The Probulator

What I suspected has now been offically released by the BBC.  David Tennant is leaving Doctor Who at the end of the 2009 Specials.  I’m guessing that this news is the reason that the Doctor Who Forum is experiencing major difficulties in delivering its content.   I thought David made an excellent Doctor.  His incredible level of energy and sense of fun made the show more entertaining than at time in its long history.  His three years with the show allowed him to develop and evolve the 10th Doctor’s personality.  Christopher Eccleston’s 9th Doctor didn’t quite get that chance.  (Yes, I know it was Eccleston’s choice to leave the role.)  Although, too much of the whole “immortal with eternal survivor’s guilt” thing would probably have gotten old very quickly. I find it interesting that the “serious” 9th Doctor had less serious stories than the “fun” 10th Doctor.  Russell T. Davies may not be the greatest of writers, but I think this shows an understated genius in his running the show.

I imagine the news will disappoint a good number of fans who expected their favorite Doctor to have a run of Tom Baker endurance.  While I certainly enjoyed Tennant’s run immensely, I find myself welcoming this news. Ever since William Hartnell was forced out bowed out of the role, it’s been designed to be handed down from actor to actor, allowing the show to evolve in a way that no other show can.  When the original series was canceled in 1989, Sylvester McCoy was determined to hand the role over to his successor at some point.  He had that opportunity to do so in the 1996 TV movie.  Yes, the movie was sub-par, but at least he was able to do so.  Now we’ll get to see it passed on again right at the time a new team takes over the production.  I think we’ll see a fresh start and some great originality.  (Hopefully part of that includes giving the Daleks a rest.  They need to bow out for a few years at least.)  A new Doctor is always a fun ride.  My only hope is Stephen Moffett allows the show to keep its gay sensibility.

I will stay out of any speculation on who should/will inherit the role.  It’s a British Institution and I’m not British.  There will be plenty of others posting their ideas all over the internet until the successor is announced.  Until then, there will be five more specials for us to appeciate Doctor Number 10.

Tags: British, Doctor Who, Drama, Entertainment, Science Fiction, Television, gay by Dean
No Comments »

Thanks to a link from Neilalien I got some people to actually read this thing and even leave some valuable comments.  If you link me on your blogroll I’ll link you on mine!

To be perfectly honest, my teenage mind never considered the possibility that the trucker’s comment could have been sarcastic.  This, of course, turns the whole situation around.  Doc is defending an underclass!  Yay!

I think it can be interpreted either way equally, which makes the whole thing rather ambiguous.  Still, it is something of a relief that my favorite fictional character isn’t going to explode into an Ann Coulter-ish fit of rage simply by meeting someone like me and zapping that someone into another dimension or a pile of fine ash.

In fact, one could say it leans toward the sarcastic angle since it’s never mentioned again in the ensuing forty years and his reaction many decades later to being asked the “are you gay” question is pretty much ambivalence and a hearty laugh. So, thank you commenters, this actually made me feel better.

Now, just for the heck of it: Howard the Duck, Sorcerer Supreme! (from Marvel Treasury Edition #12 via Essential Howard The duck #1)

Howard The Duck, Sorcerer Supreme

*As for the issue number error, you have my apologies.  That’s what I get for scanning out of Marvel Masterworks after not having read the arc for a decade or so.  Next time I won’t be so lazy and dig up the actual issue!  (I don’t own the Marvel Treasury Edition issue for the above panel so deal with the black and white!)

Tags: Comic Books, Doctor Strange, Entertainment, Homophobia, gay by Dean
No Comments »

I’ve been a fan of Doctor Strange for nearly 30 years, since I measured my age in single digits.  I went on a mad frenzy looking for just about every book he ever appeared in (and I’ve probably got most of them from his first appearance in 1963 to about 1985 or so.)  As someone just entering my teens and just coming to realize what my sexuality meant.  Unfortunately, this was during Reagan’s first term, so even in the more liberal New York, being an out gay teenager wasn’t a very safe thing to be.  Hardly the trailblazer, I was pretty quiet about everything and remained quite in the dark about far too much.

