The smog of special-interest deception

Clearing the air on smoking policies
Wednesday, February 23,2005

Regina Brett
Plain Dealer Columnist

A few weeks ago I walked into an Italian restaurant to pick up a pizza.

A friend had turned me on to the East Side restaurant by sharing a pizza that was out of this world.

The restaurant looked charming, so I grabbed a menu while waiting for my order. The dining room was empty, but from the looks of the room and the menu, it looked like a great place to take the family.

Then the smell hit me.

When I asked the waitress where to pick up the pizza, she led me to the bar. I could have followed my nose. A cloud of gray stink enveloped me. My taste buds went numb after five minutes.

I waited in the dining room, but still came home reeking of smoke.

That poor waitress, stuck for hours, breathing enough carcinogens to choke a horse.

The owner of that establishment might be delighted that a bunch of drinkers were happy stinking up the air and their lungs, but I wonder if he or she realizes how many diners the smoke turned away.

What scares us away?

Those orange wristbands say it all: 53 K.

The first time I saw one, I thought the guy wearing it was in training for a long marathon.

What's 53 K?

"That's how many people die a year in this country from secondhand smoke," he told me.

That figure of 53,000 nonsmokers comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

If people want to commit slow suicide by smoking, I can't stop them. But I sure don't want to join them.

We shouldn't allow them to take the rest of us with them. That's why we need 100 percent Clean Indoor Air Laws that make workplaces and public indoor areas smoke-free.

Some bar and restaurant owners oppose them, fearing that business will falter. The tobacco industry fans those fears.

But Gary Richmond, president of Johnny Mango World Cafés, found that the opposite happened.

His Ohio City restaurant went smoke-free in 2004. Taxable meal receipts grew more than 9 percent.

"For us, it's been a windfall," he told me.

Didn't he lose his faithful smokers?

"Oh, sure," he said. "A certain percent never returned. They've been replaced many times over."

Before going smoke-free, he did a survey. Out of 535 responses, 75percent favored the change, 14 percent were neutral, 11 percent vowednot to return.

I would say good riddance.

Two things are at stake: public health and the rights of workers to breathe clean air.

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to pollute the air in bars and restaurants that employees must breathe.

Smokers will say that most bar and restaurant employees smoke. But even if that were true, those employees wouldn't be smoking non-filtered cigarettes for eight hours nonstop.

Richmond polled his 49 employees. He found that 31 did not smoke.

"They deserve the opportunity to live life to the fullest," he said, "and the longest."

Until we have 100 percent Clean Indoor Air Laws, we will have to vote with our feet.

To get a guide to smoke-free establishments in Cuyahoga County, go to www.ccbh.net or visit www.smokefreeohio.org.

If you need help to stop smoking, call the Ohio Tobacco Quit Line at 1-800-934-4840.

Remember, smoking is a choice. Breathing isn't.

=============================================

My response to Regina Brett's column titled "Clearing the air on smoking policies" from the Wednesday, 2/24/05, edition of The Plain Dealer:

First of all, I don't smoke. 

I support smoking restrictions, perhaps even bans, in public offices and most public buildings.  However, the universal mission of anti-smokers and their coalitions is to federally ban smoking from all bars and restaurants, as well.  Ms. Brett shares this view, but it's an example of good intentions/bad idea.

In her column, Ms. Brett cited the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for her statistic of 53,000 American deaths caused annually by secondhand smoke (SHS).  However, the EPA's official web site states only that "secondhand smoke is estimated…to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year."  The site also claims that SHS may increase the risk of heart disease.

Then again, so may hamburgers.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) states approximately 1800 to 3200 SHS-induced deaths annually, which could be even less or barely more than legitimate EPA estimates.  Either way, these statistics fall approximately 50,000 deaths short of Ms. Brett's estimate.

Secondary effects of alcohol are more dangerous than SHS.  According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), in 2002, an estimated 17,419 people died in alcohol-related traffic crashes alone.  These deaths constituted 41 percent of the 42,815 total traffic fatalities that year.  Thus second-hand deaths caused by drunkenness total more than five times the EPA's estimated death rate from SHS.  And unlike those exposed to SHS, innocent people killed in drunk driving accidents rarely have a chance to avoid the danger.

Despite the much higher risk and rate of death or injury from alcohol exposure compared to second- or even first-hand smoke, there is no major movement to ban alcohol in bars and restaurants.  That's because someone else drinking is less of a nuisance to non-drinkers than smoking is to non-smokers.

