Jeez Jon

The Real Face of Same-Sex Marriage

In light of the whole Chick-Fil-A brouhaha, I recorded this video.  Here's the face of same-sex marriage.  Enjoy and share!

 

I really do need to clean my apartment this weekend.

Blood Makes Noise

I went to Trader Joe's tonight to pick up some soup for my inexplicably queasy stomach, and I saw two very enthusiastic, 20-something volunteers for the Red Cross by the entrance, clutching their clipboards and braying at every person that walked by.

FEMALE VOLUNTEER: Hi there!  We'd love to talk to you about the Red Cross!

MALE VOLUNTEER: We totally would! Today we are--

Me: Okay, guys, stop.  I'm not interested.

MALE VOLUNTEER: There are a lot of ways--

Me: You guys don't accept blood from gay men who are... sexually active.

FEMALE VOLUNTEER: Well, I'm a lesbian, so--

MALE VOLUNTEER: No, that's not true, that's the FDA and all we'd do is just test--

FEMALE VOLUNTEER: That's right, all it is is a test--

MALE VOLUNTEER [holding up clipboard]:  There are other ways you can donate--

Me: Look guys, you have a ban against it.  So if you can't have that, I don't feel comfortable...

FEMALE VOLUNTEER: No, we understand.

And I then walked into the Trader Joe's, adding "severe anger" to my already upset stomach. 

For the uninitiated, the Food and Drug Administration has had a ban on sexually active gay men giving blood since 1983.  So, for all practical purposes, I've never been able to donate blood.  Ever.  I'm HIV-.  I practice safe sex.  I'm so squeamish about hypodermics I've never had to worry about dirty needles.  I take good care of myself.  Put that all together and I'm the ideal candidate for blood donation.  The one thing preventing me from doing so is the fact that I -- like millions of Americans -- actually have sex. 

The FDA's reasoning of why I cannot donate blood is this:

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

Presumably the reason is that gay men "have more sexual partners" than other people.  We cannot donate blood because we're "sluts".  But what about slutty heteros, you ask? The FDA has an answer to that, too:

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men.

HIV infection rates in the US have leveled off, so this whole reasoning is just BS.  Couple this with the fact that blood donations are on the decline, it really makes you think that the FDA is just way behind the times on this. Senator John Kerry and several Democratic members of the House & Senate have sent a letter to the Department of Health & Human Services calling on the ban to be lifted.  It's still in effect.

Outside of a press release put out two years ago, the Red Cross has done little to help try to lift the ban. (The headline on this story -- American Red Cross Fights Ban On Gays' Blood -- is erroneous, since the gentleman interviewed in the story is not associated with the Red Cross)

To ask me for money (which is what the volunteers were there for) but not want my money is just galling to me.  Hey, Red Cross? You want my blood way more than I want to donate it.  So, if you want me to donate my blood, you are going to have to fight for it.  One limp press release won't cut it.  Put out a PSA about this issue and give a big full-throated support of ending the ban and then we'll talk.  Put your money where your mouth is or you won't be mine.  Or my money.

Network Notes On Speaker Boehner's Debt Crisis Speech

 

OVERALL:

Having done many numerous seasons of Strange Bedfellows: U.S. Federal Edition, we really do enjoy the plot twist of having the Speaker of the House give a rebuttal speech to the President's, even though this isn't the State of the Union.  In previous seasons of the show, we have never done that, even with Speaker Pelosi!  So, this is a great change of events that we think fans of the show would appreciate.

That being said, we do feel that we can bring out more from the speech.  With some edits, bites and cues, we feel that we can maximize Boehner's speech for comedy and drama.

SPECIFICS:

00:06    Please make sure to adjust the color levels during on-line.  It could be the low-res copy we have, but the Speaker's skin tone looks a few shades off of "Oompa-Loompa." Please bring this to the same color-correction lab that does Jersey Shore.

00:14    Keep it dry until here, then start patriotic music under Boehner's story of his small business.

00:38    Put a dramatic sting after "Those days are over!"

00:49    Can we put in a flashback from the State of the Union where the President asked for an increase in the debt ceiling?  Please use the blue filter on this.  Also, I know you said we didn't have Congress saying "Not so fast, Mr. President!" on camera a few times before.  Please double-check to see if this is true; it would give the speech a better impact if we could see the Speaker (or even Majority Leader Cantor) say it on camera.

01:02    Shift to a dark, mysterious music cue after he says "And here's what we got for that spending binge." Right now, it's playing flat and I'm losing interest.

01:10    Please put in a comedic sting on "fodder for late night comedians."  That way, people will know it's supposed to be funny.

