy. Transhumanism will sneak in the back door, and when the Hollywood A-list of 2050 is, on average, 75 years old and looking forty years younger ... the tide of public pressure will sweep away the nay-sayers.
People want to look younger and slimmer; they want muscles; few actually want to be bald or have gray hair. We all desire perfect piano-key teeth, great eyesight, freedom from arthritis, deafness, cancer. If there's something amoral or weird about these desires, then the cosmetics industry ought to take another look at itself right now. Also modern dentistry, let alone the legions of plastic surgeons and research medicine gurus.
We slather our faces with anti-wrinkle cream, diet and exercise, put on our toupees and wigs, dye our hair, get our teeth capped, get fitted for contact lenses, do yoga, take fish oils and see chiropractors, invest in near-to-invisible hearing aids, and get screened for cancer every six months. This is normal and desirable, but transhumanism is amoral and weird?
Good question, isn't it? You have to know I'm solidly behind any harmless, side-effect-free, affordable, ecologically sound, financially supportable therapy that will "put paid" to disease and disability. Ever tried to have a sensible conversation with someone who's almost stone deaf? Ever helped a near-blind old aunt get groceries? Ever visited a near-the-end terminal cancer patient in the hospital? Have you experienced the first pains of unavoidable, normal "wear and tear" on your joints? Your doctor will patiently explain that everyone over about 35 has some degree of osteo arthritis. It's your body starting to wear out. And it hurts. The wear and tear is gradual, like the way your glasses keep getting thicker, and there's more gold and porcelaine in your mouth, and your face is, uh, spreading sideways and heading south!

But if you notice, the people perched on this moral high ground -- saying things that you might respond to with a smile and a nod while inwardly you wince -- are usually the ones with the beautifully dyed hair, the expensive spectacles, the perfectly capped teeth. And I'll bet they get screened for cancer and take the most expensive vitamins and antioxidants on the shelf. Fundamentally, they're breaking their own rules, because everything we do that aims to change what we are, what we were born, falls neatly into the Transhuman zone.
It's interesting, and it's going to be fascinating to watch this drama unfold between now, and, say, 2058 ... at which date, Keegan will be 100 years old. And driving a souped up, turbo-charged wheelchair up the line to get the newly-legalized therapies! Like a lot of other people, I'd like to live to be 120, which they say is the maximum normal human lifespan. But who the heck wants to live that long if you can't be mobile, active, creative, productive --
Good grief! It's just occurred to you that you'll have to read this bloody blog for another fifty years!
Ciao for now,
MK

Saturday, January 10, 2009
The website reappears!
If you were to click on this right now, you'll get ...
...and a great sigh of relief is being heaved by all. Oars are back in the water. We were down for about three days, or less, and I'll tell you, it felt like months. Shows you how web dependent we've become -- and how much it's going to smart when the Internet filtering starts, "the Great Aussie Firewall," and the www is suddenly close to inaccessible due to its grinding slowness and the probability of everything, everywhere, timing out before it can be loaded. It's scheduled to begin in a few days now.
There's a story running on Crikey!-dot-com today:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090109-Brooklyn-Law-School-study-highlights-net-censorship-problems.html
The world smirks at Conroy's censorship plan
The rest of the world has been smirking at Stephen Conroy's ill-conceived plan to censor Australia's Internet for a while now, but a new study published by Brooklyn Law School entitled "Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship" is a serious embarrassment.
This report is important. Not only is it authored by a reputable and neutral foreign observer but it also focuses more on the legitimacy of the scheme than the technical concerns, and it finds some serious problems. Despite the sober language, phrases like "troubling", "worrisome", "politically motivated" and "unaccountable" are common.
Contrary to persistent claims by the Minister, the study finds that Australia "will likely become the first Western democracy to block access to on-line material through legislative mandate."
The world smirks at Conroy's censorship plan
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090109-Brooklyn-Law-School-study-highlights-net-censorship-problems.html
Here's the abstract of a report published just before Christmas:
Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray into Internet Censorship
Derek E. Bambauer Brooklyn Law School
December 22, 2008
Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 125
Abstract:
Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively, and to retrofit it to a decentralized network architecture. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though coalition government gives minority politicians considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system for on-line and off-line material that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content - and only that content - will vary based on what method the country's ISPs use. Though Australia's decisionmakers are formally accountable to citizens, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. The paper argues Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.
Bambauer, Derek E.,Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray into Internet Censorship(December 22, 2008). Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 125. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1319466
It's an incredible waste of time and money, at a moment when the climate is crashing, people are out of work and losing their homes, whole populations are starving, and disease is on the rampage worldwide. Against all this, we're going to throw better than a hundred million dollars at doing a job which parents could be compelled by law to do for themselves. Buy and install bloody Net Nanny. It's that simple. But nooooo, we have to be The Righteous Christian Nation, waddling along in the footsteps of the American religious right loonies like an arthritic little lap dog.
The fact is, we've been toadying to the White House for so long, one would have thought a change was due; but we elected ourselves a clueless, self-confessed "cradle Catholic" who is more interested in placating the religious lunatic fringe downunder than in making adults (parents!) take responsibility for the children they conceived by accident, and are now so wantonly neglecting that these kids could cruise porn sites all day long, if the little monsters wanted to ... and it turns out, the little monsters do!
All that is needed is legislation, making illegal the "wilful supply of pornography by parents to minors." If it were a motoring offence, it would be termed "driving without due care and attention," the kind of driving that leads to fender-benders, flattened gateposts and roadkill pets. This would be "operating a computer without due care and attention, in the presence of minors," the kind of surfing that leads to sex, coarse language, violence, hate, racism, sexism, drugs and underage models in compromising situations, all being freely displayed.
Make it a law. Slap a $5,000 fine on it. Hit the parents, hit them hard where it hurts -- the pocketbook. It's clobbering time. But leave the Internet alone. The business community depends on it to work and trade, and the rest of us depend on it to communicate. You know, they're looking into ways to filter chat?! What comes next, censored emails?
Still on the subject of the Internet -- I've been invited to take part in the class action against Google Book Search. Glance at this: http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/. I can't say I've been directly affected, since I write niche fiction rather than whopping great research text books. But I'm looking into it, with an eye to seeing what The Goog intends doing with ebooks and so forth. I'm still reading, without much real idea of how this involves Keegan at this point, but you have to admit, it's interesting!
But today's big news is ... Mel Keegan OnLine is back on line!
Still waiting for the proof copy of Harbendane. Still waiting for Google to explain why they zeroed out the page rankings of this blog, and maybe rectify the situation. *sigh* Patience.
