A disturbing article in the Boston Phoenix, here:

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/104214-homophobe-to-headline-bostons-gospelfest/

about Donnie McClurkin, a gospel star who is headlining "GospelFest" here in Boston later this summer at City Hall Plaza.

As you can glean from the article, McClurkin is a notorious homophobe, and one of those people that claims he was "cured" of his deviant lifestyle thru the power o' the Lord.

What truly disturbs me about this story is that McClurkin was reportedly raped as a child by male family members - which has led him to despise gay people and embark on a seeming religious crusade against them.

While I think what McClurkin said happened to him as a child is absolutely terrible, he is causing untold damage to gay people and their families. His sermons incite violence against gay people, and I don't want him in my city. This is a public-funded event.

The two men who raped McClurkin were not gay: they were rapists and child molesters who hopefully were punished for what they did. We do not need another angry homophobe promoting the untrue idea that all gay people are rapists and child-molesters.

I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that McClurkin needs to get into therapy and deal with what happened to him as a child. His homophobic rants, in my opinion, sound like the symptom of some serious, pent-up rage.

Joe Barton needs to GO!!!!!

As I'm sure you're all heard by now, (and as if there needed to be anymore proof that the Republican Party is really just a political organization owned and operated by oil companies): congressman Joe Barton, the top Republican in charge of overseeing the Gulf oil spill actually APOLOGIZED to BP for the 20 dollar relief fund set up by the Obama administration, calling it a "government shakedown".

He needs to go.

He needs to be fired from his current position.

And if and when he comes up for re-election, he needs to be defeated.

Here is a link below where you can sign a petition.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/noapology/?source=OM_LB_google_rapid-search_barton&gclid=COe54uOnuaICFYNd5QodfHiC4g

Toy Story 3 is homophobic (but see it anyway) !

So strange that I noticed no homophobia in "Johnny Baseball", and yet found several examples of it in the otherwise excellent "Toy Story 3".

All the homophobia centered around (who else?), Barbies' sexually ambiguous, ascot-wearing boyfriend, Ken.

I can actually list the offenses, which are shocking to me, considering this film is from Disney:

1. Ken's initial entrance, in lavender puffy short-shorts and shirt unbuttoned to his navel, which drew a collective "Ewwwww!" from the audience.

2. At one point, Barbie disguises herself as Ken by putting on his space-suit and helmet. Her high heels, however, are exposed when she walks away. The duped character notices them, but assumes it's just Ken wearing heels (again!), and produces an amplified, jaded "ECHHHH!".

3. In the punch line of an eye-rolling gag during the credits, a note in "girlish" handwriting delivered to the main characters, complete with swirls and hearts and hugs, is revealed to be Ken's writing, rather than Barbie's.

4. At one point Barbie, miffed at Ken, rips off his ascot, fuming: "That's MY scarf!!!"

5. At one point, Ken is called a "girl's toy" (which is, apparently, the ultimate insult) and "a purse with legs."


Really, Ken's whole character is just one long gay joke. It was really just cheap.


I googled some of the reviews, but only one critic, Scott Mendelson of The Huffington Post, even mentions this motif, saying that "the running gag concerning Ken's ambiguous sexuality is amusing even as it flirts with homophobia."


To me, it does more than just flirt.


Which is really too bad, because the film was just wonderful in every other way: imaginative, funny, heart-breaking, beautiful. You care so much for these characters.


But the portrayal of Ken ruined it for me: really, making him a shallow, clothes-obsessed stereo-type is just a tired cliche, and not worthy of the rest of the film. The gay jokes just seemed to roll out at hyper-speed whenever Ken was around, like an uninspired episode of "Three's Company". I just felt that something more original could be done with that character, rather than pandering to the audiences' homophobia, which, sadly, is still alive and well.


Ken, initially a bad guy, redeems himself towards the end of the film (there is ultimately only one villain in the story). But I could never give myself to the story completely, because I felt excluded and mocked in some way.

And that's a shame.

Elton John STILL SUCKS!!!!

You know, I typed my last missive in a hurry, on the way out the door towards a well-deserved vacation.

And I thought to myself: "you know, perhaps I've been too harsh on Elton. Maybe he is going to donate that money to a worthy and GAY charity.

To fight Prop 8.

To change hearts and minds.

What a great slap in the face that would be to Rush Limbaugh and his homophobic gaggle of meat heads."

But no.

He is taking all that money for himself, so he can buy some more tiaras and big-ass rings.

Not only that, I've also learned that he and Rush feel EXACTLY the same about gay marriage: civil unions (which supply barely a FRACTION of the civil rights that marriage affords, and are completely insulting to boot) are A-OK with Elton.

So, I don't like Elton John. I am erasing him from my iPod.

Elton, I thought you were great once. But you are now obsolete.

And a sell-out.

And a pig.

