My Obligatory Michael Jackson Post

If one is going to refer to oneself a political and pop culture blogger, then it would be irresponsible to not write about the biggest pop culture story of our time, the death of Michael Jackson.

Sigh. I really couldn't care less about Michael Jackson. I love his songs but the unitards, crotch-grabbing, his Jackie-O whisper of a voice, his self-mutilation to the point of looking like a cross between an elf and an octogenarian female Wasp and, oh yeah, those child-molestation charges, made him less than palatable for me. So, why beat a dead horse (or circus freak)? Michael has crossed over to the beyond, he can finally rest from what seemed like a tortured life. Instead of talking about Michael and the lurid details of his life and untimely death, I'd much prefer to talk about his tacky family, attention-seeking monsters who in the days following his death have shown the scrappiness of street hustlers. Joe Jackson, this one's for you.

Everyone may want to shake Michael's doctor down for keeping the now deceased pop starlet on a steady diet of pills, but MJ was his own problem, that was a train headed toward collision. Period. But if fingers must be pointed, let's focus them on the Jackson family patriarch who thrust his kids into the limelight with fists and gall. The same man who is known to have beaten Michael as a child was able to muster up a red carpet ensemble to hock his wares on the red carpet at this past Sunday's BET Awards. Yesterday, in a black fedora standing next to Al Sharpton (speaking of fists and gall), Joe Jackson was the consummate pitch man, promoting his new record label and bemoaning his son's death. Wretched.

And then there's Janet. Miss Jackson. How nasty is she? Nasty enough to show up in her weave and faux tears at the BET Awards to thank the public for loving Michael, who wasn't an icon to her, but family. Womp womp. Can these people let the poor man's body get cold before they take to the airwaves to make a spectacle of themselves?

We're not even a week into this story and already I'm sick of the Jacksons. The only thing that will keep me sort of interested in this fiasco is the obligatory funeral, which will be the ultimate celebrity conclave. After that, I hope the entire Jackson brood skulks away into obscurity, leaving good music - and just the music - in their wake.

Happy Pride from GCL and Friends

I'm chomping on one of three dozen bagels that James and I bought for the Pride brunch we hosted yesterday. It was a day of air kisses and camaraderie, pecs and pressed flesh, disco and trance, mimosas and sequins. Our little brunch was the run-up to the parade along Fifth Avenue and the Heritage of Pride Pier Dance (VIP access this year for GCL and friends thanks to the job, holla!). I've bored y'all with what Pride means for me last week, so the day after the festivities which culminated in a spectacular fireworks show on the Hudson, here are some pictures for your Monday morning amusement...

Brash and Entitled, 40 Years After Stonewall

In the run-up to this weekend's Gay Pride festivities in New York, forty years after the floodgates of identity politics were opened by the death of a starlet, some gays wonder if the "struggle" rages on - as it should, or if it should.

Hence the "gay generation gap" cited by writer Mark Harris for this week's issue of New York magazine. Whereas one generation of gay men had to act up for their rights, my generation - according to some - just shows up and expects a round of applause for our mere existence. Our slouched stance on everything from politics to work is infuriating, according to Harris, to some gays whose identity is perpetually linked to a fight. That the fight has yielded exactly what our predecessors envisioned, an unencumbered gay life that exists seamlessly in the straight world, is unnerving to some.

For my friends, DOMA, Prop 8 and DADT are sidebar discussions - we're mostly consumed with ourselves, our careers, our bodies and our boyfriends. And AIDS, thank God, isn't even a topic of discussion. We get the significance of these debates, though, and we're reasonably appalled by the fact that our right to exist is a subject of debate, but then, what would we do about it? A few weeks ago when the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, there was a call for a rally from Christopher Street to Union Square. Only one of my friends went while some of us went out for drinks and dismissed the event with a yawn, we figured "what is getting upset going to do, anyway?"

That the most community-centric things I've done are limited to the Pier Dance and scoring (not buying) a seat at the GLAAD Media Awards can either be seen as disgusting or just a casualty of normalcy.

