St. James of South Philly, the Patron Saint of People Who Want Peace & Quiet at the Movies

Okay, so he isn't the most pleasant-looking guy in the world. In fact, he's the kind of Italian-American goombah that Italians would call a brutto ceffo.

You can't see it in the photo, but I'll bet he generally goes around wearing a gold chain with one of those little chili-pepper shaped pendants hanging from it. It's called a "corno" in Italian (a horn) and its history as a talisman dates back to the Stone Age. Guys like James Joseph, though, tend to tell you they're shaped like sperm. In Italy, they're red; in South Philly, they're often made of gold, thereby combining bling with whatever people think they remember about Italy.

If you watched The Sopranos with any regularity, you certainly saw them.

Enn ee way ... one thing 100% American about James Joseph is that he was packing heat when he went to see a movie on Christmas night. That's just the kinda guy he is.

And when the people sitting in front of him during a showing of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button wouldn't shut their freaking mouths and stop chatting like they were at home in their freaking living room instead of in a freaking public movie theater filled with other people, he shot one of them. (See "Police: Pa. man shot for making noise during movie.")

It's a shocking event. Like Rick Warren and other holy people, however, I, too, love the sinner even if I hate the sin.

In this case, I'm not even sure I hate the sin all that much.

Actually, I keep thinking of Bernard Goetz who, back in 1984, helped make the world safe for subway riders in New York. At the time, the city had a crime rate that was 70% higher than the rest of the nation, and I don't think it's entirely an accident that crime slowly began to drop in NYC after Goetz. Not because Goetz was a hero (he wasn't; he was a racist and a whack job), but because his case served to focus people's anger regarding an issue the city was stubbornly failing to address: the fact that citizens didn't feel safe walking the streets and riding the subway.

Since I don't generally carry a gun, I don't feel safe telling others to shut their damn mouths at the movie theater. Similarly, I'm really fed up with the fact that movie theaters no longer employ people to perform the function of keeping order in a public place and of enforcing what are, ostensibly, the rules.

A few months ago, during a film, we watched as a man continued to have a conversation on his cell phone, in an increasingly loud voice, even after another movie-goer had gone to try to get help from the management and even after the two gals from the popcorn stand had come in and bravely asked him to take his conversation outside.

If James Joseph Cialella had been there, he'd have shot the guy.

As for me, I'm certain it would all have happened much too fast for me to be able to identify the shooter.

You Just Screwed Up, Buddy: Giving Comfort to Those Who Prey on Hate

I have never believed that Barack Obama was going to stand up one day on national television and say “I support gay marriage for anyone who wants it.”

I have never fooled myself that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was ever going to climb to the top of his list of priorities.

I knew, from the start of his campaign almost two years ago, that he was a classic “liberal” when it came to queer rights: Some of his best friends are. He’s against anti-gay violence and job discrimination against LGBT people (most of it—just not in the military). He’ll appoint qualified lesbians and gay men to positions in his government.

But he doesn’t really, truly believe we’re the same as “everybody else.” He doesn’t really, truly believe we should be entitled, in every single conceivable way, to the same legal and social status as people who happen to be heterosexual. And he doesn’t really, truly believe that homophobia falls into precisely the same category as racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism.

For homophobia, he’s willing to make some exceptions. For the fundamentalist Christian right, he’s willing to concede that a religious motivation justifies the preaching of anti-gay bigotry and, evidently, that churches have a legitimate role to play in formulating public and civil-rights policy in a secular society.

That’s exactly what happened in California last November: Religious groups (the Mormon church chief among them) succeeded in repealing the right of marriage for same-sex partners, which the California Supreme Court had previously declared constitutional, for motivations that were entirely religious (or, as they like to put it, “moral”).

Rick Warren was right there with them.

Obama has made it clear that, in his approach to governing the United States, he wants to move beyond “small politics”; he wants to “reach across the aisle” and “expand the debate.” How could we not agree?

But every single political position, personal belief, or religious conviction does not deserve a place at the table. Not every opinion is legitimate or correct simply because someone holds it, and democracy doesn't mean reducing all moral positions to the least common denominator.

I don’t expect fundamentalist preachers to stop inveighing against homosexuality anymore than I expect McDonald’s to stop selling high-fat hamburgers: It’s what they do.

What I do expect is that the (future) President of the United States, who campaigned on a platform of principles and core values, will demonstrate that he has some.

I don’t think Rick Warren deserves to be shot on sight or put in a concentration camp or be clapped into jail—which is quite a bit more Christian than what a lot of the people in Warren's Rolodex would be willing to concede to me. Over the years, big-name members of the fundamentalist religious right have publicly and repeatedly called for LGBT people to be arrested, imprisoned, murdered, branded, stoned, fired from their jobs, physically segregated ... you get the picture. These are Rick Warren’s friends and colleagues.

And Obama thinks inviting a man like that to pray at his inauguration is an example of building bridges.