Still, even in this rather ignorant state, when I discovered the panel at the left in Doctor Strange #175 (November 1968) at the tender age of thirteen I was quite bothered.  Heck, my hero was saying, by proxy, that I was beneath contempt.  I even identified with the whole “Prince Charming” comment.  After all, Frank Brunner’s later “Daddy Doctor Strange” in the early seventies had all the makings of a gay porn star and was tasty indeed.  And to top it all off, after the good Doc turns away, his silver-haired beard gets all pee-ohd at the second rate Paul Lynde and goes on to perform some nasty hex on him and his truck.  This must be comicdom’s first mystical gay bashing.  I wonder what Terry Berg would say to that?

Now, there were plenty of other things wrong with this issue, mostly having to do with Roy Thomas writing the worlds most incredibly crappy dialog in the history of the universe for this story arc.  But nothing bothered me as much as this single panel.  Now, a quarter of a century after I first read it, I’m still dwelling on it!  Homosexual content was forbidden by the Comics Code Authority, and no one would distribute your work without that little stamp, but monthly gay bashing certainly wasn’t required for an issue to pass.

Now, the good news is this is Doc’s only venture into the world of homophobia and decades later, when an old acquaintance asked Stephen if he was gay (he had grown a goatee as was the fashion of the mid nineties and with that outfit, how could you not) he merely laughed.  Was Roy Thomas pushing a right wing agenda with his shitty writing?  We’ll probably never know.  Doc was never popular enough to get a pop culture response.  But if he was, he chose an odd venue for it.  After all, there’s probably no character as anti-christian as Doctor Strange.

I have officially vented!

Tags: Comic Books, Doctor Strange, Entertainment, Homophobia, gay by Dean
4 Comments »

Part of me almost admires this guy.  A principal of a South Carolina high school resigned rather than force narrow minded beliefs on others and impeded his fellow citizens’ pursuit of happiness.  Eddie Walker objected to the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance club.  Rather than attempt to block the formation or make a draconian decision and terminate all extracurricular activities, Mr. Walker took responsibility for his choice to follow certain religious beliefs.  He realized choosing these beliefs made him unfit to participate in public education and withdrew.

Now we need many other public school administrators to follow his lead, along with a slew of pharmacists.

Tags: Equality, News, Religion, gay by Dean
No Comments »

The Insurance Services Office keeps track of severe weather conditions that cause catastrophic losses to the property and casualty insurance industry.  A catastrophe is an event that causes a combined loss of $25,000,000.  This year Oklahoma had five of these losses.  This is the same number of losses in 2006 and 2007 combined.  Four of these five losses had biblical style events such as tornadoes, hail and flooding.  These four losses also occurred after Sally Kern made her incredibly disparaging remarks about LGBT people.  Is this a coincidence or did she manage to piss God off?  I’m leaning heavily toward the latter.

Keep talking, Sally.  Maybe a pillar of salt is next.

Tags: Equality, Politics, Republican Congressmen, gay by Dean
1 Comment »

Tags: British, Entertainment, Science Fiction, Television, gay by Dean
1 Comment »

By now you’ve heard the “news”.  The late Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts was gay.  Naturally, the revelation of the sexuality of a fictional character has sparked a gamut of emotion from disgust and outrage on the ridiculous right to praise and pride on the loony left and everything in between.

postmodernbarney.com calls Rowling craven for this after the fact tidbit.  Time magazine states a similar line of thought, albeit less strongly worded.  Comments on the more matter-of-fact CNN article are very diverse being both supportive and derisive.  From these comments you can discern the fact that many, many Christian people are buying and reading these books despite the book burnings call for by the Dobson-like right-wing drones/clones.

First, a comment on the possible “satanic” nature of Harry Potter.  There isn’t any.  Wizardry in this fictional universe isn’t accomplished by calling on outside powers.  It appears to be an innate ability of the magic users.  This would seem to make wizards and witches a subspecies of humanity rather than ordinary humans selling their soul to defy the laws of the universe.  Rowling’s universe contains no other dimensions, worlds, realms, etc…  It’s merely differently talented people getting along in a world where they are outnumbered by the less powerful masses.

