Saturday, October 13, 2007

Why Larry Craig Doesn't Deserve the Gay Card

POLITICALLY INCORRECT POST ALERT

So the media storm over Larry Craig’s arrest seems like such an ineffective tempest in a toilet-bowl: it raised a mighty stink but when it ended, still left something unpleasant hanging around. And as far as I can see, the hapless guy was hounded mercilessly into non-resigning, for no good reason. His crimes allegedly being that he is gay, a hypocrite (he's a family-values politician!) and behaved immorally in a public place (sleazy at worst, really).

The part of the controversy that does worry me is that we’re faced with the prospect of having Craig labeled as being part of the LGBT community. Make no mistake, I thoroughly enjoyed the homophobic Craig’s humiliating public repudiation by his own party, on the assumption that he is gay. But now that that’s been achieved, I’d much rather have him stay classified straight, alien or whatever else - as long as its also not-gay. The good news is that he is still denying that he’s gay (thats really what he was trying to tell that cop in Morse Code). So I think we should seize the moment and actively support him in his claim. (btw you can find more Darly Cagle cartoons here)
Frankly, for me the best r
eason for doing so is that anyone who doesn’t want to be gay shouldn’t have to be and that we shouldn’t want them to be part of our community either. But for many people that’s not always a convincing enough reason. So here’s 5 (no less) other good reasons why we should not give Craig the coveted gay card:

a) He’s a nasty bad naughty role model: This guy’s been shown to be a coward, a hypocrite, a cheater, a sleaze-bag etc etc. At this point he probably wouldn’t be admitted even to Walmart’s Sam’s Club membership program. Why should we be so keen to give him entrĂ©e into our fabulous fests, chic clubs and swinging street fairs?
b) He’s from Idaho:
I know that’s neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to deny him membership. I mean his being born an Idahiot is like being born gay. He couldn’t help it. I agree. But taken in conjunction with the first point – I think its grounds for rejection of his application (assuming there ever is one).
c) He’s from Idaho:
AND didn’t have the sense to move states despite having the cash and the opportunity to do so. Again, sensibility or the lack of it, should not normally be a criteria for issuing laminated rainbow cards. But what if the guy himself is giving us an option? Like Craig is. It would be like the US giving a resident permit to someone who has no demonstrably useful skills, lists multiple criminal convictions in their home country, and refuses to apply for political asylum despite potentially qualifying for it. I have no doubt that USIS would happily reject the application.
d) Its for his own good and we’re a compassionate crowd:
This guy has more baggage than Imelda Marcos packing for a long trip - a likely-soon-to-be-ex wife, five – count them, five - kids, a mug shot and a history of infidelity. And, the guy is old enough to be a contemporary of the Jurassic Age dinosaurs. He has zero chance of finding someone in the gay world who would fall into a relationship with him...unless it also involved being written a check at the end of each night. Craig might not be satisfied in his current marriage but at least its something that he has had a few decades to get used to. Continuing to be straight-classified might save him from being lonely for the rest of his life. And it will definitely be easier on his ego and lighter on his pocket-book. So lets give the guy a break.
e) He doesn’t know how to treat a Fag Hag:
For those who didn’t spend the last seven years watching Will and Grace – a fag hag is a gay man’s best friend. She’s typically a woman, usually straight, who gives her fag unconditional love, holds his hand when one-night-stands don’t stand the test of daylight, acts as his beard at office functions if he works for ExxonMobil and basically does everything for him except perhaps change his diapers. And I think at the height of the AIDS crisis some of them even did that. No kidding. In other words the fag/fag-hag relationship is a sacred one. In return all they seem to expect is an album full of happy memories at the end of it. Oh and that when you do leave them alone in a gay club to go home with that one-night-stand that they helped you land in the first place, you’ll at least buy them a drink first.

The only charitable explanation for the longevity of the Craigs’ marriage is that there was/is real companionship between them. If Craig had been ‘out’, his wife would have been his Fag Hag. And if Suzanne really did not know of Craig’s rest-room exploits, she’s likely to spend a good chunk of her remaining lifetime regurgitating memories from the last 24 years and trying to figure out which of those were real involving real emotions. Questioning each romantic holiday, gesture, touch…that happened over a 24 year period. I have a feeling not many happy memories will survive that scrutiny. If the Senator from Idaho maintained his deception over 24 years with his soul-mate, someone who probably cared deeply for him, then he really should not be given the privilege of admittance to our community. Many of us are bitchy and shallow and self-serving, but given an extended period of time, any gay man (or woman) worth his (her) salt will do right by his (her) fag hag (fag stag).

In closing let me just refer to what one of the Senator’s sons said as the controversy was cresting. He said he believed his (step)-father was not gay but that even if he was, it would be OK. It was a wonderful statement of love, support and unconditional acceptance. And showed that Craig got at least some things right in his life. But his son’s statement probably also depressed the Senator like hell. Because it must have brought home to him, that he's spent an entire tortured lifetime suppressing his true self for a bunch of idiots in his home state and in his party who didn’t really care for him and who disowned him faster than you can say 'faggot' when the pants…err chips…were down. While at the same time deceiving the people who actually did care for him and who might’ve accepted him for what he was anyway...if only he'd chosen to be honest with them anytime in the last three decades.

Sadly, I think Larry Craig is right. Through his life, he may have been nominally homosexual, but he’s probably never been gay in any sense of the word. And likely never will be.