He’s wrong. If Jeremiah Wright doesn’t merit a place on the podium on January 20th—if his ideas were “divisive and destructive” and “[gave] comfort to those who prey on hate”; if Wright "contradict[ed] everything that [Obama was] about”—then why isn’t the same true of Rick Warren? Those quotes, by the way, all come from Obama’s statements about Wright last April 29th.

And that is what makes the choice of Rick Warren so appalling. Obama didn’t need to go out on a limb or expend political capital or take a position for gay marriage or gay rights that would have stirred up national controversy.

All he had to do was refuse to sacrifice gay people in the name of pandering to the religious right. All he had to do was refuse to give comfort to those who prey on hate. All he had to do, if he wanted to build bridges, was not bury us under them.

All he had to do was invite someone other than Rick Warren. Avoiding this offense, in other words, would have cost Obama nothing. But we weren’t important enough not to insult.

Writers like Lee Stranahan (in the Huffington Post) and numerous bloggers, meanwhile, defend Warren by saying that he actually represents the “mainstream.” “Embrace what you have in common with Rick Warren,” Stranahan exhorts; “a majority of Americans agree with Warren about same sex marriage and many more states have made marriage equality unconstitutional than have ratified it.”

We’re kidding here, right? Lee Stranahan really does know the difference between democracy and the tyranny of the many, doesn’t he? He, and those who hold similar views, are not really arguing that full citizenship and legal parity for queer people should be decided by majority vote. Or is he?

One hundred and fifty years ago, the “mainstream” view was that slavery was a fine old institution and that the national government should stay out of it. Eighty years ago, the “mainstream” was convinced that women had no business voting. Sixty-six years ago, the “mainstream” held that Japanese-Americans were traitors and that imprisoning them in concentration camps was legitimate and justified. Forty years ago the “mainstream” considered mixed-race marriages immoral and supported laws prohibiting them. Six years ago, the “mainstream” was convinced that Iraq was hiding caches of weapons of mass destruction and was an immediate threat to the safety of the United States.

The mainstream is often wrong. Obama ought to know that better than anybody else: Up until a few months ago, the “mainstream” believed he could never be elected president.

And here’s a final irony. Earlier this month, Obama’s Presidential Inaugural Committee announced that the national Lesbian and Gay Band Association, a group that represents LGBT bands in eighteen states, would perform at the inauguration. An historic choice, or so we're told.

But let’s think about the symbolism of all this. At Obama’s inauguration, LGBT people are invited to dance, play music, and entertain, but the question of our dignity as human beings and our full enfranchisement as citizens ... well, over that question looms the shadow of Rick Warren, his jaws still bloody from the evisceration of gay marriage in California.

I’m quite sure a man as smart and decent as Barack Obama doesn’t need me to explain the meaning of the term “minstrel show.”

So you think the school system has problems in America...

By now, everybody knows that I love me some Stefano Benni. Yesterday, a Facebook friend posted a piece from Benni’s site in which he skewers Italy’s Minister of Education, Mariastella Gelmini. (The Italian text is easy to find online, though it no longer appears to be available on www.stefanobenni.it.)

Here’s my translation: I just couldn’t resist. Benni’s “Il Mostro Unico” is a quick lesson in the current Italian political and educational situation (sad, sad), even if all the references may not be immediately clear.


---------------------------

THE MONSTER REDUCTION AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT
by Stefano Benni
Trans. by Wendell Ricketts

Dear Hooligan Students:

It’s me, your beloved Minister of Education, Mariastella Gelmini. After my proposal to give a failing grade in deportment to all those Italian students who protested school conditions and my plan to reduce the number of teachers in the classroom, I have a new idea that will revitalize the Italian school system. Where does education begin? In nursery school, as we all know. And that’s where we need to focus our efforts so that young children will learn to be obedient and respectful of authority. Fairy tales, however, with all that surplus fantasy and reckless waste of characters, alienate students from healthy realism and a proper degree of conformity and fuel the danger of getting off track, not to mention that they lead to debauchery, drugs, and hooliganism.

As a result, by Executive Order, I hereby institute the Monster Reduction and Simplification Act. Henceforth, the reading of fairy tales that contain more than one monster or bad guy, which would represent a clear burden on the taxpayer, is prohibited by law. Most important of all, every children's story must emphasize the degree to which the remaining monster is a perverse, old-style-Communist-sympathizing hooligan.

The MRSA (Monster Reduction and Simplification Act) prohibits, for example, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, because the Wicked Stepmother and the witch are a costly and pointless duplication of characters that is detrimental to young students’ imaginations, leaving entirely aside the question of the ambiguous living situation in which Snow White and her seven little worker-friends find themselves. One of them, in fact—Grumpy—is obviously a union member who belongs to the Italian General Confederation of Labor.

Little Red Riding Hood is allowed, but we need to make clear that the hunter is associated with the Lega Nord and that the wolf, being of Transylvanian origins, is a Romanian. Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves is out: one thief is enough. Peter Pan is out—there are too many pirates living off the national coffers. Pinocchio is out: Even if the Cat and the Fox were to be combined into a single animal, there would still be the matter of the defamation of the police force and the fact that the Land of Toys is an obvious reference to Mediaset. Tom Thumb is allowed, but he’ll have to start calling himself Big Toe Tom and he’ll need to be at least 5’5” tall to eliminate the obvious dig at our beloved Prime Minister.