Cheers,
MK
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Happy New Year! Start rolling out those barrels...

There's not much to say today except HAPPY NEW YEAR! The old year has seven or eight hours left in it, as I write this. I find myself looking both backward and forward, at the events that surprised, disgusted, delighted and grieved us during 2008, and at the events that ought to get us up on the soap boxes next year.
Ought-eight was the year everybody got rid of George W. Bush; it was the year Americans elected a president of color ... it was also the year when people were hoodwinked by the religious right, into voting against civil liberties and human rights. However, it was also the year when the aforementioned religious right well and truly shot their bolt, and "all came out in the wash." Their lies and perfidy became common knowledge, and as they saying goes, "they can't pull that trick again." Gay marriage rights will be back on the ballot sheet very soon, and this time the people of California will go to the polls with their eyes wide open.
It was the year Heath Ledger died; the year the recession hit the whole world broadside. The Olympics went to China ... China could no longer disguise its air pollution problems. The global climate went bung some more, and did it faster than anyone had ever expected ... but record snowfalls are being taken by some idiots as a sign that there's no such thing as global warming! Apparently, we need to start building "proper" power stations as fast as we can. I read a feature article in the UK's Telegraph online; I read it because I thought the teaser line promised a great joke, and was two thirds through it before I realized, this buffoon is deadly serious, and so are the pea-brains who left comments on the page: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html ... don't you love the title? "2008," it says, "was the year man-made global warming was disproved." O...kay.
Well, it certainly was the year that The Dark Knight showed how much money a movie can make at the box office! It also showed that there's a disturbing large part of the audience that's identifying with the psychos, not the heroes. Woah.
But 2008 was also the year when the Vatican said it was fine and dandy to believe in aliens (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90KSE100&show_article=1), and at the same time, gay athletes decided not to come out! Of 10,500 athletes in Beijing, only 10 were out, and only one of those was a guy (http://www.theage.com.au/news/off-the-field/10500-athletes-and-only-10-of-them-gay/2008/08/18/1218911546077.html). Statistically, it's far more probably that about a thousand of these athletes were gay or bi, but with the hurricane of Prop 8 going on in the background, who was going to come out?! The time isn't right, not yet, not quite.
Because this was also the year the Dominionists came within tickling distance of the White House. Don't get me started on Dominionists.
It was the year John Barrowman published his autobiography (!), and Aussie TV decided they couldn't show season two of Torchwood because (so they said) there was material which would offend viewers. If you believe a syllable of that.
This year, our prime minister was demonstrated to be a "cradle catholic" with aspirations to build "the great Australian firewall," meaning Aus becomes one of only five countries to deliberately and vastly censor the Internet. The others are China, Iran, Egypt and ... England. Go figure.
The year Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman starred in a major flop: Australia ... and Kidman has been blamed for it. Well, who could blame Hugh Jackman when the poor man just can't help looking like this:


See what I mean? Not his fault. Couldn't be his fault. Blame Kidman. It's all her fault anyway. (And yes, even Keegan decided to wait for the DVD ... and I'm not usually swayed by critics. I'll talk about the movie when I've rented the disk!)
It was also the year Will Smith was outed, whether he liked it or not! Kewl. Unless you're Will Smith, of course. Then, well, maybe not so kewl. The year Brad had twins ... I expect he had help there somewhere. The year Michael Jackson's nose fell off -- or was that last year? One loses track. The year Whacko Jacko ... and Mel Keegan ... turned 50. Good golly, what happened to time? The last time I looked at a calendar, it was 1997, and I'll bet Jacko would tell you the same.
It's actually been one hell of a year, and the next one will be just as weird and wonderful.
We live in "interesting times," to borrow from the old Chinese curse!
H a p p y N e w Y e a r ! I'll be back next year,
Cheers,
MK
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Internet Censorship looms closer downunder

It's always about protecting children from what's available on the computer ... and I can see the point behind this; but here's the rub: parents are also in charge of TV sets, DVDs that can be highly un-kid-friendly, CDs of rap music with content that'd make a sailor blanch, plus the old but good paperbacks and magazines that depict anything and everything you can imagine, and a lot you can't!
Books, magazines, videos and music are all under similar scrutiny ... but none of them are censored or filtered the way the Internet seems to be in danger of. You have the official State Censorship Bureau for your region, and they decide what's going to be burned right there on the dock, and what's going to be rated G or R or triple-x, or whatever.
I agree with pasting ratings on websites! In fact, responsible publishers already have well-positioned warnings as per adult content. You can go into your Blogger settings and have them display a "warning" page before the blog loads, for instance. You can also slap up an image or text block in the sidebar space, giving fair warning, along the lines of "This page contains adult material, do not proceed if you have problems with this."
But how in the world is the Internet going to be regulated like television?! Various websites go offline in the UK, Australia, China, Iran and Egypt, until 9:00pm, when the sex and violence get revved up on TV?
Where is the text on the rap CD case that says, "This CD may not be played during daylight hours due to offensive content" ...?! Where's the sticker on the DVD skinflik that says, "It is illegal to play this DVD before 9:00pm" ...?!
Surely, it comes down to the responsibility of parents. Would YOU leave an inquisitive, disobedient 7-year-old in the house alone with your prominently-displayed collection of DVDs, skinrags and so forth? No? Then why don't you just password-protect the computer and TURN IT OFF before leaving the kiddies alone with it? That way, they can turn it on if they like, but if they don't know the password ("thispcisakidfreezone", or, "thispciskidproof," or "getyourdamnednoseoutofthispc," or similar), they'll just look at a pretty blue screen for two hours.
Just as parents are responsible for hiding their skinrags, p*orno novels and DVDs and locking out the "adult" channels on the cable box -- make them responsible for password protecting the damned computer and LEARNING WHERE THE POWER SWITCH IS!!!
If fact, make it illegal for parents to have unprotected computers.
Make it illegal for a unprotected PC to be in the same building with a child over 2 and under 18. That way, your pregnant 17 year old, who's home minding the twins to which she gave birth last year, and watching We Were Soldiers and Saving Private Ryan, while chain smoking with both hands, knocking back a six-pack and lighting up the whacky-weed, won't be able to start up the computer and look at sex and violence on the Internet ... where it's illegal. Fine or imprison the parents if they let this 17 year mama old get onto the computer without the supervision of a mature adult.
Okay, I'll stop being flip and glib ... but you take my meaning. Here's the bottom line:
- Parents are responsible for their children
- The WWW is no more virulent than TV and DVDs
- the community at large has come to depend on the net
- you can't cripple the net to protect little kids because
- the community at large depends on it! And
- parents must be MADE to take responsibility...
