The empire is in decline, and the Colosseum is open for business

I hate the insipid Today Show, as you probably know if you’re a longtime reader, yet I cannot turn away. I will admit a certain fondness for Ann Curry – certainly linked to my affection for secondary characters in literature and film – but she’s so marginalized these days that it hardly makes a difference.

Anyway, “America’s First Family” continues to give me good reason to ridicule them. Witness this morning’s broadcast: is there so little going on in the world that we can justify devoting the first twenty-five minutes of the Today Show to an interview with barely-intelligible barbarian Ron Artest (who at least had the good sense to turn the unwarranted attention he’s getting for beating up a sports spectator into a plug for his forthcoming rap cd)?

Twenty-five minutes.

If I ever see Katie Couric in real life I'm going to smack her in the head.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I’m a bit behind the times, but yesterday faithful reader 23Skidoo alerted me to a new scandal soon to embroil Both Sides Magazine, a hate-and-fear-based “Christian” publication whose editorial aim seems to be to drive a wedge between religious African-Americans and gay people.

The centerpiece of the magazine is a “Q&A” with well-known Fundamentalist rabble-rouser James Dobson of Focus on the Family (which, by the way, is of the devil) in which he quotes a “scientific” article by fellow kook Paul Cameron, claiming that non-HIV infected gay men have a life span of 42. (Gulp! I’ve only got four years left! I’d better hurry up with that uninhibited drug use and unprotected sex with multiple partners that the homosexual movement has been pressuring me to try!)

Cameron’s "research" consisted of comparing obituaries printed in gay newspapers in and around San Francisco, with obituaries from “normal” newspapers nationwide.

I’ll let you ponder that for a moment.

Suffice it to say that Cameron’s methodology and results were debunked, oh, about twenty years ago, and he has since been disowned by any professional scientific organization you would care to name. Yet this article continues to be quoted by the religious right as “proof” that gays are unhealthy.

The magazine also does its darnedest to disassociate gay rights and civil rights, claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. would be aghast at the comparison (although his widow begs to differ).

23Skidoo has cancelled her subscription to the Post, as has 23Skiddo’s sister and her nice Irish husband. Their argument, and it is a sound one, is that the Post would never include an “advertisement” that, say, denied the Holocaust or proposed that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

I must admit to being of a mixed mind on the matter. Another friend (a gay one) points out that the Post regularly exhibits fair reportage on gay issues. Certainly, they are a business, and do rely on advertising revenue to pay the power bill, as well as keep their subscription rates reasonable. And just as certainly, this is America, where every view (no matter how reprehensible) has the right to be aired and/or printed. Where I’m wavering is, does it have the right to be read and/or heard?

It reminds me, as most things in life do, of a comic book. In this particular comic, Supergirl was called to a college campus where a Ku Klux Klan-esque group was staging a demonstration.

Also on the scene was Steel, an African-American super-hero (whom you may remember was the title character in a dreadful Shaquille O’Neal theatrical vehicle a few years back).
Steel advocated swinging his big metal hammer and knocking the hate group through the Hostess Twinkies ad and into next month’s issue. Supergirl stopped him mid-swing and argued that, this being America, they had the right to air their views, as long as they were not breaking the law in doing so.

I forget how it ends, but I seem to remember coming down on the side of Supergirl. But then again, the hate group she was defending wasn’t anti-gay, were they? (Sometime I’ll tell you about Supergirl’s boyfriend, Comet the Superhorse….a horse that could turn into a man with backwards legs, whose secret identity was a lesbian. All in color for a dime, folks!)

So where is the line between defending free speech and airing a differing viewpoint? How do I defend my right to say, for instance, that James Dobson is of the devil, without also defending James Dobson’s right to say that HIV negative gay men have a life expectancy of 42? To be perfectly honest, if not for the Post insert, I would not have know that Dobson was spreading lies and would not have had the opportunity to rebut them.

I certainly am not arguing that anyone who wants to cancel their Post subscriptions shouldn’t do so. That is the beauty of capitalism. But where is the point that I must, as a defender of my own ideals, deny myself something that I otherwise enjoy because one aspect of it is distasteful? Is simply registering my distaste enough? I mean, I would guess that my political views are about as different from Charlton Heston’s as they could possibly be, but I love me some Planet of the Apes and Ben Hur. Should I, in protest to Heston’s political views, refuse to support his artistic endeavors (and yes, I realize it may be a stretch to use the word “artistic”…..)

Peter David, author of the aforementioned Supergirl story, says “Once you take action to hurt someone simply because you disagree with them, you forfeit any claim to the axiom, ‘I disagree with all you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.’ “ So is deciding to cancel a Post subscription taking action to hurt someone?

Would I be nearly as outraged if the Post had included an ad that said, say, James Dobson is of the devil? Is there really anybody that was equally outraged by the treatment of the Dixie Chicks AND Dr. Laura Schlesinger?

I don’t know. I’m just throwin’ it out there.

"If you cannot defend what - to you - is unpalatable, then you do not believe in free speech. You only believe in the free speech of those who agree with you."

- Salman Rushdie in "Dirty Pictures" (2000)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Enough thinking. Little friend has found the best website ever. Pictures of celebrities looking trashy. Go. Laugh. Revel in our intellectual superiority.