James, my boyfriend, came of age at the height of the AIDS epidemic. But when he talks about his college days, it's not with a clenched fist and rancor in his voice, he just has a lot of fun stories to tell. And after college, the fun seems to have continued with other out-and-proud gay men in the world of business. If anything, James' 80's experience is more Wall Street than Philadelphia. I suspect the guys have always been as brash and entitled as my friends and I are. Had they not been, we'd all be living a completely different experience now. For that, we say thanks.

Happy Birthday, GCL!

GCL turns 3 today! Feel free to roll your eyes but I'm gonna celebrate. For the past 36 months I've been tapping away at this laptop trying to make sense of my life, politics, and pop culture. I've made some enemies, I've caused trouble, I've said some incendiary things - in short, I've had an amazing time.

When I started this blog I was just getting smart to this whole "digital revolution" and what it meant for a PR underling like myself who was trying to get ahead in the world. The goal was, and still is, to share a screen with Larry King or Anderson Cooper - but in the meantime, being a relentlessly gay conservative liberal has brought me tremendous satisfaction and even professional gain. I never articulated this thought until now, but I'm proud of this blog.

Over the past three years I've been able to write about some pretty exciting stories, most notably the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of our country. That was without a doubt the most exciting time for me as a blogger. I know I ticked off a lot of people with my skepticism about his candidacy(yep, I called him the Antichrist), but I stand by what I said then - we were on the cusp of a monumental election, it wasn't the time for blind allegiance, it was a time to ask questions, it was a time to make demands from democrats who had lost two elections to the worst President in our nation's history. I was also glad to write about the situation in Colombia, my mom's homeland, both from a political and personal perspective - the release of the U.S. hostages along with Ingrid Betancourt, whose story was one of the first I ever followed on this blog, was a thrilling moment for me. It was equally thrilling, though in a different way, to make the trip to see my grandma in Colombia, in spite of our differences about my "lifestyle," and enjoy the city and home that had been such an important part of my childhood. Speaking of my lifestyle, I've delved into my own issues with gay life through this blog; it's been an exploration that has found me expanding on my faith and the place it occupies in my life. Some people have found this insightful, others have found it preachy, self-hating and backwards. Quite simply, it's an on-going dialogue that will likely never be resolved for this Jehovah's Witness kid from Brooklyn.

So what's ahead? Let me tell you, it's been hard for me to keep up with this blog these days. And it's not for lack of material - what with Prop 8, DOMA, Iran and my crazy family, I could spend all day writing. This anniversary is the kick in the pants I needed to rev up my posts - there's a lot going on in the world and I firmly believe that someone, a gay conservative liberal perhaps, should be out there talking and getting people to think, or at the very least, get them pissed off.

Getting Away with Murder in Pennsylvania

From CNN:Two teens were sentenced to at least six months in prison for the beating death of an undocumented Mexican immigrant in Pennsylvania. The victim, 25-year-old Luis Ramirez, was attacked by a drunken group of teens who shouted racial epithets at him and later succumbed to wounds so severe that at one point "brain tissue oozed out of his skull during surgery at a hospital."

The defendants, Brandon Piekarsky, 17, and Derrick Donchak, 19, were portrayed as two fun-loving, all-American teens (they were on their school's football team!) who fell into an unfortunate situation. They were just hanging around doing what small-town teens do, which is drink and look for trouble, and then came across a person of color who was beat to death. For that, you get 6 to 23 months in jail. The judge on the case, William Baldwin, was unmoved by a letter from Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell asking for the case to be considered a hate crime and following the verdict, though he did tell the defendants "You picked out a guy who was not one of you and just beat the pulp out of him." Governor Rendell sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking to pursue civil rights charges.

***
I've written about this before, the rise in hate crimes in this country, the rise in attacks against Latino immigrants in particular, and I couldn't be more offended by the verdicts handed down in Pennsylvania. For me, an educated Latino who doesn't feel vulnerable in the eyes of the law, it's infuriating to see a system that I (mostly) believe in disregard the rights of certain people. I refuse to believe that minorities are powerless, but it's certainly crushing to see acquittals or lenient sentences in case after case of white-on-black or latino violence. That these issues should divide people along political lines is also disappointing, as there shouldn't be a middle ground when discussing the death of an innocent person.