...even if they don't want to, or are too lazy, or too stupid.
Yet we're still on the road where all Internet users are rabbit-punched because of the few stupid, lazy parents out there. P2P is about to be worst-hit in this country .... the Rudd government is looking at just blocking the lot and calling it good.
Read 'em and weep for the sheer stupidity of "The Great Aussie Firewall":
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i3agqiMrtVoJZzcaRDg2795uSLAAD95AGJQO0
http://www.p2p-weblog.com/50226711/australia_may_block_all_p2p_traffic.php
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/22/australia_bittorrent/
...stop the planet, I want to get off!
Cheers,
MK
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Catholic cake: how to have it and eat it.
How have GOT to read this: Church gay marriage stand: 'no harm meant', on this url: http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2814
This piece of ecumenical bull-shine came over the wire yesterday from the National Catholic Enquirer, and it leaves you shaking your head in gob-smackedness.
Don't have time to click through and read it? Here's the gist of it:
LOS ANGELES -- In a message to homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony and the six auxiliary bishops of the archdiocese said the recent vote in California defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman "does not diminish in any way (your) importance" nor "lessen your personal dignity and value as full members of the body of Christ."
The message said Catholic support for Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment approved by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin Nov. 4, "was in defense of the long-standing institution of marriage understood as the lifelong relationship of a man and a woman ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of their children."
The church's support was not an effort to harm the homosexual community or to ban same-sex marriage, even though ballot information about Proposition 8 stated that was the initiative's purpose, the cardinal and bishops said.
"If we had ever thought that the intent of this proposition was to harm you or anyone in the state of California, we would not have supported it," they said. "We are personally grateful for the witness and service of so many dedicated and generous homosexual Catholics. We pledge our commitment to safeguard your dignity."
Say -- what?! On Day One they lie through their teeth, even though God hates a liar, in order to get Prop 8 passed. I've blogged about this before, so rather than reiterate, here's the link: http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/prop-8-catholics-mormons-and-why-they.html -- Prop 8: Catholics and Mormons, and why they lied.
Then, having lied through their teeth, on Day Two they pray away the sin (!), and now their souls are squeaky clean, they're free to do it again: "What, me? Hurt the GLBTI community? I wouldn't do that. Jesus loves you, and we're committed to safeguarding your dignity." Which is another big, fat lie. So -- Day Three, it's back to church to pray away this round of sin, in order to get their souls squeaky clean again. Ready to be Raptured at a moment's notice. God might hate a sinner (and there's some solid, reasonable doubt about that -- read the post I linked to, right above! You might be shocked), but prayer is the answer to everything, and if you told big fat lies in a good cause, well, apparently God will love thee all the more.
Barf.
This morning's post finds me trying to get over the perfidiousness of it all. The two-facedness. The outrageous manipulation of their own bloody Commandment.
And then, having twisted God, and the supposedly sacred word of same, into a pretzel to get the go-ahead to do what they want, they turn right around and quote scripture at you:
The churchmen noted that the understanding of marriage as a lifelong union of man and woman "is found in at least three major religious traditions which have described the origin, meaning and intent of marriage in their sacred writings."
The Hebrew Scriptures make explicit reference to marriage in 51 verses in 19 books, while the Christian Scriptures and the Muslim Quran each have 14 passages dealing with marriage, they said.
"Our faith communities have never understood this term to be applied to other types of relationships between people," the message added.
Support for Proposition 8 should not be seen as a disregard for civil rights "but as an effort to resist a redefinition of marriage," Cardinal Mahony and the bishops said. "Supporting marriage as it has always been understood diminishes none of us."
All of the above is fine and dandy; live by those rules and be happy ... if you're a Catholic, Mormon or fundamentalist Christian, Jew or Muslim. But if you don't happen to subscribe to the True Faith religions ... if you're an aetheist, pagan, or have your brains connected up right and the power turned on at the moment so that, even though you ARE a Jew or whatever, you can still SEE what's going on --
Beware the Ides of March, or words to that effect. The above piffle comes right from the mouth of the American Catholic Church ... and to absolve themselves of blame they're actually (!) quoting the Quran and the Talmud at you. Say -- what?! There was a time when Upper Management in their own corporation would have burned them at the stake for even reading these books, much less quoting them. In today's world, the same Management are trying to manipulate their audience by quoting from "the other side of the fence" in an attempt to make themselves look more reasonable, less self-centered, less hidebound. Less brainless and wicked?
Fact: There are Reform Jewish sects that have found Scripture in support of gay marriage. Fact: there are Reform Christian movements that approve of gay marriage. Fact: Islam doesn't want to come into the twentieth century, much less the twenty-first, and Sharia law is terrifying. If you once start quoting the Quran in order to buttress your moral position ... where do you stop?! Thas one is a dangerous door to open ... and the buggers have opened it, in the attempt to make themselves appear to be (!) part of the global community, and not separate from it, in a little cordoned-off area marked with a sign saying, "True Faithful and Rapure-Ready Only, Parking At Rear, $2/hour."
Beware. Seriously.
One of the comments left on the above piece of BS from the National Catholic Enquirer said it all, and I'm going to end on a quotation: "If the Catholic Church really wants to "espouse equal rights for all citizens," it's easy. Just speak up in favor of same-sex marriage."
Here, here.
PS: please remember to email URLs of posts you find interesting or useful -- the Google situation remains unresolved, and like that island in Pirates of the Caribbean, this blog can still only be found by people who already know where it is! Help us get around Google, which is 150% in error in this instance! Thank you kindly, guys.
Ciao for now,
MK
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
World AIDS Day: where lies the future?

There's a slogan: "Fight AIDS, not people with AIDS." This is particularly poignant when one remembers that AIDS is not merely an African problem (though it's anguishingly true that most cases of the disease are found there). AIDS is a problem in every part of the world; and in some countries it's lately been swept under the rug. One need hardly point out the tremendous AIDS problem in the United States --
In the US, little or nothing was done to help infected people, much less the spread of the disease. Why? It's the question which haunts anyone with the brains to think about it, and after the first glance or two into a little research you run headlong into a brick wall:
"In America today, AIDS is virtually a black disease, by any measure," says Phill Wilson, executive director of The Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles. Wilson also points out that while many black American leaders and celebrities have embraced the cause of the epidemic's toll in Africa, few have devoted similar energy to the crisis here at home.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346857&page=1
And here's the irony: in the public mentality, AIDS remains closely associated with the gay community. Even now, in the minds of many people -- particularly older citizens, and those of ethnic background -- the mention of AIDS pops up images of promiscuous young men; or at least young men who indulged in at least one unwise, probably anonymous sexual act.