01:34 - 01:52    Pull up this section; it's repetitive to what the Speaker was saying in the previous scene. I know we've done a lot of repetitive bites in other seasons, but this is too much even for us.

02:00    Just thinking out loud here, but should we change up our lower thirds?  The chyrons for the past 18 seasons have changed a bit. Maybe something new?  Let's discuss.

02:09    I know the Speaker here explains what the "Cut, Cap and Balance" Act will do, but I'm worried it won't be clear enough for our audience.  Please do a clarity pass on this; maybe a funnier button?

02:14    When the Speaker starts talking about his sincere efforts to communicate with the President, please shift the music to a more heart-felt, sincere tone.  Maybe the composer can do a sound-alike of The Fray's "How To Save A Life"? We do have some money in the budget for that. Please double check.

02:39    We've been staying on the same kind of shot for a long time now; do we have a wide shot of this?  I'd love to know the geography of the room we're in. 

02:54    Can we have the Speaker talk about how the closure of tax loopholes will kill jobs?  Not a huge note.

03:03    Can we see shots of the Speaker's children when he references them?  How can the audience know he has children unless we see them?  Please make sure they have signed releases.

03:11    Do we have another version of the Speaker saying "He wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today"?  He's been more emotional for us before -- remember the 60 Minutes Scene?  -- but here's he's so flat and dull.  Please do a comedy pass.

03:34    The Speaker here is referencing a bill that's going to pass later on in the week.  Do we have that?  If not, there will need to be a significant restructure of this scene. 

04:10    Add cymbal scrape after "The Constitution."

04:19    Instead of the Speaker talking about how the politicians shouldn't focus on trying to get re-elected, could you have him say something along the lines of "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore?"  That would be great.

04:32ish   I feel like we're on the same shot for a long time here.  Can we vary things up a bit?  Maybe a slow push-in would be good.  Be creative.

04:47    Add sad trombone effect after "running at full capacity".

04:55    Add triumphant music under the portion where he's talking about breaking the grip of debt. Should be an awe-inspiring, a-ha! moment.

05:10    End with a big swell of patriotic music, then use the new graphics of the donkey and elephant in the boxing ring.  

Thank you! Please call to discuss! 

A More Perfect Union

I've been away for far too long.  It's fitting that I'm posting on the 4th of July, on our country's 235th birthday.  Last Saturday, Tom and I were in San Francisco for the first time.  It's a gorgeous city; lots of old buildings, pretty streetcars, great food and lots of hills.  Lots and lots of hills.  We arrived Friday night and were set to go out to the Castro but Tom and I were waiting in our hotel room.  Waiting on the New York State Senate to approve gay marriage.  After a while, we left and headed into the Castro.  And then it happened:  New York State passed gay marriage.  For those of you who don't know, the Castro is the gay district of San Francisco.  And needless to say, it was a party. 

A very big party.

As Tom and I walked hand-in-hand (something we rarely do, out of sheer safety), a stranger ran up to us.

Stranger: Did you hear about New York?

Me: Yeah!  It's amazing.

Stranger: Oh yeah! I'm moving there next week.  Good timing, huh?

Me: Oh yeah.

Stranger: All I gotta do now is find someone to marry!

And he ran off.  The party mode continued all night, which included a karaoke bar, some drinks, and a very happy streetcar driver.  It was a great place to be for us; good timing, indeed.

One thing that stunned me at the time (and still does, to a certain extent) is that the New York State Senate is Republican controlled, and passed a gay marriage bill. Here is the money quote:

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

Senator Grisanti made the realization that he cannot fundamentally discriminate against his fellow citizen based on sexual orientation.  The idea that we have laws to go against gay people getting married is a way of expanding government, not limiting government. Expanding rights to LGBT people is a conservative (small c, not Conservative with a Big C) notion. If you let people be themselves and give everyone equal access to rights, schools and the marketplace, this is a conservative notion.  How funny that this basic concept is considered leftist in some circles.  In the most recent Republican presidential debate, 5 out of the 7 candidates were in favor of a federal amendment banning gay marriage.  No matter that the concept of self-determination is an inherently conservative idea. 

One of the many reasons why this country is great is because not only is a place, it's an idea.  We are always striving to form "a more perfect union."  Not Perfect, not Utopia, but a more perfect union.  It's the idea that we as a country aren't done, and we'll never be done.  If you look at how the GOP used gay marriage as a wedge issue in 2004 and now how some Republicans now made gay marriage legal in one of the largest states in the union, we've come a lot way.  And we've got a long way to go.  Democracy in a republic is a messy business.  It happens in fits and starts; two steps forward, one step back.  But, the good thing is, the world only spins forwards.  If we keep on pushing, progress will win out. 

Happy 4th of July.