Cases like this place a huge responsibility on educated people of color who can and should talk back to the system and who should speak up for those of us who have less recourse to defend themselves.

On DOMA: Repeal Brown vs the Board of Education

President Obama thinks that the issue of gay marriage is one that's best left to individual states without interference from the federal government. Except it isn't - the feds are unequivocally anti-gay and last week our President submitted a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act. No federal benefits for same-sex married couples and no reason for states to recognize same-sex marriages.

In an editorial that appeared in yesterday's New York Times, the paper noted that the most distressing part of the Obama's administration's support of DOMA is the hurtful way with which it addresses the issue by saying that same-sex marriages deserve no more recognition from states than incestuous unions. In light of such blatant bigotry and discrimination, the administration's stance is a resounding "yeahh, sorry about that."

Or in legal speak:

"[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize."

Fine.

How about we repeal the Supreme Court's decision on Brown vs the Board of Education then? Or, let's take a trip back to 1954 and tell the black families of Topeka who just wanted the same access to education as white people that "Segregation is a cautious policy of federal neutrality toward race integration. Segregation maintains the view held by our slave-owning founding fathers that negroes aren't the same as white people, so, if some states want to race-mix that's fine, but we can't force everyone to subsidize education for people they wouldn't even sit next to on a bus."
***
See my point? There are no two ways around the issue of gay marriage anymore. Either you believe that tax-paying, law-abiding, same-sex couples deserve the same protections and benefits as heterosexual couples or you don't. If it's the latter then you're a bigot.

So which side of the fence are you really on, Mr-benefited-from-a-not-so-neutral-stance-on-desegregation-President?

Holocaust Museum Shooting: How Easy is it to Kill in America?

A few months ago I wrote about the troubling trend of racially motivated violence in US cities and what I feared was the unraveling of our humanity. In the wake of an abortion doctor's murder followed by the murder of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist, my argument - that we're losing our humanity - holds true.

So I wonder, how easy is it to kill in America? From the legality of obtaining a firearm to the societal factors that make shootings in schools, museums, malls and churches a common occurrence on the evening news - have we gone from being a nation that suffers occasional random violence, to, I don't know, Iraq? And to what extent is our decency and humanity compromised when we examine these issues through the prism of our political beliefs?

Regardless of your political leanings the fact remains that in the U.S. the phenomenon of random gun violence happens more often than in other developed nations. We have every which excuse to explain these acts but no one is any less dead for all of our conjecture: the assailant was crazy, the assailant was a Nazi, the assailant couldn't speak English, etc. So I'm still right: we're a nation of murderers.

Or are we not? This is, first, an issue of gun control - forget the Second Amendment and the public's so-called "right" to bear arms. This is also an issue about our values; as the American public continues to mire itself in divisive, incendiary political debate that ultimately demonizes people who hold different beliefs from ours, we set the stage for bloodshed. Does this sound like a huge leap? I don't think so. I think Americans have been stirred into a tizzy, overloaded with information, caffeine and entitlement - we've become murderers, predators and all sorts of crazy. And I wonder, what's next?

GCL @ Santigold Show @ Terminal 5

Yours truly is an uppity gay who does not like people, crowds, children and other gay men. Hence weekends are spent at home, with what's-his-face, watching things like the No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency. But sometimes I like to go out and wild out. And thankfully, my other gays are always ready to direct my attention from things like this and take me to, oh, I don't know, the Santigold show at Terminal 5.



If you're like me and you get your hip music recos from Gossip Girl, then you know the song "Shove It," which thumped menacingly as one Dan Humphrey stared down a ticked-off and vamped-out Serena van der Woodsen in one of the many encarnations of their tumultuous teenage love affair.