Ms. Brett wrote that she did not want to join smokers in "commit[ting] slow suicide."  But working at a stressful or dangerous job, eating junk food, or not exercising - are all common ways how Americans commit slow suicide.  If Ms. Brett fits under none of these categories, I salute her.  Most Americans do, however.  And judging by statistics, SHS exposure threatens no quicker death to most adults than any of these everyday acts.

Cotinine is a metabolite that forms in one's body with exposure to nicotine.  Cotinine levels in the body help doctors track one's exposure to tobacco smoke.  According to the CDC's Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, cotinine levels in nonsmoking Americans have decreased by more than 70% since the early 1990s, including a 58% decrease in children and a 55% decrease in adolescents.  These encouraging statistics contradict the doom-and-gloom numbers manipulated by anti-tobacco special interest groups and their allies.

With smoking, the deadliest chemicals stick to the lungs upon direct "mainstream" inhalation from cigarette to first-hand smoker.  They are not released with carbon dioxide as that smoker exhales.  Even the EPA and CDC attest to this fact, despite what chemicals are exposed through exhalation.  Anti-tobacco lobbyists rely on public misconception of this truth.

Another fact one never hears from anti-smoking campaigns is that hundreds of thousands of US-based jobs, particularly in the Carolinas and Virginia, stem from the tobacco industry.  Tobacco is an important crop and export for that region, and while the term "Big Tobacco" is usually pejorative - it also incorporates that many people stay employed and feed their families because of it.  Many of these positions would undoubtedly suffer pay cuts or be lost due to sweeping federal smoking bans that would force limited production, sales and distribution if enacted.

According to the EPA, the CDC, the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the American Heart Association (AHA), environmental tobacco smoke most endangers children and pregnant women.  The ACS reports on its web site the increased risk of asthma in children exposed to SHS.  Children do not go to bars, but most children do live at home with their families.  Pregnant women are encouraged to rest at home as often as possible.  Most working pregnant women take maternity leave from their jobs, which keeps them at home with their baby both before and after its birth.

Federal bans on smoking in bars would dramatically increase both the concentration and frequency of SHS around the home.  This natural consequence would increase the risk of one's children developing a habit or curiosity for cigarettes. 

The extra SHS levels would also damage the property's resale value.  If tobacco smoke is so deadly, a smoker forced to puff mostly at home would render her estate virtually uninhabitable for future homebuyers.  This would be disastrous for the home-buying market nationwide.  Even the CDC lists this as a serious consequence for smoking at home.

Even if people smoked outside their homes, the SHS toxins would still linger and surround the area and those living there.  We shouldn't encourage the government to force a public disservice or to significantly increase the health risks for children and pregnant women at home.

Recent radio ads sponsored by anti-smoking action groups included one testimonial from a former bartender who blamed SHS for her miscarriage.  While I sympathize for the loss, her story begged the question: If you were pregnant, why did you work behind a bar? 

If any federal ban is imposed, it should be one that prevents pregnant women from going to - let alone working in - bars.  Neither smoke, nor alcohol, nor loud noise, nor stress, nor crowded spaces contribute to healthy pregnancies.  Besides, there are many smoke-free bars and restaurants nationwide, including northeast Ohio.  I've worked as a waiter, and I know that if an employee requested to always work the nonsmoking section, it would easily happen.

I understand pleas to ban smoking in restaurants more than pleas to ban smoking in bars.  Still, the decision should be left to the company's owners.

Ms. Brett stated that the tobacco industry "fans those fears" of bars and restaurants losing business if they ban smoking in their establishments.  Conversely, anti-tobacco industry special interest groups fan the misleading optimism that if one business profits from a smoking ban, then every business would.  This simply is not true.

Ms. Brett cited Cleveland's Johnny Mango Café as an example.  Whole families are encouraged to eat meals together at this restaurant.  Such is not the case with traditional bars/pubs, where anyone under 21 years of age is often prohibited.

Also, Johnny Mango's polled its patrons extensively before it decided to prohibit smoking.  This informed owner's decision was a better approach than blindly imposing, or being forced to impose, a smoking ban.  I support independent decisions by bar- and restaurant owners.  It's their business, their property, and their income to lose - and if you don't like it, go someplace else.

Bars are where one can escape after a long day of work to relax, have a drink, and maybe smoke before going home or even back to work.  The government should not deprive hard-working citizens the choice to smoke in a bar.  Fidel Castro imposed this ban throughout Cuba in February, and he should never be a trendsetter for US policy.

