Does anyone really care what John McCain wears?  Or Joe Biden?  Or Barack Obama?

(In answer to the latter, the answer is generally no, unless the question of an American flag lapel pin is raised.)

Hillary Clinton says that’s an example of the sexist media:

“I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through: Would the same thing be said about a man in a similar position and the answer 99 times out of 100 is no. I think it’s been a long time since anybody covered what Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain wear or their hairstyle or any other personal characteristic like that.”

So I have a little exercise for Hillary.  For a full year, she should do the following:

1. Stop getting her hair done.  Settle on a particular, simple hair style that never changes.  Nothing too poofy, nothing with any kind of dramatic sweep.  The way Bill wears his hair.  Just don’t follow John Edwards’ lead with the $300 haircut.  Any man who spends more than $40 for a haircut — I spend $15 on mine — is going to get talked about in the press, too. (And for that matter, any candidate for president who seems to delight in calling his opponent “elitist” but wears $520 shoes is going to find his fashion choices talked about, too.)
2. Stop wearing jewelry.  A wedding ring is fine.  Nothing else.
3. Stop with the makeup.  A little foundation is acceptable, because in public appearances, any politician is likely to slap on a little powder if he or she knows cameras are going to be around.
4. Stop with the colored pantsuits.  Navy blue, black and grey are fine.  Orange, red, jade and baby blue must go right out of the closet at once.  When did you see Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden or any other male candidate wear an orange suit?

In other words, if you want to be treated like a man, make yourself look like a man in every respect possible.  Is that unfair?  Before you answer, look at Hillary’s own words:

“I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through…”

All of us?  Why, Hillary?  Is it possible — just possible — that it’s not so much just the press that’s being sexist, but our society as a whole?  In many, many ways, the press is a mirror on society:  the press doesn’t create discrimination, but it does very often reflect what’s already there.

If women in politics really want to be treated like men, by virtue of not having their hair and wardrobe talked about, then why would they dress in a way that’s different from men?  You don’t blend in by trying to stand out.

Hillary wants to project her own personal style, yet have no one notice it.  She doesn’t want to look like “one of the guys,” yet resents it when it’s pointed out that she’s not one of them.

Sounds like a double standard to me.

Before the women in my audience start jumping on me about this, let me be clear:  as a voter, I don’t care what Hillary wears.  And I really think that most people don’t care, either.  But when a candidate comes out wearing an outfit the color of a pumpkin, for example, we’ll all notice it.  Most of us will notice it for a few seconds and move on.

To be fair, I don’t notice a lot of coverage about Hillary’s outfits.  Letterman is always good for a laugh on the pantsuits, but no one is considering David Letterman part of the news media, are they?

But if you’re the candidate and you don’t want any notice made of it, wear something else.

It’s only human to notice what’s the same and what’s different about us.  It’s unfortunate, because so many of us have hangups about individual differences that have no bearing on the person at all.

But you can’t make yourself stand out then complain when someone notices what’s different about you.  If your qualifications and your beliefs are the most important thing about you, then make that the first thing people notice about you:  not how well you’ve accessorized.

South Carolina has dropped out of an ad campaign that was designed to lure gay tourism dollars to the state. The state’s Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department had previously agreed to spend $5,000, not a huge amount of money as ad dollars go, to market to gays in London.

Charleston’s Post and Courier describes one ad that appeared in a London tube station as showing a historic rural home under the headline, “South Carolina is so gay.”

True to form, bible-belt red-state South Carolinians reacted by flying off the deep end. Sure, they want tourist dollars, but just not from them. Even though “them” is a relatively powerful tourist force, according to a Philadelphia study a few years ago, which revealed that for every dollar that city spent on gay tourism advertising, gay tourists spent an average of $153 on hotels, shops and more. At the time, gay tourists were said to spend about $54 billion a year on travel. That’s billion. With a B.

And it’s just a guess on my part, mind you, but I’ll wager those billions are still green like everyone else’s. And still spends, in a sluggish economy, the same.