Anyway, last night's show was a lot of fun. Santigold took charge of the stage with a pimp strut and a gold track suit. That's boss. Way boss. Then homegirl rocked the mic with such gusto that the fans throwing hands up didn't think twice about the fact that her vocals were, um, hyper-stylized. As in, chick was definitely lip synching. But that's cool, the show was still raw, loud and edgy enough to warrant a $20 ticket. You probably want more details than this, so check out my boy Jay Williams over at OMFG New York for a more learned recap of the show.

L is for Legitimization

According to some conservatives, gays have all the rights they need. So the push for marriage equality or for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (which, sadly, is still in effect following a Supreme Court decision)is really just a ploy for the legitimization of our "lifestyle."

Well, duh. This point got me to thinking about how the vernacular of gay rights is ever-changing: we've gone from lovers to partners, gay community to LGBT community, unions to marriage. And now we want legitimization - not acceptance. To me, it makes perfect sense. See, you can accept that there is evil in the world but you don't have to condone it. And in spite of what you've heard about me, I'm not evil, so acceptance means nothing to me and countless gays and lesbians. I want the same rights my straight friends have, period. And until that happens, I am not a legitimate U.S. citizen.

That's the realization that the gay community is coming to. Forty years after the Stonewall riots we're no longer fighting for the right to live as outsiders in our country (as in, "fine, we're different but please let us keep our jobs"). Now we want the legitimization of our place in American society. If you want to be crude about it, yes, we want the red carpet of citizenship rolled out for us. The Mormons did it (and they got a whole state in the end!), the black community did it, and now the gays are doing it.

Let's all rally behind the new L word.

Spotted: GCL at Queens Pride

Hop the 7 train to Jackson Heights in Queens and you'll find, amid the mash-up of South American and Asian stores and ads for American brands in anything but English, an outer-borough version of Chelsea. There's room for everyone in this part of the city, Colombians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and yes, the gays.

So it's fitting that between the rowhouses and empanadas there should be a five block long festival of boys and girls in various states of undress celebrating gay pride. Church-going families scurried past the drag queens, and other passer-by stopped, looked around, and went about their business. Under the tracks of the 7 train, the gays poured out of local hotspots Atlantis and Friends Bar and into family-owned restaurants like Mario's and Mi Pequena Colombia, all of which were adorned with rainbow flags. Some shots below:

Gay Pawns

When it comes to gay marriage, says the Washington Post, Dick Cheney is resolutely left of the Obama administration's stance on the issue. Well tickle me pink.

While our President hails the achievements of the LGBT community and, in his words, is the first president "to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration," he still refuses to support gay marriage and prefers to tow the Republican/Democrat agenda of civil unions. At this point it's fair to say that neither gays or conservatives want civil unions - it's an all or nothing proposition.

So, what's up with Dick Cheney getting air time...again...on another issue that helped define his administration? A few weeks ago the former vice president was sparring with Obama over torture, saying that waterboarding has kept us safe, now Tricky Dick v2 is tackling gay marriage and next week he'll be swapping strudel recipes with Rachael Ray. Me thinks the shamed former VP doth protest too much.

While significant gains have been made in the gay rights movement over the years we're still nothing more than a hot button issue that sells news. Politicians, for the most part, feel no obligation to us - they stump for our issues on the campaign trail but once they're in power they prefer to sweep us under the rug. I'm talking to you, former President Clinton, he of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Rudy Giuliani used to march in the Gay Pride parade here in New York until he decided to run for President.

That's why I've stopped listening to what politicians have to say about the issue. They'll do whatever the public tells them to do when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights in general - so the strides made in Vermont, Iowa and perhaps New York do matter and can turn the course of events throughout the country. But the hot air and posturing from our nation's leaders is all a show - gays, you mean nothing to them.

A Nation of Murderers

"The last time a Republican thought I had rights, I was a fetus."

So goes a bumper sticker for left wingers' Priuses. But it rings true, so true, on a day when a doctor was gunned down at his church because of his weekday job as an abortion provider. Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, met an assassin's bullet this morning while attending Sunday services at his local church. Sadly, pro-lifers are split on what is clearly a right-or-wrong issue - check out the report at Jezebel.com.