Ms. Brett concluded her column by saying that smoking is a choice.  But every potential customer also chooses where to eat or drink.  Bar- and restaurant owners should have a choice whether or not to alienate patrons who smoke.

Government-mandated prohibition against alcohol backfired in the 1920s, and so would similar restrictions against tobacco today.

Some helpful web links:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/etsfact3.htm

http://www.newsnet5.com/mondayarchive/3331890/detail.html
--> Listing of smoke-free restaurants and bars in northeast Ohio

UPDATE!!!

UPDATE & AMENDMENT:

Yesterday, after I posted the previous blog, I received a response from Harvard University regarding the recent Jada Pinkett Smith/"heteronormative" controversy.

To learn about the situation that made national headlines last week, read my previous post ("Enough Gaysteria already!" from 3/8/05).

In fact, Bill O'Reilly is about to cover the story on his show after this commercial break.  The story is still fresh, but I want to expose and spread this new information that I received DIRECTLY from a Harvard student chiefly involved with the issue.

Here is a copy of the reply letter from Harvard Foundation of Intercultural and Race Relations (FIRR) Student Advisory Committee Co-Chair Yannis Paulus:

 

Hello, Ryan!

Thanks for the email!  I appreciate the thoughts!  Unfortunately, this has all been one big misunderstanding.  The Harvard Foundation never even thought about issuing an apology nor did BGLTSA [Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender & Supporters Alliance] "demand an apology" as some news sources claimed.  BGLTSA just wanted to have a discussion with the 62 other member groups of the Student Advisory Council discussing certain implicit assumptions people often make in society.

Oftentimes, cultural and ethnic groups are also marginalized due to assumptions, so we thought this would be a general topic that would engage the cultural and racial groups that comprise the Student Advisory Council of the Foundation.  However, due to terrible reporting on the part of the Crimson (including blatant lies and out of context quotes, like the apology issue) and other news sources basing more reports off this story, the entire episode has ballooned for absolutely no reason.

Our breakfast on Friday was to work to issue a joint press release between BGLTSA and the Foundation to set the record straight after the media completely misconstrued the situation.  However, I thank you for the thoughts and hope that the same news sources that so quickly latched on to the story earlier let everyone know the truth behind the situation very soon.

Thanks!

Sincerely, Yannis

According to this note of clarification, it seems that the Harvard BGLTSA never sponsored a declaration for an apology, even if some of its members took offense to Pinkett Smith's remarks. 

I just finished watching the head of the Harvard student BGLTSA, Ms. Margaret Barusch, on "The O'Reilly Factor."  She basically echoed Yannis Paulus' remarks.

While some students were either offended or felt excluded from the motivational directions from Pinkett Smith's speech, there was apparently NO mass protest and NO apology demanded or sanctioned by any specific university group or individual.

Unlike Yannis Paulus, Ms. Barusch did not call the Crimson liars, but the sentiment seemed close to identical.

SO, does this mean I retract all I said in my previous post?

No way!

However, I formally retract the negative remarks and pejorative associations made in my post regarding the Harvard student BGLTSA as a whole entity.

That said, there are still many radical gay activist groups -- including BGLTSAs from other universities -- that perfectly fit the negative connotations and associations I connected to Harvard's chapter in my last post. 

I do not retract any of the content from that post, but I take back its direct or indirect association with the BGLTSA Harvard chapter specifically.

So there you have it!  I hope this can help set the record straight.

(Pun intended.)

Enough "Gaysteria" already!

Gay awareness has become "Gayploitation" over the past 5-10 years.  The mass media are enamored with anything homo- or bisexual and they force it upon society with every opportunity.  Almost no TV show or movie anymore has all-straight, or no openly gay, personalities.  Everything needs a "gay factor" in the world today.

Yet fanatic gay rights addicts -- err, activists -- are quick to point out that society is blooming with gay people who aren't repressed by cultural norms anymore, ergo, media should depict this and the world should embrace it.  If only it were that tactful.

It's 2005 and gay awareness exposure has become overkill.  This was demonstrated in November 2004, when thirteen (out of thirteen possible) states voted for constitutional amendments to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.  Gay-rights radicals and Hollywood were forced to realize that the vast majority of America does NOT resemble the E! channel 24/7.