Hansel and Gretel are out because we don’t need two monsters, the mother and the witch, plus they all spend too much time talking about economic crises. The Ugly Duckling is out. If someone is ugly, it’s for genetic reasons and he’ll just have to stay that way. Besides, Andersen was gay.

Puss in Boots is likewise out because of the obvious sadomasochistic connotations. Cinderella is out—and I mean really, really out. There are three bad characters and they all look like me—your superficial, ill prepared, and long-winded Minister of Education. Reduced and simplified maybe, but still the only one you’ve got.

If the Shoe Fits...

During a press conference held last Sunday as part of President Bush's farewell tour to Iraq, an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at Mr. Bush on live television and insulted him, calling him a dog. Mr. Bush narrowly avoided being struck by the twin projectiles.

For the full story, see "Iraqi Journalist Hurls Shoes at Bush" from the December 14, 2008, New York Times.

As an American, I want to use this public forum to express my horror and outrage at this event.

After six years, more than 579 trillion dollars, and the deployment of some 300,000 American soldiers, do you really mean to tell me that Iraqis haven't learned to aim any better than that?

No Discrimination Against the Discriminators: The Compassionate Christianity of Papa Ratz

This is not exactly the freshest news in the world: For at least two years, France has been considering a proposal to the United Nations requiring the decriminalization of homosexuality in member countries. As early as November 2006, French activist Louis-George Tin announced his intention to present the UN with a draft resolution to that effect.

In September 2008, just slightly less than two years later, the French Junior Human Rights Minister, Rama Yade, told a conference of NGOs at UNESCO that she would submit such a resolution to the UN General Assembly in December, with the aim of effecting universal decriminalization of homosexuality. In the meantime, every single country in the European Union has signed on to France’s draft declaration, which will be presented officially on December 10, the sixtieth anniversary of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights.

Let’s be clear: We’re not talking anti-discrimination legislation, gay marriage, adoptions, or anything else. All we’re talking about is: In those countries—more than 80 of them, including Iran (currently the world leader in the execution by stoning or hanging of gay people); most of Africa; India; and the U.S., on its military bases throughout the world; see "Homosexuality Laws of the World" for a complete list)—where you can be fined, arrested, jailed, tortured, and/or executed simply for being gay or for having a relationship with someone of your same sex, homosexuality per se would be decriminalized.

Who could have a problem with that? It seems sort of obvious, really, like taking those laws off the books in towns where it’s illegal to water your cattle on the public streets or wear spurs in the courthouse.

Now, I know this will shock you, but it turns out that one of those people who has a big problem with that is God’s man in the Vatican, that bastion of Christ-like love and human kindness, Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger.

The Vatican opposes the resolution because ... okay, let me try to work this out for you, though I warn you that the logic is Kafkaesque. The Catholic Church is against discrimination, including discrimination against homosexuals. But since the Catholic Church is against discrimination, it’s also against discriminating against countries that discriminate.

According to the Vatican, the UN resolution would “pillory” countries where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by law, forcing them to create “new categories protected from discrimination,” even while failing to take into account the fact that such laws “would create new and implacable acts of discrimination.... States where same-sex unions are not recognized as ‘marriages,’ for example, would be subject to international pressure.”

I am not making this up. Mons. Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s permanent pit bull (um, observer) at the U.N. said it yesterday in an interview with the French media.

This, by the way, is the same Vatican that brought you nearly a decade of pretending that the Holocaust wasn’t happening. Evidently, the Pope didn’t want to discriminate against Nazis, either.

I leave you with a short comment written by an Italian friend and translated by me. She sums things up pretty well:

Lord, Give Me Courage
by Isabella Zani
(Or, read it in Italian: Voglio il coraggio)

--------------------------

There are countries in this world – lots of them, too many in fact (when even just one would be more than enough) – where gay men and women, as the result of a personal predisposition that they didn’t chose any more than a person chooses to have blue eyes, black skin, or a Roman nose, are persecuted by law, by the authorities, and by the official actions and pronouncements of those in power, as well as by the ignorance, fear, and derision of their fellow citizens. Harassed by State violence, that is, in addition to the violence perpetrated by “normal” people.

This is not right. This is wrong. And there’s really nothing else to say about it. If we’re talking about shit, you know it when you see it.

Okay, so apparently the Pope, or whoever it is who speaks for him, doesn’t see things the way I do. Or, to put it another way: he doesn’t say, loudly and clearly, that the situation I’ve described is wrong. But if he won’t say it’s wrong, then he should have the guts to say it’s right. It’s simple, really: something is either right or it’s wrong. He should have the nerve to say: I refuse to condemn the countries where they treat homosexuals that way. I, and what I represent, we support those countries. We don’t believe what they’re doing is wrong. Ergo, we believe it’s right.

If you can’t find any compassion in your heart, Holy Father, see if you can find a little courage.