The problem, according to PRT excuses, was that international advertising wasn’t subjected to the same review process that national advertising is because in this case, a third party firm developed the ad. Does that explanation make any damn sense to anyone? PRT only cares enough to be mindful of the image it is projecting to places like Iowa or Oregon or Minnesota, but doesn’t give a hoot about pulling in tourism dollars from the rest of the planet? And unless PRT has its own ad agency and never uses any third party firms here in the state — which is unlikely — most of their ad projects are ultimately produced or executed by third parties.

And isn’t that what we’d expect, no matter what an international ad said? Who’d know what would appeal to any specific segment of London’s population better than a London-based firm, or at least someone here is from there?

Sounds to me like an excuse about as logical as something a kid would make up after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Is the ad wrong to use the term gay? Well, let’s look at it this way: would there be any objection from gay groups if South Carolina hoped to attract bible belt tourists to the state with the line, “South Carolina is so straight?” If anyone would have a problem with that, but not the gay line, then what we’re dealing with here is a nice little double standard.

Of course, then there are the ones who’ll try to downplay the whole thing by hiding behind dictionary definitions. Gay has different meanings, they’ll say.

True.

Gay means happy and carefree, although it is used less and less for that these days because “them homasexshals” took over the word.

Gay is also used, mostly by people who aren’t, to refer to something that is screwed up, backwards.

Some would argue after this little display of homophobia and/or sloppy procedure and/or poor judgment, depending on your personal point of view, that maybe, one way or another, the headline isn’t so inaccurate after all.

There’s an email circulating that starts off with another of those typical “the media won’t tell you this” lines. In this particular case, the accusation is that the story “doesn’t have the shock effect.”

But as usual, there’s a little more to it than that…something that the “they” who composed this email really don’t want you to know.

The story centers on a statue of an American soldier, apparently grieving at the loss of a fellow soldier and being comforted by a young child. According to the email, the statue, which will eventually be shipped from Iraq to a military museum in Texas, was created by an Iraqi artist named Kalat.

This Kalat, the story goes, had suffered the torturous existence of being forced by Saddam Hussein to make “many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad.” The email then reports that Kalat was so grateful for “the Americans [sic] liberation of his country” that he melted three of the busts to create this memorial to fallen American soldiers and worked on the statue for many months.

Out of the goodness of his heart.

The email then asks and answers its own question:

“Do you know why we don’t hear about this in the news? Because it is heart warming and praise worthy. The media avoids it because it does not have the shock effect.”

Or so “they” want you to believe…while they deliver this little call to action: “But we can do something about it. We can pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our brave military who are making a difference.”

A quick visit to myth-busting website snopes.com, which, curiously enough, is the kind of place these self-appointed media-condemning “truth” spreaders never seem to bother to go, tells a somewhat different story about this Kalat and his artistic creation.

The website declares it a case of “real photograph, inaccurate description:”

“…the accompanying text is very misleading. The Iraqi sculptor was not ‘forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam,’ he did not produce the memorial shown because he was ‘so grateful that the Americans liberated his country,’ and the monument was not his idea. Members of the U.S. Army paid the sculptor, who had previously worked on a few other Saddam statues, to create the work pictured according to a design of their choosing.”

And believe me, the tall tale only gets better — or worse, depending on your point of view — from there. Why did this Kalat really agree to build the statue, and how does he really feel about American soldiers? Read it for yourself…but be warned: the “they” who created this email certainly don’t want you to know!

I certainly have no problem with “supporting the troops” and honoring the men and women of our military. But there’s a big difference between paying tribute and spreading propaganda.

What’s on their agenda? What are they trying to get you to believe, despite what the apparent facts are? And why would they make false accusations while demanding the “whole” truth?

Why won’t the media really report this story? Maybe because it’s inaccurate, exaggerated and just plain false. Sometimes the media does gets it right.

I saw this at a local coffee shop yesterday afternoon.  The message is taped just below the cash register display, which I caught in motion as “Good Afternoon’ was scrolling across the display:

What’s your reaction?  Would you see this and think, “It’s about time a business took a stand against rude cell phone customers,” or would you wonder, “Who do they think they are?”

My reaction is definitely the former:  years and years ago when I ran a cash register, there were a few times when I’d just stop and wait, without giving a customer talking a cell phone their total, until they gave me three seconds of their time; after all, as customers, don’t we get bent out of shape when cashiers won’t pay us any attention?