Apparently, the University of Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender & Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) still needs an education.  Last weekend, actress Jada Pinkett Smith was honored as "Artist of the Year" at the 20th Annual Cultural Rhythms show sponsored by the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations (FIRR).  During her speech she said, "Women, you can have it all —a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career.  They say you gotta choose.  Nah, nah, nah.  We are a new generation of women.  We got to set a new standard of rules around here.  You can do whatever it is you want.  All you have to do is want it."

Shortly thereafter, the student BGLTSA demanded an apology.  The group justified its protest by labeling Pinkett Smith's remarks "heteronormative."

Here is the article from the Harvard Crimson, the university newspaper, explaining the fallout.  Conveniently, none of what Pinkett Smith actually said is quoted in the article.

Published on Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Pinkett Smith’s Remarks Debated: BGLTSA calls comments “heteronormative,” pledges to work with Foundation
By ANNA M. FRIEDMAN
Contributing Writer

After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.  Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA—and developed in coordination with the Foundation—the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue.

According to the Foundation’s Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus ’05, the two groups have already planned concrete ways to address the concerns that Pinkett Smith’s speech rose.

The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.

Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”

In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn’t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.

Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions.

According to Paulus, the letter will acknowledge that “Pinkett Smith was just giving the story of her life. She just told things from her perspective, and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective. She wasn’t trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out.”

Barusch said the dialogue with the Foundation has been “productive.”

“Both groups have really talked about issues of intercultural relationships and sexuality and the way that student groups can talk about these topics in sensitive ways,” she said.

Barusch also referred to a “minor controversy” that occurred earlier this year, in which some members of SAC questioned the BGLTSA’s role in the Foundation.

“They weren’t sure how the BGLTSA would fit into the Foundation...There was some conversation about the relevance of queer issues,” she said.

But Barusch emphasized that the Foundation has been very supportive of the BGLTSA’s efforts to address this weekend’s comments, stressing that the two incidents are unrelated.

“We’re not blaming the Foundation. It’s not about blame. It’s about how we all need to think more about what we’re saying,” she said.

Ofole U. “Fofie” Mgbako ’08, a performer in the Cultural Rhythms show who watched Pinkett Smith’s speech, said he thought the speech was “insightful.”

“You can never appeal to every single group,” he said. “You’ll always in some way be exclusive. I thought her message was clear. I thought it was sincere.”

—Liz C. Goodwin contributed to the reporting of this story.

 I wrote an e-mail letter to Harvard's FIRR Student Advisory Committee Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus early Friday morning.

Yannis Paulus,

Hello.  My name is Ryan and I live in Cleveland, Ohio.  I've read about the quasi-controversy regarding Jada Pinkett-Smith's comments last weekend and the Harvard BGLTSA.

Sadly, I also read that your organization planned to issue a formal apology this week.  While I understand the business aspect of that decision, I truly hope that neither you nor your organization personally believes it's necessary.

I have numerous gay and lesbian friends.  I will not speak for them, but I'm darn-near certain that even most of them would find the BGLTSA's reaction to Mrs. Pinkett Smith's speech absurd. 

I am not homophobic, but I'm proud to be "heteronormative."  And thanks to Harvard and the BGLTSA for informing me that a word exists for the state of believing heterosexuality is normal and natural.

I may send a similar letter to the BGLTSA, but I doubt it would garner much attention or be taken seriously.  But I hope that someone on campus has enough gumption and common sense to tell the BGLTSA that if they truly want to be treated the same as "everybody else," then they better learn to respect those different from themselves.  Isn't that the purpose of their cause anyway?

"Heteronormative?"

I'll spare you a sermon, but the majority of the world is heterosexual!  While the BGLTSA may find it perfectly normal to be homosexual, it's even MORE normal to be heterosexual.  I'm not criticizing its members for being gay -- I'm criticizing them for having a double standard.

And NOT YOU, nor the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, nor Jada Pinkett Smith, nor anyone else -- should have to apologize for the BGLTSA's narrow-minded sensitivities and obvious double standards.

In closing, a friend of mine's father is a prominent Harvard alum.  Many in her extended family are Harvard alumni.  The word was passed along to me that at least one of those alumni is embarrassed by this; not that it became a national news story, but that it happened at all.

And they, like so many others (myself included), would be embarrassed for you if you genuinely believe the Harvard BGLTSA deserved their formal apology.

I hope they're paying for your breakfast on Friday.  It's the least they can do.

Thank you for your time.

Being openly homo- or bisexual is no longer "courageous" or "inspirational" because it's already old hat.  It has become a fad.  It's not only accepted, but encouraged by pop culture.  Just turn on the TV -- everybody's doing it!