My Non-Robo Response To A NOM Robocall

The following is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to the National Organization For Marriage after I received a robocall from them on Friday.  FYI, all the links below were not in the e-mail I sent but added here for your reading benefit.

------

To Whom It May Concern:

I came home from work Friday night to see there were two messages left on my answering machine.  The first was a hang-up from a local business and the second was a robo-call from your Executive Director, Brian Brown. On the message, he urged me as a California voter to vote for Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina due to her opposition to gay marriage. He went on to say that Barbara Boxer is -- horrors! -- for gay marriage. 

Well, Brian -- can I call you Brian? -- let me explain a couple things to you so you guys can save your resources.  My husband and I are one of the 18,000 legally married same-sex couples here in the Golden State, so we aren't your target audience here.  Obviously, we are pretty fond of our same-sex marriage and so far, the presence of 18,000 legally married gay couples here haven't plunged California into the ocean. (Indeed, all the problems California currently is having with the budget deficits started way before same-sex marriage came into the fore in 2004.)  So, the whole concept that gay marriage is bad is rather lost on those of us who are actually gay married. Do yourself a favor and take our number off your list.

You can also remove the phone numbers of all of our family members (they range in states from California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Virginia), our friends (who are spread all across the country) and our co-workers here in Los Angeles.  If you go, let's say, by the amount of Facebook friends my husband and I each have, that's 600 people between the two of us.  That'll be a pretty extensive list of phone numbers and addresses you can remove from your list.  I can only imagine expunging those numbers will help free up time and resources so you guys can focus your attention on other people.

Let me help you guys out even further.  If we take my husband and I as the base and that we as one couple have around 600 people in our orbit who support us and like our marriage, then logic dictates that this would extend to the other 17,999 legally married same-sex couples here in California.  So, multiplying 17,999 by 600, you now have 10,799,400 phone numbers and addresses to remove from your rolls.  Imagine how more efficient your operation will be by doing this!  Considering the problems your organization is having with the Internal Revenue Service about disclosure violations and issues involving funding, you guys should try to cut costs wherever you can.

In closing, I hope your action of taking my number off your robo-call list will help your organization operate more efficiently.  Thank you very much for your time, and have a great day!

Sincerely,

Jon Collins

It Really Does Get Better

As part of the It Gets Better Project trying to reach out to LGBT teens at risk, President Obama recorded his own video:

 

As someone who had their fair share of the term "faggot" and such thrown in my face as a teen, I wish I had something like this project back then... or a President who actually voices this type of concern.  He's not perfect and the whole DADT mess is frustrating to the nth degree, but he's doing this and the White House has even set up their own It Gets Better page here. 

What I would say to 15 year old Jon, listening to his Depeche Mode tapes on a loop while crushing on a bunch of guys in high school is it really does get better.  ...Oh, and stop combing your hair out. It's curly, embrace it.

The More The Merrier

My favorite radio talk host, Stephanie Miller, came out yesterday on her show.  I did not see this coming. Needless to say, I'm so happy for her.  The coming out process is a very personal thing and everyone is on their own schedule as to when they are ready.  So, congrats, Stephanie!  You can listen to her coming out below.

My Letter To Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel

The following is the actual text I sent to Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel:

Mr. Steinhafel:

My name is Jon Collins, and I live in Los Angeles, CA.  Up to today, I have shopped at your Eagle Rock Target store frequently.  When my husband and I got married in 2008, the only place we registered for gifts was Target.  The bulk of my friends here in Los Angeles shop at Target.  We love shopping at your stores.

But when the information came out about the donation to Mr. Tom Emmer's guberntorial campaign, my heart sank.  I find it particularly galling that the same company that took in a good deal of money based on my same-sex marriage would be going to someone who actively seeks a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This indeed is a slap in the face of all of your loyal LGBT customers and their families.

As someone who absolutely loves shopping in your store, I am asking you to please help rectify this situation.  Based on the donation to a gentleman who is so hostile to the LGBT community, I do not feel comfortable shopping at Target.  When you guys to fix this, I will make a beeline to Target and shop to my heart's content.  Until that happens, though, I will not shop at Target.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,
Jon Collins
Los Angeles, CA

You can reach Target thusly:

[email protected]

612-696-6234

fax: 612-696-6325

Numbers Don't Lie

Much as been made as of late of Sarah Palin's association with the Tea Party movement and how many Republicans have been angling for her endorsements during this election cycle.  Her recent fundraiser appearance for a small Northern California university brought up calls for transparency in how the state universities handle their finances.  Apparently, Sarah Palin is the new GOP kingmaker this year.  But how much can this translate to the general election? 