Fair is fair, after all.

I heard in passing on the Today show this morning that Hillary Rodham Clinton has complained that she’s facing much more media scrutiny than her opponent Barack Obama.

Aside from the fact that this is a typical complaint of any candidate who isn’t winning by a landslide, and I’m not saying that she’s necessarily correct…but I wonder what she expected: she has slammed down our throats the notion that she is the one with all of the experience, while Obama is a newbie.

If she has such a long and distinguished list of accomplishments, why wouldn’t she expect to be scrutinized more than someone with the “clean slate” she’d like you to believe Obama has?

After all, you can’t scrutinize what doesn’t exist…right, Hillary?

I’d like to pretend that I’m surprised.  But I couldn’t pull that one off.

For days now, we’ve had to endure the Clinton campaign’s focus on real issues in this election, which they seem to think include accusing Barack Obama of plagiarizing a speech by his friend and advisor Deval Patrick.  They’ve displayed an appropriate amount of “shock” and “awe” at their opponent’s “audacity” of copying.

But if you watched Thursday night’s debate on CNN you might have heard the claxon of the Double Standard alarm system blasting across the land, when you saw Hillary bring the house down with this:

“You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

Funny thing is, we’ve heard that somewhere before, too. Specifically, from her own husband in 1992:

“The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

Let’s go to the videotape, shall we?

Hillary also said:

“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.   You know, we have strong support from our families and friends.  I just hope we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people.  And that’s what this election should be about.”

Earlier this year, John Edwards said this:

“What’s not at stake in this election [is] any of us.  All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election.  But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Oh, yes, there’s tape for this one, too.

If plagiarism is so wrong, why would she do it?  Twice…in the same night!

Surely, her “35 years of experience” has given her the insight to form her own answers by now.  Experience shouldn’t be the death of original thought, should it?  Otherwise, why would she expect us to value it so much?

Going from criticizing one politician for doing something to doing the same thing yourself…and Hillary’s campaign seems shocked by the notion that she’s fallen behind because people are siding with a candidate who’s campaign is about change.

Recently, I wrote a post about Fred Thompson’s appearance on NBC’s Today show, during which he complained about the media running with a story that he was rumored to be on the verge of dropping out of the race — of course, he has dropped out, but let’s ignore that little part — then said that the media ought to check with him before reporting what someone else had to say. He then made claims against an unnamed campaign, and when Lester Holt asked for elaboration, Thompson was oddly mum, actually refusing to provide any facts or substantiation, demonstrating that his position about the media “checking their facts” only applied when something bad was said about him, not anyone else.

Bill Clinton demonstrated this week in South Carolina that he is capable of pulling the same kind of “I’m going to blame the media then make myself part of the problem” double standard.

Responding to reporter questions about Dick Harpootlian (former head of SC’s Democratic Party) who called the former president’s comments about the Obama campaign “reprehensible,” Clinton went into a long, drawn-out tirade during which his advisers were probably secretly wishing he’d be struck with sudden laryngitis.

His almost five-minute-long finger-pointing diatribe included this:

“This rhetoric is getting a little carried away here. … And the final thing I would like to say is, you’re asking me about this, and you sat through this whole meeting. Not one single, solitary soul asked about any of this. And they never do. They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover. This is what you live for. But this hurts the people of South Carolina, because the people of South Carolina are coming to these meetings and asking questions about what they care about. And what they care about is not going to be in the news coverage tonight because you don’t care about it. What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along.”

On the surface, it’s a valid point. The people in the crowd aren’t asking Bill or Hillary what they think about a former Democratic party head accusing them of playing the race card against Barack Obama. But take that with a grain of salt: the people who attend such meetings are generally people who support Bill and Hillary — make that Hillary and Bill — so there’s no reason for them to ask anything pointed. That’s what reporters are supposed to do.

I’m sure Hillary and Bill wouldn’t get even a little upset if a reporter asked a similar question of another candidate or candidate’s spouse accused of playing the gender card. I’m quite sure that they would probably be cheering at the television set.