I say, hold the lamination presses.

Monday, October 1, 2007

The WalMartization of Liberty

OCCASIONAL RANTINGS OF AN ANGRY ARM CHAIR ACTIVIST
For some reason I’ve been fascinated by democracy for as long as I can remember. Democracy is one, and probably the only, ‘ism’ that I believe in. Yeah OK I know its not an ism 'ism' but you know what I mean. I don’t ‘believe’ in it in the sense of the Neocons who would take democracy to everyone at the point of a sword or (to use a contemporary metaphor) the multiple, deadly tips of a cluster bomb. But in the sense of believing that it is the best system of governance available and given a chance, over time, has a real power to transform societies into better versions of themselves. And since democracy is one of the few things I consider sacred, I’ve watched with extreme frustration and deepening anger as the system in the US has been subverted steadily over the last few years. By the very people who profess to want to spread it across the world.

Over the last few years, so many freedoms and rights taken for granted for decades have been taken away/given up so easily. Suspension of habeas corpus, removal of the protection from institutional torture and randomly mandated virtually no-holds-barred surveillance of private citizens, are a few of the more egregious examples of the infringement of civil liberties by the Bush Administration. The administration has successfully defined the debate on collective safety vs. personal freedoms in terms of a Walmart-like “Always Low Prices” approach. The price in this case being civilian fatalities caused by terrorist acts. After 9/11 the Administration sold the American public on a promise to keep fatalities low as long as it was given a relatively free hand in dealing with the terrorists. And for a long time no one dared ask whether that was necessarily the right metric to aim for. Nor did many people bother to dig up and read the caveat emptor clause that came with the promise of safety. Even now few people seem to be able to do so with the 20/20 vision that should cause them to raise a rip-roaring ruckus.

Walmart’s always-low-priced flat-screen TVs came with several hidden costs – falling quality standards, job losses, and worsening working conditions and protections for its non-unionized workers (The company at one point considered reducing health care costs by making obese workers who were at a higher health risk, leave the company voluntarily by deliberately giving them tasks that were difficult for them to do). While the costs of Walmart’s business model took a couple of decades to become clear, those of Bush’s approach became apparent within a few years – perhaps reflecting how egregiously high the hidden costs are: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, loss of America’s credibility as a leader on human rights issues, increased spying on own citizens, renditions of non-citizens to countries that then merrily tortured them…

The erosion of civil liberties has continued even after the Republicans lost last year’s elections. And the reason it has continued, I believe, is because of the Bourne Ultimatum Syndrome. Don’t get me wrong – I liked the movie a lot and applaud its motives. Its makers seem to have a better grasp of whats involved in preserving a democracy than the Bush Administration. (Now there's a scary thought) The lost freedoms the film picked to highlight included surveillance of private citizens to a degree that would have made Orwell proud, and the loss of the protections against the use of torture. However, it did so in a rather round-about way. Its central argument really is that it is unacceptable for the government to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without due process of law. I think it was a clever choice of issues because that is a relatively black-and-white issue for most Americans – at least on an intellectual level. If polled, I'm pretty sure most Americans would oppose it. Whereas if they were asked if torturing terrorists to get information is OK, I think the poll results are likely to be less predictably on the film-makers’ side. So instead of condemning torture (epitomized by Matt Damon being water-boarded during his training) and Big Brother-esque surveillance directly, the makers tried to stigmatize both by associating them with the bad guys (‘overzealous’ CIA operatives) who were killing American citizens (not foreign residents, please note, since that also doesn’t inspire sufficient outrage in the US these days).

While the film-makers’ collective heart is in the right place, their circuitous approach, I believe, is partly responsible for the neocons’ ability to continue their war on civil liberties. The Bush administration has taken a clear, consistent stand that infringements on some freedoms are necessary to make sure that America doesn’t lose any more civilian lives. The response of the liberal left has been to say that these infringements are not good because they don't make Americans safer. That they don't work. In fact, it’s the Left’s argument that has not worked...because the Doesn’t-Work argument isn’t backed by real conviction.

Take the torture issue for example. Its just not sufficient to say we shouldn’t torture because torture is ineffective in extracting truthful information from terrorists. Even a lefty liberal like me can’t help thinking that sometimes you might actually get right information from torturing a terrorist and might in fact save some lives. Most democracies (at least officially) outlaw torture not because its ineffective, but because its just plain wrong. And we need leaders who have the clarity of vision and courage of conviction to put it as simply as that. Because, as the Economist said a couple of issues back, society would over time become inured to the use of torture (or enhanced interrogation methods in Bush-speak) – and then slalom down a slippery slope where using torture in other contexts and against an increasing number of people would seem sensible – why not also torture a paedophile suspected of kidnapping and holding a child in a secret place to find out its location?

The fact is, the real metric for measuring victory against the terrorists should be America’s and other democratic societies’ ability to retain their way of life, and the rights and freedoms that their citizens have won for themselves over the ages. Not how many civilians and soldiers die protecting it. Democratic freedoms are too valuable, for those who want them and those who would take them away, to be gained or retained at discounted prices. Ask the scores of Romanians who died trying to overthrow Ceaucescu and succeeded. Or the Burmese who failed in 1988 because 3000 lives was as high a price as they were willing to pay.

The Economist, in the same issue where it so wonderfully articulated its stand against torture, said it best:

“Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavoury practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it.”

Amen.