Second, is Rowling craven or an attention whore for her post-completion news?  I don’t think so.  First, the stories are told from the point of view of Harry Potter and his friends, not Dumbledore, the muggles, the ministry of magic or any of the Hogwarts faculty.  Harry Potter has a lot of issues and is kept busy by the fact that someone is attempting to kill him.  This would preclude him from noticing or attempting to discern the sexuality of his teacher; a man who is supposed to be approximately 110 years old.  I know that in school, I really didn’t care who my teachers slept with, especially if they were old enough to collect social security, and I didn’t have anyone on my tail trying to blast me into atoms.  I also speculate that Dumbledore wasn’t fully formed in the first couple of books and this may not have yet been a fact.  Rowling started writing the first book in 1990 when Fraulein Thatcher was still in charge of the UK and Bush I was still infecting the US.  Not exactly an ideal time to insert a gay character into a story aimed at children.  This probably came about during the third or fourth book when Dumbledore’s role become much more prominent.  Apparently clues are slipped in at this time, but my rather quick reading of the books a couple of years ago caused me to miss them.  However, a coworker of mine says she kinda knew all along.  I never claimed to have perfect gaydar.

Whatever you think of this, the fact remains that Dumbledore’s sexuality isn’t mentioned in the books and has no effect on the stories.  For those on the right that are now calling the books garbage, enjoy them and do what you do best.  Keep your children in ignorance of this fact.  For those on the left claiming Rowling a coward, lighten up.  It’s just a story.

Tags: Authors, British, Entertainment, Literature, gay by Dean
No Comments »

Same sex mating is seen in species other than homo sapiens sapiens.  Sometimes with results…

Tags: Science, gay by Dean
No Comments »

Now Senator Larry Craig claims he was profiled by the police.

Tags: News, Politics, Public Lewdness, Repbulican Senators, gay by Dean
No Comments »

A friend of mine saw the ad below and gave kudos to putting a black man in the Jesus spot, since the chances that The Annointed One was the pasty faced Aryan of his typical portrayal in the west are pretty slim.

Tags: Religion, gay, leather by Dean
No Comments »

In what should be a non-story, the Concerned Women of America (or is it for America) have some problems with the above image, an advertisement for the upcoming Folsom Street Fair this weekend. A number of blogs have picked up on this including the prolific Andrew Sullivan, Towleroad, Joe My God and postmodernbarney. Sullivan is brief, calling it an unnecessary provocation and “easy, cheap blasphemy”. I can understand the “unnecessary provocation” comment even if I don’t agree with it, but the blasphemy crack seems to touch a nerve or two of his.

What bothers me most is that Sullivan went on some time ago about not having the right to not be offended. (I attempted to search his archives for the entry, but there are way too many to look through. If I find it in the near future, I’ll update this.) It’s one of the few points we both agree on. Is Sullivan saying that this alleged blasphemy is the exception to this rule? I certainly hope not as this would compromise both free speech and freedom of religion.

Towleroad’s slightly longer entry is more of a news announcement with a slightly smarmy, buy well deserved, attitude toward CWA. Joe My God’s entry is similar, but states an opinion of the ad. He likes it! The more interesting parts of both these articles are the voluminous comments each have generated. It’s worth a read.

Postmodernbarney has the most well written and intelligently reasoned “so what” I’ve ever read. (I’ve followed the site for awhile and the man has talent.) OK, I don’t think Sullivan is that right-wing, but that’s just my opinion. He’s the only one to actually come out and say “be ourselves”, “stop changing your behavior for the sake others”, etc….

I would take this a little further. We need to condemn CWA’s call to political leaders. Asking them to condemn blasphemy represents a serious threat to everyone’s freedoms. Our constitution states the congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit its free exercise. The call by CWA is their attempt to elevate Christianity above other religions. If this were out of sense of fairness they would have asked members of congress to condemn religious right leaders who committed blasphemy by calling Islam satanic and Muhammad a pedophile. These are they people who call gay rights special rights, but want to put Christianity beyond anyone’s criticism. Talk about hypocritical.

I like the poster. It’s a clever and slick image. If you have a problem with it don’t look at it. You don’t have the right to eliminate the things that offend you but you do have the right to walk away from it. For everyone else, enjoy it!