I’m also quite sure that Clinton is bright enough to know that by becoming so animated and getting somewhat “fired up,” he was pretty much guaranteeing that his comments would end up on the media he was so clearly accusing of focusing on the wrong thing.

To put it another way, he complained about a burning fire by throwing gasoline on it.

A deadpan “That’s not even worth a response” would have been so much better suited to accomplishing the goal he seemed to want everyone to believe he had: to kill the “non-story” once and for all. I’m sure I’m not telling you anything he didn’t know all too well.

Who’s trying to fool who, Bill?

This week, some anti-choice — “pro-life” is a moronic title — advocates protested Hillary Clinton in Charleston.  I didn’t see it, although the descriptions found over at SunnieFaerie and Kittens on the Keyboard remind me a lot of a similar stunt I saw performed in Richmond back in 2004.

Displaying giant images of aborted fetuses, under the guise of trying to persuade people to be against abortion, is the epitome of sensationalizing a situation, one that for many women and couples, is an extraordinarily painful topic.

I have to wonder how many of these “anti-choicers” also happen to be the same kinds of Christian advocates who’d join up with groups protesting television shows they’ve never bothered to watch themselves but that they somehow think contains inappropriate content.  The images these protesters display for passersby of all ages to see are too graphic to appear on television at all.

I also wonder how many of them feel that children should be protected from images of violence and gore in movies as they wave their signs of blood and gore.

We have to tolerate such foolishness in a society that values freedom of speech.  But they could just as easily wave signs of young children who have accomplished great things in school or for their community…the kinds of young people that parents want their little ones to be more like to make the point about the value of one life.

Too bad they only want to do what they’re so quick to accuse their opponents of doing:  exploit.

Appearing on this morning’s edition of Today, Republican candidate Fred Thompson let anchor Lester Holt hold it over questions about Thompson’s viability as a contender for the Republican nomination and rumors that Iowa could have been the end of the road for his campaign:

HOLT: You were the victim of some rumors on the subject of your viability and questions that you would drop out. How much of that hurt you?

THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about that. It did hurt me and the media lapped it up. It was put out by another campaign, it made no sense at all —

HOLT: Which campaign?

THOMPSON: — it was two days before the election, when I was coming strong, and the media took it up, and spread the rumor, and probably cost me two or three points in Iowa. So the lesson there is not, you know, politicians being politicians, the lesson there is that the news media really ought to check these stories out and come to me and ask me and take my word for it.

HOLT: Senator, a fair shot against the news meda, but what candidate were you mentioning that put that out there?

THOMPSON: I’m not gonna…I owe you nothing, frankly, in that regard, and I’m not going to say any more about it right now.

So Thompson wants the news media to come to him to essentially “check the facts” when it reports something someone else says, but when he makes a claim and the news media asks him to elaborate or provide any details about accusations he makes about “another campaign,” he expects a free pass to dodge the question?

Sorry, Fred. Double standards do little to make you an attractive candidate for president. You want to make an accusation that another campaign spread the rumor? Fine. Which campaign? Where are the facts? Where is your proof? If you think a campaign isn’t playing fair, don’t you think you owe it to the American people to make it clear who’s trying to skew the numbers unfairly?

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt — and then some — and say that these alleged “rumors” cost him four points in Iowa: at best, that takes him out of a tie for third place with McCain and has him third alone. Thompson (and McCain) got 13% of the votes in the Iowa Caucus, while Romney came away with 25% and Huckabee led with 34%. Taking those four points away from either Huckabee or Romney still makes no difference in who came out in the top three slots; it certainly wouldn’t have given Thompson a win. So what are all the sour grapes about, anyway?

And he can’t even really complain that no one bothered to ask him about the truth of the reports from sources apparently in or connected with his campaign: here’s an example of a report that did quote the man himself, in which he this time complained that the media was jumping on rumors because they could see the momentum he was building.

Wait a second, Fred…I’m confused: a second ago, you said it was another campaign working against you. Now, it’s the media who’s working against you because you’re the popular choice? If the media and another campaign are working together, why not out them all and save democracy in one fell swoop!