This is the burden of stigma that AIDS is still carrying -- at one point, about 20 years ago, I recall it being called the Christians' "dream disease," since it came down on the gay community in particular and sexually active, not to say promiscuous, youth in general.
The irony is that the last US presidential election clearly showed that Afro-American community has a strong bias against the gay community. I have a hunch that the "stigma" of AIDS will be biting hard in the Afro-America because of its gay connotations (be they accurate or not; and they're not), and the punch line to this bad joke is this: AIDS has become a "black disease" in a culture which is fundamentally homophobic.
Homosexuality remains a taboo punishable by gruesome executions in much of Africa, and yet AIDS is a runaway train there. In other words, the connection between the gay community and the spread of AIDS is nebulous these days ...
Yet in the public consciousness the connection lives on; and in hidebound countries where fundamental Christianity is running out of control -- countries such as Nigeria and the United States -- the stigma of AIDS is killing people. A lot of people. Too many people.
Get your head around these statistics:
Black Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population but account for over 50 percent of all new cases of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. That infection rate is eight times the rate of whites. Among women, the numbers are even more shocking--- almost 70 percent of all newly diagnosed HIV-positive women in the United States are black women. Black women are 23 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS than white women, with heterosexual contact being the overwhelming method of infection in black America.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346857&page=1
...now, try to figure out why George W. would cut AIDS research and support funding both at home and abroad. It could be argued that America is a rich nation that should be able to look after its sick without needing vast amounts of government funding -- and this is perfectly true. If commerce and industry were to make small donations, the whole financial aspect of the situation would be covered --
Well and good. But the next bombshell knocks you senseless:
Since bird flu starting grabbing international headlines in 2003, fear of a pandemic has swept across the globe and refocused health policies in some countries, including the United States.
In all, 91 people died of avian flu between 2003 and Feb. 13, 2006, according to the World Health Organization. There are no known cases of bird flu being transmitted from human to human, and no known cases of humans becoming infected from eating chicken or other poultry; only those in direct contact with the infected birds appear so far at risk.
During the same period, 9.1 million people were infected with HIV and AIDS, according to UN AIDS and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Now, President Bush has proposed cutting $15 million in AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health, while increasing funds for studying avian flu and bio-terrorism.
http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2006/WB060209.html
And what about poor countries which rely on the trickle-down of charitable handouts from countries whose cups runneth over? Consider this:
Mr. Bush's 2004 budget for the Global Fund, $200 million, actually cuts in half what Congress is likely to do in 2003. Mr. Bush has also found part of the money for his AIDS programs by cutting nearly $500 million from child health, including vaccine programs. Child survival is the biggest loser in the foreign aid budget — a scandalous way to finance AIDS initiatives. With the budget dominated by defense spending and huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the White House should not be forcing the babies of Africa to pay for their parents' AIDS drugs." 2.17.03
http://www.bushwatch.com/condoms.htm
The world itself has become sick during the last decade, and its symptoms are greed, stupidity, prejudice, ignorance, and hate. These are the qualities which are holding this world back; we can't step into any kind of a positive future until we let them go.
We must find a way to embrace all people, all cultures, all faiths, all strains of romantic affiliation, as being not merely tolerable and acceptable, but natural. We are as nature designed us: many colors, rich and poor, gay and straight, fat and thin, genius and dim, talented and not. Mother Nature doesn't play favorites -- we're all born, and we take our chances! It's what people do that segregates us. It's the class systems, the fundamental "true faith" religions, the politics of greed, and the ignorance, stupidity and prejudice of senior politicians, which keeps alive the old inequities, injustices, and fuels the hate which jeopardizes the future for us all.
Cheers,
MK
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Prop 8: Catholics, Mormons, and why they lied
It is chilling to realize that the Catholic and Mormon Churches knew they were telling lies -- that marriage equality would require children to learn about homosexuality in school, that priests would be required to solemnize marriages of same-sex couples -- and they lied anyway.
And a lot of atheists, agnostics, pagans and Others (being Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, Sikh, and scores of regional, parochial, traditional, aboriginal faiths, all of which have an equal claim to existence and respect) would be asking, "Why would a Catholic lie, when s/he knows it's a sin, sins get right up God's nose?"
Good question. And if you will accompany me into the murky, paranoid, somewhat fetid basement of the Church, I shall endeavor to explain.
Disclaimer and Full Disclosure: I am not a Catholic. I was nurtured in an Irish Catholic community where the religion was a foil-thin veneer over the Old Religion of Ireland, and by the time I was about 10, my only interests in the Church were 1) the architecture, which I still like a lot, and 2) a morbid curiosity for what seems (when you examine it deeply) like some kind of mental aberration sorely in need of diagnosis and treatment. Meanwhile, I know nothing about Mormons except that they hang out in Utah, Zane Grey hated them, they used to steal women from other communities (I've read Riders of the Purple Sage ... and a more soporific book I have never discovered), guys can marry multiple women, but women can't marry multiple guys, which is the worst inequity of polygamy (!), and they're even more bonkers than Catholics on the subject of (wait for it) sin.
Yet in the run-up to November 4, both Mormons and Catholics pasted on friendly smiles and lied fluently, with ease, without reservation, without hesitation. And they did this knowing that lying is a sin that gets in God's ear. Why in the world would they do it? Doesn't make sense. Does it?
Well, yes it does. As I said, accompany me to the basement of the Church ... the deep, dark place underneath it, where the worms wriggle. The place few folks who're not obsessed by religion even know exists. Put on your hard hat, rigger's gloves and rubber boots, and let's go down there ... see what fascinating worms we can find. Lying is a sin, right? Well ... maybe. First off, how's about the Ninth Commandment? You probably know it as, 'Thou shalt not lie.' Right? Wrong. The actual wording is this: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Like ... dob him in to the law for something he didn't do, because you hate his guts? Like, spread rumors about him, to cost him is job and ruin his family? Like ... malign him to his kids so they hate his guts too? Uh huh. Other kinds of lying -- no problemo. The whole lying thing turns out to be so specific, you can warp the Ninth to make it mean anything ... or nothing.
Then there's a little verse (not even rhyming), known as "Rev 21:8," and this one is brilliant. It's specific about lying: liars are all going to be burned alive. Or are they? Here's the problem with this old chestnut: it's quoted out of context. It says this: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” But in fact, if you read the whole thing, you'll discover that the worms wriggled in a different direction.