There are other artists that are better than you. I'm going to listen to one of them.

Good-bye Yellow Brick Road.

Elton John SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

In case you were wondering how much it would cost to purchase Elton John's soul: One million dollars. Which is what he was apparently paid to perform at RUSH LIMBAUGH'S 4th WEDDING recently.

Ewwwwww.

Most normal gay people would rather stick knitting needles in their eyes than have ANYTHING to do with that repulsive bigot.

But not Sir Elton.

I wonder what he'd do for 2 million dollars?

I'm afraid to know.

Was Johnny Baseball Homophobic?

Tommy and I went to see "Johnny Baseball" at the ART last week.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding Louise Kennedy's review of the show, in which she stated that some of the jokes in it were "cheaply homophobic".

I suppose there are many things a reviewer might say about "johnny baseball", but "cheaply homophobic" was - to me, anyway - not among them.

At one point the character Babe Ruth says to Johnny O'Brien (aka Johnny Baseball) that he wants to "dance with him the way the men do in Europe". Or something like that, I'm totally paraphrasing.

Not exactly homophobic, at least not to me.

Perhaps the homophobia was excised from the script after the review came out, I really don't know. But there's none there, really, right now, that I could see.

But what the discussion has made me realize is that our beloved national pastime is, in itself, homophobic.

There has never been an openly gay baseball player, to my knowledge, in spite of all those rumours surrounding Nomar.

And it's an unwritten rule (much like the now-defunct ones discussed in the musical, concerning interracial relationships) that you CANNOT be openly gay and be a baseball player.

Or basketball player.

Or football player.

You also can't be President of the United States. Or serve in the Military. Or be a major Hollywood movie star. Or (unless you're Unitarian or itching for a schism) a Spiritual leader.

Hell, I'm not sure if we're even allowed to GOLF professionally.

Of course, the play "Take Me Out" was about this very subject: a major league baseball player coming out of the closet. But that story remains a fantasy. Because the truth is that an openly gay ball player would not be supported by his team, or by the fans. He would be driven out of the park. Or murdered. Seriously.

So I have to admit that I felt a little weird coming into the theatre - in many ways, the gay church - and seeing this homophobic (and, if you really want to get into it, sexist) institution being praised for its democracy and inclusion.

That's simply a pile of bullshit.

Timon of Athens is closing this weekend!

Yes, that's right. After a really great run, Timon of Athens will close this weekend. We only have a few performances left, and who knows when you might see it again (it is, I'm hearing, the first professional production in Boston EVER - though I'm sure there must have been student/non-professional productions of it in the city and/or Cambridge. There's just to many colleges in town for that to be possible. But maybe not! Still, it's pretty exciting!)

I really really hope you can see it, as I think you will enjoy this production very much!

More info: http://www.actorsshakespeareproject.org/

Cheers,

John

Hitler was Gay!

You know, I'm not sure how I found THIS piece of garbage,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_7_18/ai_83553874/

trawling about the web, but here we have an article, written in 2002 (which, really, isn't all that long ago...) by one Nathaniel S. Lehrman for the now defunct conservative rag "Insight on the News", which proves "without a doubt" (even though Lehrman offers no real or substantial evidence whatsoever) that, yes, Hitler was gay.

The most evil man in history was gay.

Just so you know.

(Funny, I don't remember seeing him at any of the Pride Parades...)

Not only that, the ENTIRE Nazi party was made up of gays! Who knew?

You know, I've met some mean queens in my time, but I would HATE to be at a white sale with THOSE bitches!

I thought this was a piece by The Onion at first.

But, no, it's real.

Sadly, depressingly real.


Of course, anyone not living under a rock knows that the Nazis famously persecuted and murdered gays.

But before any sensitive homos get their panties all bunched up, Lehrman has an easy explanation for that discrepancy: See, it was the MACHO gays (ie, Nazis) killing the SWISHY gays. Now it all just makes sense, doesn't it? Lehrman's "research" apparently involved watching the Al Pacino movie "Cruising" over and over, as well as skimming some truly questionable tomes with titles like "Homosexuality: a freedom too far".

Further investigation found that Lehrman is connected with the odious NARTH group, George A. Rekers, and some other old hateful closet-cases.

Lehrman ended his piece with this little tidbit:

"When will today's liberal supporters of homosexuality, organized and otherwise, recognize how deliberate defiance of traditional sexual morality can lead to that deliberate defiance of all traditional morality, which defined the Holocaust?"

Wow.

Remember Matthew Shepard? This man helped bring that about.

I could see this bigoted, homophobic rant being written 50 years ago, or even 25.

But no: 2002.

Seriously.

Disgusting.

Thanks a lot, internet, for introducing me to yet another evil moron.

We're in the $$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!

I received a check today from Baker's Plays for 16 cents; royalities for a short play of mine that appears in one of their anthologies.

16 cents.

Oy.