If Thompson thinks a candidate in this presidential race who actually is able to build momentum in a sea of unimpressive choices isn’t news, perhaps he should check with Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee: I suspect they might give him an argument on that point based on the attention their campaigns have gotten even before their wins in Iowa.

I guess I expect too much of a presidential candidate: I expect him to play as fairly and be as honest as he seems to expect everyone else to be.

Silly me.

It’s funny how discrimination is perceived. Sometimes, we’re sure we’re the targets of it, even when those slights we are so convinced are directed at us aren’t really slights at all.

Earlier this month, a federal judge expressed concern over the suggestion that our current system of currency discriminates against the blind. Blind people have difficulty distinguishing between the dollar bill and, say, a $50 dollar bill. That presents an obvious problem, and forces them, pretty much, to rely either on caregivers, the kindness of strangers, or debit/credit cards.

Some courts have determined, therefore, that our system of currency discriminates against the blind.

The aforementioned judge wasn’t so sure:

“‘Where does this stop?’ asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Are postage stamps illegal? Government Web sites? When mail carriers leave handwritten notes on front doors, are they discriminating against blind people?

“‘The National Gallery is having a Hopper exhibit,’ Randolph said. ‘Those paintings, do they violate the Rehabilitation Act?’”

What lengths have to be taken to create completely equal access without “discriminating” against the sighted?

Should art galleries close their doors or be penalized because the blind cannot use their services? Sure, it seems like a silly question. But here’s one that maybe isn’t as silly: should such institutions lose governmental funding because a certain percentage of the population is unable to use them?

The sad reality is that not everyone is equal: there are handicaps. (I’m sorry if that word is offensive, but I’m not sure what the current “politically-correct” substitute for handicap, when used in general terms, is at this particular moment.) Maybe, if I were blind, I might feel differently. I suspect, however, that I would accept the fact that there are limitations that I just have to deal with. Just as I must deal with certain limitations based on my size and fitness level. I don’t demand, for instance, that local municipalities stop funding events like marathons because I haven’t always been in good enough shape to participate.

Our constitution says that all men were created equal. But everyone does have his own unique set of gifts and deficiencies, and no matter how hard society works to equalize those disparities, there’s only so much that can be done.

Am I comparing apples to oranges? Maybe…I’m not sure.

Meanwhile, NBC’s Brian Williams recently came under fire after a comment he made on the air and on his Daily Nightly blog over at MSNBC.com. Continue reading “When Is It (Really) Discrimination?”

With Halloween just days away, many churchgoers are engrossed in the annual debate: should they allow their kids to go trick-or-treating or should they forego the celebration of a “pagan holiday” and go instead to the more “innocent” fall festivals many churches have planned as a safe alternative?

Over at ChristianBlog.com, one writer raises the following points about a planned Fall Festival:

1) This festival has been held the last 3 years and always around Halloween.
2) Children are invited to attend in costume.
3) Children receive candy for playing games.

These three reasons in my mind say that this is nothing but a Halloween party in disguise. Why are we as Christians not only participating in a pagan holiday but holding a party for it in our church. I know for many Christians the pagan routs of this holiday are long forgotten. But that is not the point.

Actually, that is the point. It’s the whole point. And it’s a point that a lot of Christians seem far too capable of missing.

When a child dresses up as a favorite super hero, goes door to door in his neighborhood, and accepts candy from kindly neighbors, is he sinning because he is commemorating the practices of pagans who were only out to sin?

I don’t think so. What he is doing has nothing…absolutely nothing…to do with a pagan ritual. The child isn’t trying to embrace paganism. The child is merely play-acting.

The same kind of fight comes up now in the spring, when it’s time to celebrate Easter. There are many Christian parents who don’t want their children getting anywhere near Easter eggs. Why? Continue reading “Halloween Party or Fall Festival?”

Imagine the scene: two news videographers trying to get the shot from nearly the same position, one bumping the other, and during the jostling for position, one smarts off to the other, calling him an “[expletive deleted] n—–r.”

Even in the heat of the moment, some would say, the “n-word” is never appropriate.

The second videographer, who turns his camera toward the first during the verbal assault, captures his remark on tape. Apparently offended, he takes the tape to his station’s management, who calls the other station. That station, shocked by the remark, suspends the first videographer for a week without pay.