(Go on, I dare you to actually read it! Revelation reads like the ravings of a deranged mind ... you ask yourself if whoever wrote it -- and they're not even sure! -- hadn't accidentally set fire to the carpet by knocking over the candle when he wrote this last night. In those days, carpets were made of (!) hemp. Breathe enough of that stuff while you're in a mood for Armageddon, and you'll be invaded by Orks and Urukhai, under the gaze of the Great Eye, before you can say "Frodo Baggins.")
In fact, the Revelation worms wriggled their way over here (and don't take my word for it, here it is from a Bible scholar, which is more than I profess to be):
All of those sins mentioned in that verse refer to some specific set of events taking place during the tribulation, after all the context is set at the end of the tribulation period. The lying in this context refers to preaching and teaching a lie (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1, 2). It refers to propagating false doctrine. There would be a lot of false doctrine during the tribulation period (many false prophets and false teachers) even more so than today.
http://www.geocities.com/dcheddie/lying1.html
So, in the first place, lying probably isn't a sin anyway. Go ahead, fib: God ain't even listening.
But supposing lying was a sin ... what then? Bear with me: this gets even better.
If you're not a Catholic (or from the fringe of an Irish -- possibly Italian -- community), you probably aren't even aware that they divide sin into two convenient forms, which essentially lets 90% of people get away with bloody murder and at the same time let these same miserable sinners come down like a load of bricks on folks they don't like.
This is where it gets really good: Type A Sin is venial sin. Wrap your head around this:
Venial sins are slight sins. They do not break our friendship with God, although they injure it. They involve disobedience of the law of God in slight (venial) matters. If we gossip and destroy a person's reputation it would be a mortal sin. However, normally gossip is about trivial matters and only venially sinful.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
Woah. Let me get this straight: what constitutes a venial sin (which is an oopsie so fiddling, it's going to be forgiven in exchange for a prayer, or a round of the rosary, or even a novena ... who was it who said, "talk is cheap"...?) resides in a gray area, a foggy limbo, where everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) is open to any individual's interpretation...? Yup. Follow that link to Global Catholic Network, and read the whole page -- it's not long. It's just shocking, if you rather hoped God's law would be specific enough to get a net over the world's villains and keep 'em in check for ten minutes, maybe fifteen. Never going to happen, not on the terms set out in the Book.
So hee we have another so-called Biblical Law that can be (and is being) twisted to say anything anyone needs it to say today. Venial sins are white lies, lies in a good cause ... snapping and snarling, dropping a blasphemy or two, goofing off work or school, eating meat on Friday (!), staying out late, having one too many to drink...
Meanwhile, Type B Sin is known as mortal sin. This is the sin for which the aforementioned lake of fire is waiting for you. So, what's mortal sin? What's Our Father going to barbecue us alive for? Let's take a peek:
A serious, grave or mortal sin is the knowing and willful violation of God's law in a serious matter, for example, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander. These are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor. As Jesus taught, when condemning even looking at a woman lustfully, sin can be both interior (choices of the will alone) or exterior (choices of the will carried into action). A man who willfully desires to fornicate, steal, murder or some other grave sin, has already seriously offended God by choosing interiorly what God has prohibited.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
Oh ... boy. Idolaters? That can be twisted to mean anyone other than a Catholic. Adultery is a global passtime. Slander is the meat and potatoes of American politics -- they do it proudly, in public, and audiences applaud. Looking lustfully at women?! Then everybody who's drooling over Angelina and Kate, and Kate, and Cate, and Catherine, are in deep doo-doo ... only somebody poured gasoline on the doo-doo and set it on fire. And as for homosexuality -- the doo-doo's so deep, it's way over your head even before they set it, and you, on fire. And what about having daydreams about making off with the boss's sports car?! You'll burn. And having lustful daydreams about any other human being of whatever gender? It's gasoline time. And that one-night stand when you were 19? They're striking the matches already.
Of all the sins for which God will roast his own children alive, only murder is the one where intelligent people draw the line. For the rest? We're all going to burn. All of us. There isn't one single human being who hasn't done something on the Burning List, and God's up there, making sure the gasoline tanks are full and there's a good supply of matches ...
[Have a look at this -- "The List of Mortal Sins Gets Longer Under Vatical Overhaul":
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/list-of-mortal-sins-gets-longer/2008/03/10/1205125804885.html]
Or at least, this is what goes on in the heads of devout Catholics.
And this is why the majority of them would have considered it a small price to pay for the venial sin of lying through their smiling teeth, when they spread such deceit about California's gay community. The know they can pay off the venial sin of lying with a few prayers -- talk is cheap -- while the garbage they dished up to the community at large, and especially to the African American community, might just (you got it) save a few souls from the mortal sin of committing homosexual acts.
Bottom line: they were out there saving souls by lying, and now they're all in church saying their rosaries to pay off the fiddling little sin of what they said and did.
I've been extremely flip and glib in this article -- and intentionally so. If I've offended anyone ... I don't actually apologise, because I often find myself offended and insulted by religious tracts and folks, and since I respect their freedom of speech to call me a moron and a sinner, I expect my freedom of speech to be reciprocally respected.
For the record: my own belief is that the level of religious obsession that believes in lakes of fire as the punishment for the imagined sin of falling in love (or even in lust, for that matter) is a mental illness. Before anyone suggests I "Study the Bible, turn to Jesus" for my wicked ways ... I already read that particular book, and I know how it ends: almost everyone in the world gets burned alive -- if you believe this stuff.
Sorry, guys, I don't. And I've read it. But don't take my word for it -- find out for yourself!
Other sources you might find useful:
http://www.newadvent.org/index.html (The Catholic Encyclopedia)
http://www.ewtn.com/index.asp (Global Catholic Network)
http://www.saintaquinas.com/theology.html (Saint Aquinas-dot-com)
...I'd say "enjoy," but I sincerely doubt you will.
Ciao for now,
MK
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Remembrance of Human Rights ... Prop 8 is the tip of the icebeg
We're one species, pulling in about a thousand different directions.

For the absolutely definitive perspective on Prop 8, I'm going to pass you right into the capable hands of Harvey Fierstein, who said it all, said it right, and said it like a gentleman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-fierstein/historic-for-some-same-ol_b_142170.html
The fight for human rights ... civil, gay, religious, racial ... is particularly poignant today: November 11. I was in the grocery store at 11:11am, and it hit me like a load of bricks --
I realize this isn't a tradition in the United States, but in the Commonwealth countries, Remembrance Day is 11/11 ... and it's observed at 11 minutes after the 11th hour, people stop for one whole minute and -- well, you're supposed to "remember," but for most younger people it's actually more about "stop and think about it for godsakes," while a bugle plays the Last Post over TV or radio. Sporting events will stop in their tracks; cashiers and tellers will stop in their work. Classrooms and clinics go silent for sixty seconds.