A lot of hay has been made about Palin's comments via Twitter, especially in regards to Rep. Joe Barton's apology to BP.  This got me thinking:  how many people actually follow Sarah Palin on Twitter?  So, I went to check it out.  As of this writing, Sarah Palin has 180,116 followers on Twitter. Check it out.  180,116 people may seem like a lot.  But let's crunch the numbers:

Here are but a few cities that have larger populations than the number of Sarah Palin's followers on Twitter:

• Salt Lake City, UT (183,171)
• Des Moines, IA (198,460)
• Yonkers, NY (201,162)
• Irvine, CA (209,716)
• Durham, NC (229,174)

Yes, more people live in Des Moines than follow Sarah Palin on Twitter. Puts things in perspective, no?  Here are people who have more followers on Twitter than Sarah Palin:

• Danny Masterson (from That's 70's Show): 1,378,135
• Soliel Moon Frye (aka Punky Brewster): 1,417,878
• Ana Marie Cox (Washington-based journalist): 1,465,269
• Sen. John McCain (you know who he is): 1,724,719
• Al Gore (you also know who he is): 2,137,093
• President Barack Obama: 4,348,934
• "Real Housewives of New York City" cast member Bethenny Frankel: 200,579

Yes, that's correct.  Punky Brewster and a reality TV star/personal chef have more followers on Twitter than Sarah Palin.  The argument can be made that the bulk of people who like Sarah Palin aren't tuned into Twitter.  But with the huge push that Obama made on social networks to help get his win in 2008, obviously a fight over social networks will be pivotal in 2012.  So, let's take a look at Facebook.  According to Sarah Palin's Facebook page as of this writing, Sarah Palin has 1,701,818 followers.  Not shabby by a long shot.  But you know who has 5 times as many followers on Twitter? President Barack Obama, at 9,240,780.  If Palin actually wants to run against Obama in 2012, she has her work cut out for her.  These numbers also mean that her influence over the political climate is definitely limited to the Right side of the spectrum and not inclusive of the middle, which is key in any election cycle.

At Home Film Festival: V For Vendetta

Looking back on it now, I really wish I had seen V For Vendetta in a theater.  I have only seen in at home on my telly (as the Brits say), and even on that small-ish screen, the film absolutely pops. Based on Alan Moore's graphic novel of the same name, Vendetta is set in a dystopian England some 50-ish years in the future where an arch-conservative totalitarian regime is in control of the country.  This regime, led by the High Chancellor (played expertly well by John Hurt), came to power due to a series of terrorist attacks.  Due to all of this, England has a strict curfew, homosexuality is illegal, and the citizens are always being watched. 

After setting the stage, our ingenue Evie (played very ably by Natalie Portman) sneaks out during curfew to meet up with her boss.  Below, Evie bumps into some of the scuzzy secret police who try to rape her.  Then, out of the dark, emerges a man in a mask.

His name?  V.  His raison d'etre?  Taking down the High Chancellor's government, in a very violent manner.  All the while, the Chief Inspector (The Crying Game's Stephen Rea) is trying to put the pieces together of how V is tied into the High Chancellor and the terrorist attacks that happened many years ago.  V's actions are... very extreme and yes, he can easily be called a terrorist.  As he ramps up his attacks on the government, the High Chancellor responds.

Coming out in 2005 in the height of the War in Iraq and well into George Bush's 2nd term, V For Vendetta resonated with a lot of people... and became pretty controversial.  The film clearly puts the audience with V, showing all his actions as justified.  So, is he a freedom fighter?  Or is he a terrorist?  Is V correct?  Back when I first saw this, I would answer "Hell yes, he's in the right."  And I'd still say the same now.  With obvious nods to 1984 and the fascistic symbolism, this version of England is a ultra-right-wing nightmare, which scared the bejeezus out of a lot of us lefties back in 2005.  With the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping and demonizing all things Islam, V For Vendetta was a fun-house mirror of our worst fears for our own country at the time.  Now a mere 4 years later, that kind of future world does seem less likely.  While we are dealing with the worst financial crisis to hit the world since the Great Depression, we are more positive now then we were back then.  And frankly, I can't see many tea party activists quoting V in their rallies, can you?

What really hooks me into the movie every time, though, is Natalie Portman.  Ever since I saw her in The Professional, I've been a fan.  I think she's a damn good actress, and here she shines.  While Portman's British accent is a bit generic at times, her performance is pitch-perfect.  You see Evie's growth in the film,  from being a regular girl into a politicized agent.  And since we never see V's face in the film (spoiler!), it's through Portman's performance that we get to see the human side of V. 

Made by the Wachowski brothers, V for Vendetta has a great look to it.  I picked it up on Blu-Ray using a birthday present gift card from a buddy, and I'm very glad I did.  Check it out sometime: love it or hate it... it sure is pretty.