Does that sound like a reasonable punishment in this day and age of growing intolerance for the dreaded “n-word?”

Before you answer, there’s one more little detail that might change the whole picture: Continue reading “Suspended for the ‘N-word’”

Back in January, Joe Biden was caught on tape referring to Barack Obama as a “clean” candidate, raising the eyebrows of those who felt he was being racist. Obama said he understood what Biden was trying to say, and because he knows Biden personally, didn’t assume that the intent was racism.

Rev. Jesse Jackson said pretty much the same thing about Biden, adding that he did call Biden just to make sure.

“I’m sure he didn’t mean it as off-color, but it is certainly highly suggestive,” Jackson said in an interview with CNN.

On Tuesday, according to The State newspaper in Columbia, Jackson’s latest comment about Barack Obama was far beyond “highly suggestive.” The paper reports that Jackson accused Obama of “acting like he’s white” about the Jena 6 story.

Surely you know by now to what the Jena 6 refers, unless you’ve been so busy circulating those chain emails asking why “the media” isn’t covering the story that you’ve actually missed the coverage. Apparently, that’s happening a good bit. So if you’re of that opinion, I might suggest that you start visiting the websites of media outlets like ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News to read up on the story that some people still seem to think no one is touching.

Essentially, in case you still don’t understand what has happened so far, the story comes to us from the small town of Jena, Louisiana, a predominantly white community of about 3,000. Back on August 31, 2006, a few black students sat under a large tree that happens to be a spot where white students typically congregate. The day after this event, which shouldn’t have mattered to anyone, several small nooses were found hung in the tree, an obvious reference to lynchings, and presumably a threat to make it clear to any “bold” black students who might be eyeing a spot under that “whites only” tree.

No, in case you were wondering, we haven’t entered some kind of time warp; it’s still 2007.

The three white students who were found to be responsible for the placement of the nooses were recommended for expulsion from school, but the school board deemed in-school suspension a reasonable punishment.

On September 4, 2006, a white student was allegedly beaten unconscious by six black students. The white student was treated and released from the hospital, and the black students were arrested and five of the six faced attempted murder charges, leading many to suggest that their potential punishment didn’t fit the crime and was a far cry from the minor punishment the white students who had hung the nooses received.

More details about the case can be found here.

Regardless of how you feel about the case, it appears that in Jackson’s world, there really are two kinds of people: everything always is black or white. Never black and white. If you’re white, you can find nothing to be concerned about in Jena. If you’re black, you can only find things to be concerned about. And never shall common ground occur.

The only thing more ridiculous about his remarks is the news that Obama’s response to Jena — the very response that Jackson so clearly disapproves of — seems to have been the product of great discussion and counseling, and some of that came from Jackson’s own son, Jesse Jackson, Jr.! Maybe Jackson, Sr., should have talked one-on-one with Obama before trying to smear him (and unknowingly, Jackson’s own son) to a reporter.

If he could place a call to Biden, after all, it seems reasonable that he could have placed a call to Obama.

A few weeks ago, a college student wrote a letter to his local newspaper questioning the way a block party had been covered.

Specifically, he complained that the media had unfairly portrayed college students as “irresponsible” and suggested that accusations of “rowdy” behavior was unjustified.

This same student, who happens to be the student government president at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania, has now been arrested for driving under the influence, driving at an unsafe speed and careless driving, after reportedly driving 50 miles per hour through a 15-mile-per-hour zone and having a .147 blood-alcohol level, nearly twice the .08 legal limit. Continue reading “After Casting Stones”

Merv Griffin was gay.  Or he wasn’t.

I’m not sure why it matters to anyone at this point, since the 82-year-old impresario is no longer with us.  But there are some people who are certain that he was.

Some of them are angry and feel justified in their anger because Griffin never came right out and said he was a homosexual. He never campaigned for gay rights. He never tried to make homophobics believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay.

(If Griffin really was gay.)

Now that I have given you this piece of information, I’d like for you to set it completely aside for a moment. Instead, I’d like for you to focus your attention on a scene from a December afternoon in 1955. Continue reading “There’s No Draft For Social War”