Now, the traditional take on Remembrance Day is summed up by various verses which are customarily read:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.
(from the "Ode of Remembrance", excerpted from "For the Fallen" by Laurence Binyon)
and
Here dead we lie
Because we did not choose
To live and shame the land
From which we sprung.
Life, to be sure
Is nothing much to lose,
But young men think it is,
And we were young.
("Here Dead Lie We" by A. E. Housman)
In both verses, we're exhorted to stop and think for a little while, about the lives that were given by millions of young men who were fighting for the very liberty we're blithely abusing right now.
And in first world countries, many people -- particularly those who are complacent and even smug in their cozy, convenient religious niche; which in our world sadly means Christian -- act as if the battle has been won. From their comfy, sitt'n-pretty perspective, it was won a long time ago, and folks like gays are just being damned pesky, trying to rock the boat for everyone.
Stop for one minute ... give the sixty seconds which are asked of you on 11.11, and read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html
Read it and pick your chin up off the floor. And when you're capable of thinking clearly again, read this:
Fate of Karimojong women [and gays] lies in the hands of tradition
In neither instance am I going to give an outtake from the articles, because their pivot points are so way out there, some readers will certainly be disturbed.
At least, being gay or pagan or female in the US, you don't have to lie awake nights worrying about the legal system killing you in the most barbaric ways. A couple of weeks ago, it was a 23 year old woman in Somalia, being stoned to death for adultery ... these executions, and the abuse and murder of children on the most devout Biblical grounds are happening right now.
Human rights are fragile, and once their integrity is compromised, they can fly away like smoke. In the US even as you read this, the Prop 8 backlash is ugly ... and it was always going to be ugly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html
Racism has reared its nasty head again -- and anyone with half a functional brain would have predicted it. So, in the name of anyone's god, or God, or any plurality of same, why would the Catholics and the Mormons pump untold millions of dollars into California, to persecute peaceful people who are not even in their own jurisdiction -- knowing (as they must have! Or are they completely insane?) that the result could only be an upsurgence of racism that must wound America as a nation?
Answer me that, someone. And while you're trying to work it out, imagine how far that money would have gone to rescue innocent people -- including young children, whom first world governments will go to almost idiotic lengths to protect against against something so easily Net-Nannyable as sex on the Internet. Internet porn is an insignificant moral blip when measured against the unbelievable, government- and church-sanctioned crimes that are actually happening elsewhere on this poor planet.
The Australian government is planning to spend over $125 million to filter the Internet against porn (using methods which will cripple the Internet in Australia). Meanwhile, legions of innocent children -- who're no less worthy just because they're a different shade of brown from the Canberra politicians (!) -- are being tortured, maimed and killed, in the name of Christianity.
(For more on Australian Internet censorship:
http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/10/internet-content-filtering-impossible.html)
Something, somewhere is disastrously wrong. The Mormon church pumped US$22m into a campaign in someone else's state, to wipe out civil liberties, while little kids, illiterate and helpless women, and gays, are being treated with a contempt which makes a mockery out of church, faith ... even the very name of Jesus. Sorry guys, but there it is, out in the open. Someone has had the courage to say what you've been thinking.
A very few decades ago, legions of young men gave their lives willingly, believing they were fighting for liberty. For the rights of citizens like you and me to live in peace and freedom. Civil liberties are bought with blood ... and apparently, they can be expunged on a religious whim.
There's a statistic which has come out in the post-Prop 8 analysis ... and get hold of this bit of info before you blow your stack and get rowdy and rude toward the Black American community. (Here, I'm not going to say "African American," because in this column I've already talked about Africa itself, and I want to differentiate the two communities ... Black Americans are not Africans, no matter how European Americans phrase it).
Here's the cold, hard statistic: exit polls show 65+% of aged Americans voting with their Bibles.
And with the rapidly aging population of the first world, the demograph is already skewed ... there are many more elderly in current communities, especially in warm, climatically gentle states (such as California and Florida) than there have ever been before.
As I've remarked elsewhere (http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/looking-for-up-side-to-prop-8-fiasco.html), the aged are extremely vulnerable, since the Pearly Gates are looming large at that time of life. They are therefore easy prey for churches with more money than decency, more funding than compassion, more wealth than brains.
The popular vote in California would appear to have been swung toward hate not by the black population, but by the aged ... who were mercilessly targeted by an advertising campaign orchestrated and conducted by the church. Religious leaders preyed on the vulnerabilities of the old and the very old, whose immortal souls have begun to weigh more heavily than liberty, freedom, justice, peace, compassion, fairness -- even democracy itself.
Someone somewhere coined this phrase, and I wish I knew who said it: "Democracy means not always getting what you want."
I actually do believe that it'll turn out to be utterly unlawful for any constitution, state or federal to be rewritten to uphold a bias for a religious group. I believe that evangelism should be examined ... people have the right to proselytize up to a point, and no further. And constitutional law would draw the line -- where? Right at the point where religion starts to stick its unwelcome nose into law, government, and the constitution itself.
It hit me like a load of bricks, in the supermarket ... the Last Post was played on the radio and the whole store stopped. 11/11 -- 11:11am. Everyone stopped and remembered the legions of young men who died, willingly, in the cause of freedom and justice.
And I thought, "The sound you can hear is those young people spinning in their graves as they see what's happening right now, and wonder why the hell they really gave their lives for." Because it's over 90 years since the First World War concluded, and liberty, justice, remain frighteningly elusive, fragile as snowflakes, even in the United States of America, which has for many, many years been held up as the home, the very bastion, of the free.
I'll be back tomorrow with happier subjects, but today is Remembrance Day, and if there was ever a time to say these things, this is it.
Best wishes,
Mel Keegan
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sunday morning ends and odds
One sunny day in 2009 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue , where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, sir!"
...I can't credit the source, because this one has been doing the rounds via email, and I got it at third of fourth hand, but -- whoever came up with this ... GOOD ONE!
A couple of days ago I was talking about the movie Australia, and mentioned that Hugh Jackman would be a sight for sore eyes. (http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/mel-at-movies-australia.html) Thanks to the folks who sent me these (click on the thumbnails for a large image and, uh, enjoy):
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
My political post today is in the form of a reply to a very good comment on yesterday's post: http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/prop-8-racial-vote-and-anger.html ...
