Outrage
I'm watching a rebroadcast of Recount [trailer], and it's reminding me just how passionate I am about politics. I can't watch Recount without my chest clenching in that achy way, like a good concert, which is kind of weird.
That reminded me about Outrage [trailer], the newest film by Kirby Dick (director of Sick - The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan [nothing squicky here, just Bob singing the Supermasochistic Bob song] and friend of Bob's). When I first heard about it, I had mixed feelings. Essentially, it's a documentary about closeted gay politicians in DC, and how many of them vote against gay rights. I loathe hypocrisy, but I'm not big on outing people, either, so I wasn't sure what to think about it. But I have an advantage in that I know Kirby's other work regarding people with 'alternative' sexualities, so I couldn't shake the feeling that this was going to be a tough issue handled sensitively. Something to make people think... not gleeful carnage with other people's lives and reputations considered collateral damage.
I've been watching all the press Kirby's been doing, and the more I watch, the more I want to see it. He spent three years researching this, and refused to put anything in the movie that was unsubstantiated. He's basically only "outing" people who are behaving in such a way that they 'want' to be caught.
Take Larry Craig as an example - Craig was first outed by Mike Rogers (a well known journalist and gay rights activist who worked closely with Kirby on the movie) *nine months* before the Minnesota bathroom incident. It was common knowledge in the cruising community that Craig was a cruiser, and Rogers outed him because he didn't want any everyday citizens caught in the crossfire when the hammer came down. Gay guys, as a general rule, don't cruise anymore - they don't need to. The people who cruise are overwhelmingly young, curious (straight identified) guys, and older, deeply closeted guys who are also straight-identified. If a guy chooses to cruise, he pretty much knows there's a substantial risk of getting caught, and he's reconciled to that amount of risk... for whatever reason, the risk is worth it to him. He does not, however, figure in the risk of having his face plastered on the national news because the guy who solicited them happens to be a member of Congress. Thus Roger's warning - Larry Craig, a public figure, has been repeatedly seen cruising. Be careful. Since the cruising community is now a full fledged network with easy means of communication (the internet), the news spread, and, probably as a result, Craig was caught on his own, not "in the act" with anyone else. Nobody else got taken down with him (apart from his family, and they're innocent, of course... but no outsiders). Even Craig himself benefitted from when and how he was caught; the manner in which he was nabbed gave him a smidge of deniability, implausible as it was, which he wouldn't have had if he'd been in the middle of being sucked off when the cop entered the picture.
So back to Outrage. First of all, no one was 'outed' that isn't publicly known as a cruiser in the cruising community (similar to Craig). They have to have done so regularly and repeatedly, and done so in a way that numerous people saw it happen. No hearsay, no maybes. Secondly, they have to have also publicly voted against gay rights. This isn't a witch hunt... if you want to be gay and closeted, fine. If you want to be gay and closeted and vote against your own interests, also fine. You just can't be gay *and* closeted *and* vote against your own interests *and* regularly go cruising. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The film doesn't out anyone who cruises and is pro gay rights, and it doesn't out anyone who is closeted, anti-gay rights and doesn't cruise or otherwise engage in blatant, publicly known "gay" activities.
It's a film focused around *hypocrisy,* not outing politicians. And that, I can get behind.
Unfortunately it's in very limited release - you can find the list of dates, cities and theaters here. I'll probably travel to see it, and I'm going to see about trying to get it shown closer to me, as well. If you want to see it too, and your city/state/country isn't listed, tell your local movie theater you're interested. As soon as I find out how else to successfully get this movie shown in other places, I'll post the details here. The reason I'm so passionate about this, besides the obvious, is because much of the press it's gotten so far has suggested that this movie may blow the lid off the gay rights debate and give the movement some forward momentum; but it can't do that if everyone waits to see it till it's out on DVD. Box office numbers talk, and we need to take advantage of that.
Additionally, General Mullen was on This Week today, and DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell, i.e. you can serve in the military if you're gay, but you have to be in the closet) came up. Mullen said everyone who's up in arms about DADT needs to calm down, and here is why:
DADT isn't a policy or a directive; it was a law passed by Congress, so the President can't Executive Order it away. Congress passed it, ergo Congress has to repeal it. Until then, the military is legally required to follow the law.
The President consults with his staff (including his generals) about DADT on a weekly basis. His personal opinion, and his plan to kill DADT, hasn't wavered one iota.
Legislation to repeal DADT is, accordingly, in committee; it's written and ready to go. It will hit the floor at his word.
We're at war with religious fundamentalists. If President Obama rammed the repeal of DADT through - which could be done - it would not be able to be done *quickly*... there would be months of angry debate on television, and the religious fundies watch our media. This could (and probably would) escalate the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving the fundies a new "cause" to fight against, and thus put *all* of our troops in danger.