Even AOL is doing all it can to appease gay-rights advocacy.  An entire chat room category is dedicated to gays and lesbians, who create such creative rooms ranging from (as of 9 PM ET, 3/6/05) "i did a relative" and "y f4f   sex with dog" -- to the more popular "bi mom f4f" and "xtra yung f4f."

AOL even has a news service exclusively catered to gay users, which polls members weekly with such hot-button questions like "Preferred animated 'gay icon': Superman [who was married*], Spongebob Squarepants [who Democrats vehemently deny even implicitly represents gay lifestyle], or Wonder Woman?"*   (Wonder Woman had the lead with 41% of the vote when I checked.)

[* = Thanks to user Unreal Fiction for initial information.]

So with modern culture bending over backwards (no double entendre intended) to appease gay rights advocacy, how can groups like the Harvard BGLTSA stillcomplain that society is insensitive and exclusive against alternative sexual lifestyles?

What are they waiting for, Gay Affirmative Action?

Organizations like the Harvard BGLTSA live in a vacuum.  Most people on campus likely capitulate to their every demand.  But in the real world -- outside of Harvard -- if BGLTSA members want basic respect like most people deserve, they need to realize that the world owes them nothing they don't already have.  Regarding gay rights, most Americans are already civilized enough because we already tolerate that undeniable difference from the norm.

Reproduction is the foundation of life, the cornerstone of any species.  Thus, reproduction is normative behavior.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally.  Also, the vast majority of human beings are heterosexual. 

Heterosexuality is normal.  Homosexuality is abnormal.  Most Americans have grown to openly tolerate homo- and bisexuality, but no one should be forced to ACCEPT that behavior as normal or rational.  Gay people simply live alternative, unnatural lifestyles.  This isn't bigotry, it's simply a FACT.  And gay rights activists need to ACCEPT this fact because nature will never change.

I sympathize with homo- and bisexuals who live quietly and respect others' privacy (by not shoving their own into public spotlight).  Such individuals are too often -- and undeservedly -- associated with militant, radical gay rights groups who burden non-members with their sour grapes.  Gays and lesbians who don't feel that groups like the Harvard BGLTSA always speak for them have my respect.  They're the ones suffering real injustice caused by groups who claim to "fight" for them.

Members of radical groups like the Harvard BGLTSA apparently feel desperate to sexualize everything.  That becomes their identity.  They must loudly separate themselves from others not like them; point fingers; and whine whine whine about people who think and speak as if (heaven forbid!) heterosexuality is normal -- all the while pretending to stand for social unity.  Cramming one's private lifestyle in my face is no way to gain my sympathy or acceptance.

Forcing it upon unsuspecting parents and their children is also wrong.  Children do NOT need to learn sexual tolerance from an early age.  For example, cartoons aimed at toddlers and preschoolers should not raise sexuality issues by incorporating gay characters into their storylines.  The point is not to keep children from treating gay people as well as they treat heterosexuals; the point is that parents should not be forced to teach their young kids about sexuality (let alone homosexuality) at all -- and certainly not because of children's programming.

Children deserve to maintain their innocence as long as possible.  Gay rights organizations are no authority on what to teach them about society.

(And laugh now, but gay action figures and dolls cannot be too far behind.)

Joe Scarborough's bemusement on his TV show last week was appropriate.  "[The Harvard BGLTSA] want[s] an apology because, apparently, in making remarks specific to male-female relationships, Mrs. Smith was using a narrow, insensitive view of the world.  How dare she be so heteronormative."

On that note, how dare Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Ohio (including myself) for relating to Jada Pinkett Smith's heteronormative view of the world.  In 2004, each of these states voted to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

I'm not ashamed of my vote, nor am I homophobic.  There were numerous non-spiritual, non-sexual issues and concerns to consider, such as clogging already-stagnant courts with more divorce, custody and alimony cases.  I can tolerate civil unions, but I also believe in the preservation of traditional, heterosexual marriage customs.  There is nothing immoral or unethical about that position.

To some, my comments may sound like hate speech.  Such critics probably preach tolerance, but have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with their agenda.  I'm tired of that double standard set by gay advocacy groups like the Harvard BGLTSA.

To such confederations, if a heterosexual is uncomfortable with in-your-face gay rights protest, that person must be hateful and ignorant.  But if the BGLTSA is uncomfortable with something a heterosexual says or does -- even if it's harmless and/or positive (like Pinkett Smith's comments) -- it's because that person is hateful or insensitive. 