I did indeed need to be much more specific about the religious rights I was talking about, and I've taken this opportunity to set out what I honestly do believe. Please take a few minutes to read this additional material ... and thanks to Adam for commenting. Much appreciated.
Anyone remember the name of Ron Cobb, back in the days when he was a political cartoonist, and before he went on to design major motion pictures? Remember this:
Nothing ever changes. That cartoon was drawn about 30 years ago. Gotta make you wonder.Nice piece of news from Keegan Country: The Swordsman actually went "live" at Amazon.com last week, and we were thinking we would have to start some serious advertising to get sales ... turns out, sales have started all on their own. Nice. very.
The Lords of Harbendane progresses smoothly. Expect the ebook at PayLoads at the end of the month; expect the Lulu.com version (best for Aussies and Kiwis) about five days later; expect the CreateSpace version (best for the US and Canada) about five days after this; expect it to put in an appearance at Amazon about ten days later. (To your right as you read this is a wee small version of the character study of Rogan, the character around whom Harbendane revolves. It's a beautiful piece of work, by Jade as always on my book covers these days. Thank gods for digital artwork.)
What's next for Keegan, after Harbendane? A couple of short stories -- which is unusual for me. I rarely get ideas that lend themselves to short works. Then the haunted house novel I had promised for Christmas '08, and then swapped for Harbendane on account of a minor plotting snafu. Then ... HELLGATE. All of it. Right to the end, by the end of 2009. This time next year, you'll be able to get the whole series either as a sex of six paperbacks or three monster hardcovers. Make a nice Christmas pressie ... tell someone you love what to get you when the silly season comes around!
Ciao for now,
MK
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Prop 8, the racial vote, and the anger
One hardly knows what to say ... and it's almost impossible to say anything without upsetting someone, somewhere. So I'll be very cautious in what I say today, beg your patience, and start out with a caveat!
I've campaigned for gay rights for years; the name of Mel Keegan has been known internationally for just on two decades, and I've always been known as the most broad-minded, eclectic liberal, to whom human rights are the Big Issue: gay and racial and pagan. In other words the right to equality in your sexuality, your race and your faith. These are the Big Three rights. Everything else is down to your intelligence, your drive to get educated and be employed, the good or bad health Nature endowed you with ... and sheer luck, which plays a large part in your physical appearance and abilities, as well as your fortunes at the track.
Why pagan? Because paganism is an emerging religious form which has every constitutional right to coexist with the True Faith religions. Sheer, blind faith aside, no religion is founded on a shred of "proof" or 'evidence," and therefore, every religion has a right to be. The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this point: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Yet there are American religious groups -- and Sarah Palin belongs to one of them -- who identify and characterise themselves as witch hunters. The woman who was a paltry few voting percentages away from the White House is connected to a nutso religious group (who belong in a madhouse), who claim responsibility for the death of Mother Thresea. Yep. These Christian lunatics honestly believe they prayed her to death. They're after Catholics, as well as pagans. Now, many Americans would actually care if Catholic priests and nuns were "run out of town on a rail." Or one would hope US'ns would care! But comparatively few Americans care about the rights of pagans -- though pagans are constitutionally entitled to their faith. (And some Americans honestly believe that people of the Muslim faith "don't belong in this planet," but this is another story.)
Intrigued, horrified? Go here:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/10/20/195730/89
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palin-linked-to-sec_b_137532.html
Now, the Holy Roman Empire and Islam are big enough to go out and fight their own battles. They can pour a billion dollars into the TV and Internet campaign to literally buy the mindset shift in the American people which would be necessary to win the religious equivalent of Prop 8, which states, "It is unlawful to persecute a person for his or her Catholic or Muslim faith." The Vatican and the oil sheiks wouldn't even notice that the billion had been advanced out of company funds.
And the mindset of the American people can most certainly be bought. The Prop 8 result on 11/4 proved this beyond any shadow of doubt.
So, for me, the pagan rights issue is by far the most important religious sticking point today, because pagans are a tiny minority who can be steamrollered out of existence by the same juggernaut of the "popular vote" which was used to strip civil rights from gays. ANY minority community needs the support of all, until the injustice and prejudice of the greater tide of humanity has been turned, by peaceful means, into tolerance and acceptance. And you can quote me on that.
Why gay rights? Same reason, as well as a certain personal preference, which ought to be fairly obvious to anyone who's read any book I ever published. Over the years, I've written so many hundreds of thousands of words on the subject of gay rights, I sometimes think I'm written out, I have no more so say, can't think of a syllable ... and then something else comes along -- like the incredible backlash after Prop 8 -- and I suddenly realize, we've hardly even scratched the surface.
Why racial rights? Same reason. Because gay rights and racial rights are HUMAN rights, they're two sides to the same coin. I've always believed that if you fight for one, you have to fight for the other. Right now, I'm down to praying that this belief is correct -- for the moment, I'll stand by it, and let nature take her course.
(For the record, I'm what they call "Euro-mongrel." I'm part Irish, part Scots, part Anglo, part Norwegian, part Romanian. I have Celtic coloring stuck on an eastern European kind of face, and I'm the first one to admit, it looks ... unusual. My family are nominally from the UK; one half fled the IRA "troubles" in Ireland about 90 years ago and went to England for work. The other half went to America. The folks who went to the UK hived off yet again ... some of them went to the US too ... some of us came to Australia. And here we are.)
So, if I had three feet (thank gods, I don't) I'd have one of them in each of three camps. American politics mean as much to me as Australian and British politics, and I sometimes feel as if I'm ripped in three directions. (Stop the planet, I want to get off.)
This is what I'm feeling right now, as a surge of racism boils up around the GLBTI community in the States. The Prop 8 windsock showed some rather unpleasant wind directions. We never knew that 70% of African Americans consider gays to be second class citizens. We know now ... and it hurts. In fact, it hurts a lot.
The tide of anger which is boiling right now is frightening, and saddening. You're starting to read things being said that haven't been said in decades, and it's chilling. My fear is that in their religious zeal to ban gay marriage, the Christan Right might have generated a tide of racial unrest which will have dreadful, and far-reaching consequences in the US.
There's so much anger in the media, and in the blogs, it's difficult to find a dispassionate overview of the situation. I would cautiously suggest this one:
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/07/protests-erupt-over-prop-8
The bald facts are stated there, without rhetoric or bias.
Now, the issue of "black v. gay" is incredibly complex, with at least two faces. The first is about the painful knowledge we now possess ... that 70% of African Americans are homophobic. In other words, if you're talking to a stranger of color, you're far more likely to be despised and insulted when s/he finds out you're gay, than if you were talking to a European American.