As a result of the above, President Obama is waiting for a moment when he can get DADT repealed *quickly*... inside a week, at best. He's negotiating with Congress to try to make sure that when it hits the floor, no one stalls or blocks it. The minute he's reasonably sure that the whole thing can be over and done with without a long drawn out battle, he'll give the word.
I realize that none of this is ideal, but it's reality, and to me it shows reason and restraint. It also tells me, nearly from the horse's mouth, that Obama's not waffling or being centrist or breaking promises, here. I have some bones to pick with the president (single payer healthcare, please!) But now that I've heard this, this isn't one of them.
That reminded me about Outrage [trailer], the newest film by Kirby Dick (director of Sick - The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan [nothing squicky here, just Bob singing the Supermasochistic Bob song] and friend of Bob's). When I first heard about it, I had mixed feelings. Essentially, it's a documentary about closeted gay politicians in DC, and how many of them vote against gay rights. I loathe hypocrisy, but I'm not big on outing people, either, so I wasn't sure what to think about it. But I have an advantage in that I know Kirby's other work regarding people with 'alternative' sexualities, so I couldn't shake the feeling that this was going to be a tough issue handled sensitively. Something to make people think... not gleeful carnage with other people's lives and reputations considered collateral damage.
I've been watching all the press Kirby's been doing, and the more I watch, the more I want to see it. He spent three years researching this, and refused to put anything in the movie that was unsubstantiated. He's basically only "outing" people who are behaving in such a way that they 'want' to be caught.
Take Larry Craig as an example - Craig was first outed by Mike Rogers (a well known journalist and gay rights activist who worked closely with Kirby on the movie) *nine months* before the Minnesota bathroom incident. It was common knowledge in the cruising community that Craig was a cruiser, and Rogers outed him because he didn't want any everyday citizens caught in the crossfire when the hammer came down. Gay guys, as a general rule, don't cruise anymore - they don't need to. The people who cruise are overwhelmingly young, curious (straight identified) guys, and older, deeply closeted guys who are also straight-identified. If a guy chooses to cruise, he pretty much knows there's a substantial risk of getting caught, and he's reconciled to that amount of risk... for whatever reason, the risk is worth it to him. He does not, however, figure in the risk of having his face plastered on the national news because the guy who solicited them happens to be a member of Congress. Thus Roger's warning - Larry Craig, a public figure, has been repeatedly seen cruising. Be careful. Since the cruising community is now a full fledged network with easy means of communication (the internet), the news spread, and, probably as a result, Craig was caught on his own, not "in the act" with anyone else. Nobody else got taken down with him (apart from his family, and they're innocent, of course... but no outsiders). Even Craig himself benefitted from when and how he was caught; the manner in which he was nabbed gave him a smidge of deniability, implausible as it was, which he wouldn't have had if he'd been in the middle of being sucked off when the cop entered the picture.
So back to Outrage. First of all, no one was 'outed' that isn't publicly known as a cruiser in the cruising community (similar to Craig). They have to have done so regularly and repeatedly, and done so in a way that numerous people saw it happen. No hearsay, no maybes. Secondly, they have to have also publicly voted against gay rights. This isn't a witch hunt... if you want to be gay and closeted, fine. If you want to be gay and closeted and vote against your own interests, also fine. You just can't be gay *and* closeted *and* vote against your own interests *and* regularly go cruising. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The film doesn't out anyone who cruises and is pro gay rights, and it doesn't out anyone who is closeted, anti-gay rights and doesn't cruise or otherwise engage in blatant, publicly known "gay" activities.
It's a film focused around *hypocrisy,* not outing politicians. And that, I can get behind.
Unfortunately it's in very limited release - you can find the list of dates, cities and theaters here. I'll probably travel to see it, and I'm going to see about trying to get it shown closer to me, as well. If you want to see it too, and your city/state/country isn't listed, tell your local movie theater you're interested. As soon as I find out how else to successfully get this movie shown in other places, I'll post the details here. The reason I'm so passionate about this, besides the obvious, is because much of the press it's gotten so far has suggested that this movie may blow the lid off the gay rights debate and give the movement some forward momentum; but it can't do that if everyone waits to see it till it's out on DVD. Box office numbers talk, and we need to take advantage of that.
Additionally, General Mullen was on This Week today, and DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell, i.e. you can serve in the military if you're gay, but you have to be in the closet) came up. Mullen said everyone who's up in arms about DADT needs to calm down, and here is why:
I realize that none of this is ideal, but it's reality, and to me it shows reason and restraint. It also tells me, nearly from the horse's mouth, that Obama's not waffling or being centrist or breaking promises, here. I have some bones to pick with the president (single payer healthcare, please!) But now that I've heard this, this isn't one of them.