Update: Check the comment below for a story in Time Magazine about Andrew Sullivan and his argument that you are not protected from offense.  My thanks to the reader for his diligent research.

Tags: News, Politics, Religion, gay, leather by Dean
2 Comments »

An excellent article written by someone obviously much more talented than me!  Enjoy!  I did.

Tags: Equality, News, gay by Dean
No Comments »

Not too long ago, my current state of residence made a rather troubling court decision.  The most disturbing passage from the decision:

 ”In declaring that the State’s legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structures in which children are born are related reasonably to the means employed by [the law banning same-sex marriage], our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the reasons,” wrote Harrell, who is retired from the court but participated in the decision because he was a member when the case was argued.

Now these arguments have been said before, and what I am about to retort with has as well, but I feel very strongly that it needs to be repeated yet again.  If the main goal of marriage is procreation in a “traditional family structure” then the following needs to be observed:

1. Fertility tests must be a requirement for marriage.
2. Government provided benefits do not start until the first child is born.
3. Government provided benefits end when the youngest child reaches the age of majority.
4. All children must be removed from single parent homes and placed in two parent homes.

Without observing these requirements, the decision holds no legitimacy other than to quell popular dissent against.

The Sioux City Journal had an editorial about Iowa’s recent brush with same sex marriage.  Instead of procreation and “traditional family structure” this person used religious reasoning.  He went so far as to call same sex marriage “a cruel impostor” without any real reasoning other than tradition.  Perhaps this person wishes to return to other traditions like poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.  This person, like so many others, forgets that we live in a society with a government that is neutral to religion.  Despite his cry that it is neither irrational nor oppressive, it winds up being both.  The marriage of two people of the same sex would have absolutely no effect on his marriage or life in general, but denying this right to others has an incredibly deleterious effect on a law abiding couple.

I think we’re in for a serious intensifying of these efforts.  Spurred on by the recent deaths of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy, the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson realize their generation is ending and succeeding generations are becoming more and more liberal.  Constitutional amendments to enforce their ideals is the only way that they can be sure that they are carried into the future.

This decision makes it clear that we will need to tackle this issue through the legislature rather than through the courts.  If you live in Maryland, be sure to write your state representatives.

Tags: News, gay by Dean
No Comments »

The movie that taught the mainstream what that yellow hankie hanging out of that guys right rear pocket means was finally released on DVD.  Despite direction by Academy Award winning William Friedkin, Academy Award winning actor Al Pacino in the lead role and the presence of several other actors of note, Cruising is no masterpiece.

History notes that the movie managed to anger everyone when it was released.  I was too young to remember so I’ll need to take the many sources at their word.  True, it portrays a culture that, even today, gets little respect outside the its own walls, but there is little sincerity beyond the grimy leather bars.  Most of the bars I’ve been in look pretty much how they were depicted in the movie.  Twenty-seven years after its release and the most relevant thing it portrays is that leather culture is stuck in time to a degree.  Aside from the eighties porno haircuts, you can expect a bar to look like what you see here.

Performance-wise, this whole affair seems forced.  Half the “native New Yorkers” don’t have anything approaching a New York accent in any of it’s multitudinous variations.  Too many scenes sound like the dialog was re-recorded and the actors where half-asleep when they sat down for this task.  A good deal of the dialog is over the top; most people who don’t suffer from megalomania or are about to audition for a play don’t talk like this.  And Steve’s (Al Pacino) girlfriend has a HUGE apartment.  Even back in 1980 such a young woman on her own should be living in a broom closet sized place.  Even the whole murder plot seems rather implausible.

The only interesting thing is Steve’s descent from Average Joe cop to pervert.  It’s a subtle journey that’s the real main story of this mess and it’s Pacino’s real triumph in this outing.  There wasn’t much else for him to work with.

When all is said and done, this isn’t much more than a historical oddity.  As one of the very few serious mainstream movies about leather culture it’s something to watch to “see how things were back then”.  Throw it in the Netflix queue and be glad that those hairstyles are long out of fashion.

Tags: DVD, Entertainment, gay, leather by Dean
No Comments »