It hurts ... it's not pleasant to know it's true, but it's very true, and one has to deal with it. Hence, the anger. I've been reading not only posts and articles, but also the reams of comments that have gushed forth after them. Some bloggers and journalists have had to close commenting, because it got real ugly, real fast. Which, in itself, is sad.
I'm not going to quote any of these comments here, nor link to them: throwing gasoline on a fire is not a smart thing to do!
The arguments run along the lines of, "the colored community was happy to take gay dollars to elect Mr. Obama, then they stab us in the back." And, "I'm extremely upset to know that black Americans are homophobic, and I resent their community for taking away my constitutional rights, which are no less justified than their own." And, "Something has to be done about out-of-state churches, such as the LDS for one, pumping money into California to market their point of view and skewing the public perspective."
On the other side of the fence, you have, "The people of California have spoken, your rights have been curtailed, it's over, live with it or go away." And, "If you don't want to live here anymore, go to Massachusetts." And, "Gods judgment has been brought down on you." And, "We have achieved a major victory against Satan." And finally, "The rights of chickens are more important than the rights of gays -- who cares if gays live in a cage?"
(If you need to wade in the torrent of anger, just Google "anger Prop 8 racial vote" ... and take a deep breath. It's ugly. It's frightening.)
Those seem to be the major fundamental arguments underlying the fury and outrage which is pumping through the Internet at this time. Beyond these pared-down statements, the whole thiing swiftly gets incredibly personal, subjective, furious and potentially violent.
Now, I had a comment posted this morning, on "Looking for an ups-side to the Prop 8 Fiasco:"
http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/looking-for-up-side-to-prop-8-fiasco.html
This is well worth a read, and to save you exiting this page, here's the best part:
I set up a spreadsheet with the exit polling data. There's probably rounding error, since the categories "White," "Latino," "Black," and "Asian" sum to 98%. Assuming that there's a demographic category for the remaining 2%, and the exit poll data is accurate, then the unnamed "other" had to have voted 100% in favor of yes. That would still leave results that were off 1 percentage point (PP). If "other" had results similar to Hispanics, then the exit poll results were off by 2PP.Still, that's pretty close to ordinary polling accuracy. Maybe "other" is not statistically relevant.If the non-White results are accurate, then the White vote would only need to be 53.8 no to 46.2 yes to completely offset the Black and Hispanic vote. So my point is that the Black vote only carries so much blame for this. Usually the Black vote is about 9%, and if that's what it were Tuesday, then the effect would be tiny. White people would have to have rejected the measure by less than 0.01 PP either direction.
Stats can lie, but they can also tell the truth. Share this news around -- please! Link to this! Turns out, the Black Vote didn't make Prop 8 pass after all ... but this won't affect the racial backlash.
Unfortunately, the windsock still brought out the truth, and here's the irony: the fury on the Internet today is tending toward racism, because the facts came out on the wash ... the African American community is homophobic. You can't argue with the numbers. At the same time, the Black Vote didn't swing the referendum. Prop 8 was going to pass anyway, according to the numbers. Go figure.
A couple of posts ago, I remarked that some years of "working the crowd" would get us the numbers to have Prop 8 tossed in the bin where it belongs. I also said, we'd find those numbers in the ethnic communities. Well ... perhaps not, after all. It could be that a lot of the numbers we need are hiding in the aged community -- which could be damned hard to influence.
The other very interesting section in the above comment was this:
Moreover, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law; it recognizes the integrity of contracts. Marriage has been a civil institution for over two centuries; it's no longer a matter over which any church can legitimately hold forth.
Oh ... boy. I long to believe. In answer to this comment, I wrote this:
Per the Constitution -- I'm sure you're fundamentally right! However, if the Constitution absolutely, clearly and unambiguously (!) guaranteed equal protection, it's safe to say that the Prop 8 "Fiasco" wouldn't be happening. It wouldn't be permissible, much less necessary! The lamentable fact is that in the minds of a majority of people, there remains the misconception that marriage rights have a religious connotation. We just saw the proof of this. I'm no kind of lawyer, but I do understand what I'm seeing when people vote with their Bibles, as their pastors have instructed them to. Also, the hard, clear fact that Prop 8 was mooted at all means that the issue is far from clear even at the legal level -- otherwise, it would not have found its way onto the ballot sheets. It would have been recognized at every level as being illegal ... and it wasn't. I would dearly love to agree wholeheartedly with you on the Constitutional point you make, but alas -- the reality of the last week has shown that many gray areas still persist, and a great deal more work must be done to make the Constitution unambiguous, clear and fair, in the minds of all people, not merely the lawyers!
In terms of gay rights: we have a long way to go. In legal terms (both state and federal) there is a long way to go to prove what the constitution actually means -- what it seems to mean, what it can be made to say. Many people are sure the Constitution protects gays; but if you put the vote to the people, a majority say "no, it doesn't, and we want to rewrite the Constitution to make damned sure it doesn't."
Can the people rewrite the Constitution to take civil liberties away from a specific group? This can't be lawful. If it were, African Americans need to start getting twitchy ... and pagans need to run for cover, fast.
The next weeks and months, as this question is fought out in the courts, and at the most fundamental constitutional levels, will be fascinating and chilling. We're about to find out how secure our civil rights really are. One would hope justice and reason will prevail, once and for all.
However, at street level, it's not so easy. People are justifiably wounded, and the true feelings of the majority of the ethnic community have been exposed. However ... people have a right to their true feelings. It isn't politically correct or morally acceptable to hate gays, but an individual has the right to hold this sentiment -- just as s/he has the right to belong to True Faith religion and believe that everyone else in the world, outside his/her own church, is a miserable sinner who's going to burn in hell.
The challenge, at the constitutional level, will to rationalize the rights of all, level the playing field, and make peace between all people, without discriminating against gays ... Christians ... Americans of color ... aged Americans ... and even the homophobes, who have a fundamental right to feel what they feel, even if we don't like it.
Voltaire nailed it, many, many years ago: "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
[Sound of Keegan heaving enormous sigh]
To me, the bottom line in human terms is deeply troubling. Christians, and pariculartly priests, are supposed to love all mankind. Yet in their religious zeal to promote Biblical law, -- denying gays their rights to love and wed -- they've uncovered a nest of gender-based hate that has, as a natural rebound, blown up into racial anger which many of us had believed (or was it just hoped?) to be a thing of the past in Ameria.
Is anyone scared silly yet?
Happier subjects tomorrow,
MK