Gay Pride parades march past elementary schools, but only intolerant, closed-minded sexists can oppose; yet if one so much as attempts a "Hetero Pride" parade anywhere, (s)he is automatically labeled a bigot.

Hypocrites!

No one is considered a bigot for preventing a brother from marrying his sister; no one is considered a bigot for preventing a human being from marrying an animal; no one is considered a bigot for preventing an adult from marrying a minor.  People should not be considered bigots or "anti-gay" simply for preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman.

Change for change's sake isn't always right or brave.  It's often reckless, destructive and wrong.  For example, if a homophobic activist wanted to protest IN a gay pride parade -- most gay-rights supporters would refuse not only because such behavior is offensive, but also because it's untraditional.  Some traditions should be preserved and marriage (as a heterosexual union) is one of them.

I generally have no personal problems with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons, or their supporters.  I disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't shame them for it, and I don't consider gay people "evil."  What happens in their bedroom is their business.

But it should STAY in the bedroom, and their business should remain theirs alone.

Had there been as much ice-cream hysteria over the past five years as there's been with homo- and bisexuality, I'd be stomping my foot and grunting, "ENOUGH ABOUT ICE CREAM ALREADY!"  I'm just tired of the formulaic, overhyped "gay factor" in society today.  And so is most of America.

I am proud to be both heterosexual and heteronormative.  And if you don't like it, Harvard BGLTSA, then I demand an apology.

La La Land

Sunday night was Hollywood's Superbowl: The Academy Awards.  There were both good and bad moments.

Chris Rock was OK.  I give him a C/C- for his debut as Oscars host.

But let's be clear: Chris Rock is NOT a "genius," despite what his cronies in the industry babble.  Let's stop already with saying he's daring and brave and intelligent simply b/c he's overtly racist (sometimes to ALL races, even blacks) and profane with his comedy.  He is a funny comedian who has creative ideas, but he isn't intelligent or classy enough to recognize his own limitations.

For example, he recently gave advice to would-be Oscar winners: "Don't thank God, He's too busy with the Tsunami."  (For the record, not one winner thanked God, which isn't surprising for Hollywood.)

Rock went too far with his opening act.  His initial Bush-bashing joke -- about giving the president credit for winning the election while every other movie in America was about how much he sucked -- was hilarious!  It was also relevant to the event. 

Rock's next joke was neither funny nor relevant.

He then compared the Iraq War to a hypothetical war between The Gap and Banana Republic, including the visual aid of "blood all over the clothes."  The point was that if anyone but the president started a war and presided over a trillion-dollar debt, that person would be fired.

About two minutes later, Rock pretended to suddenly take the subject seriously by applauding the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which the crowd appeasingly followed suit.  But I'm not sure that message was genuine or effective considering he completely belittled their cause just minutes earlier.  Wow, what a classy move.

Actually, it was classless and DUMB.  So much for Rock's misleading "genius" label.

To his credit, Rock mostly recovered.  He even poked fun at Michael Moore and John Kerry before the night was over.  But he also RIPPED actor Jude Law for being overrated, which apparently offended actor Sean Penn, who later made a point to clarify that Jude Law was "one of our greatest actors."

Leave it to Sean Penn to think too highly of his craft and his industry.  That joke didn't mock anyone who risks his or her life every day to protect America or its interests.  The joke mocked Jude Law, an actor, and several other actors -- including Rock himself!  Get a clue, Sean.

My favorite part of the whole ceremony was never on TV.  The best part was the huge, conspicuous billboards that stood in the view of everyone on the red carpet.  They were sponsored by citizensunited.org, and they thanked Hollywood for helping reelect George W. Bush.

What capped off the evening was Clint Eastwood winning both Best Director and Best Picture for his movie "Million-Dollar Baby."  That put a nice bow on the event for me.

(See post "Go ahead, Mike -- make his day!" from 1/15/05)

Finally, some belated kudos to Kirk Douglas who, a few years ago, jokingly stressed that the Oscar-winning announcement should be "AND THE WINNER IS..." (which it was for over 65 years) instead of the pansy (and current) "AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...."

These actors are big boys and girls, and they use the company line that it's "just an honor to be nominated" anyway.  If that's true, then who cares about the sensitivity of saying someone definitively WINS?  If elementary school spelling bees can do it, so can Hollywood.  Grow up, already.

And so ended the biggest night in possibly the sleaziest business in arguably the sleaziest town in America.

Yet those aforementioned billboards remain.  Thank God.