What's even more sad is that this incident shows how America has lost sight of the sanctity of human life. Dr. Tiller did not deserve to die, but he also worked with the full protection of the law and was allowed to perform late-term abortions. So what about the countless children that didn't get to see life at the hands of Dr. Tiller? We live in a society that condones this sort of violence and brands it as a "choice," and then we save our shock and dismay for times when the same level of callous violence is perpetrated on adults or anyone who can "live on their own," to borrow a page from pro-choice dogma. We're also a country that executes criminals, is engaged in a dubious war with a country that posed no threat to us and turns the page every time another school shooting is sprawled across our newspapers. We're all callous and we've all shrugged off any culpability for the direction that America is going in.

This isn't a Democrat/Republican problem, it's a problem with the values that inform our humanity. We haven't evolved to the point where we truly consider all murder to be wrong. That's why there's war, abortion, crime...you get it. So, shame on all of us.

Dear Senator Sessions, There's Nothing Troubling About Sonia Sotomayor

Taking a cue from Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter, Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama republican who is going to lead the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, declared that comments made by nominee about race are "troubling."

No, they're not. Let me explain.

In 2001, Sotomayor spoke about discrimination cases at an event sponsored by La Raza at UC Berkeley's School of Law. It was a largely innocuous speech about her Latina roots, her childhood, rice, beans and pork intestines. Kid you not - read the speech here. So what was her troubling remark?

Her speech went on to address the need for diversity in our country's judicial system. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of the speech was this: if there are more and more people of color in this country, why are they not represented in our courts? Can justice be doled out if, for whatever reason, different experiences and points of view are hindered from joining the upper ranks of our legal system?

Sototmayor went on to talk about conversations she'd had with another judge, Miriam Cederbaum , who didn't believe that women and other minorities made much of an impact on cases that impact these groups. Here's what the nominee said about those conversations:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

This was followed by her now infamous remark:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

***
So, if we're talking about the need for a judicial system that is more representative of our nation's diversity, why is it racist to say that someone who understands the complexities of race and gender issues, and whose group has been largely left of out the legal system, would make a more informed decision than the cookie-cutter judge who has never lived any of these issues?

Sotomayor did not call for a purge of the legal system or cite a need for quotas to ensure there are more colored people on the bench. She just said it might make sense to get more points of view and a diversity of backgrounds on the bench - how is that racist?

Race-Baiting is as American as Apple Pie

The American Dream is thus: anyone can go from hardscrabble luck to self-made success. We all love that story.

Well, in America, nothing is more hardscrabble than being a person of color in a disadvantaged neighborhood. So when somoene like Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for Supreme Court justice, steps into the spotlight, it's a wonderful moment for our nation. Yes, because the nominee is a Latina from the Bronx.

Am I wrong for assuming that anyone who gets this sort of endorsement from the president is mostly qualified for the job? Or should I be happy that the president, who has access to the most brilliant minds in the country, has chosen someone that a growing percentage of the population can relate to? If America is the model of representative government, why can't this Latino be proud that he's represented in the Supreme Court? Notice how I didn't say "finally represented" in that last sentence - it's not like I believe that just because there are millions of Latinos in this country that we have to put one of our own on the bench; but I do think it's great that a person of color - who would never have had a shot at this appointment 50 years ago - is in the running.

What's wrong with that? Don't Republicans play the race card when they prop up Louisiana governor Bobby Jindhal as the GOP's answer to Obama? Don't Republicans race bait when they run Spanish-language ads in Miami comparing Democrats to Communists? Let us have our moment, please - besides, there's no proof that Obama's pick is some left-of-center radical. In fact, if Judge Sotomayor grew up in a household like mine, she's probably as conservative as any other Republican - so give the woman a chance, Newt Gingrich.

Anyway, the issue here isn't whether Sonia Sotomayor is an unhinged liberal or a conservative blowhard. The issue here is that if Barack Obama were to come out and say "today is Thursday," Ann Coulter and the like would have to argue, for the sake of book deals and appearances on the Fox News Channel, that it's 9 hours since Wednesday but that's what happens when you elect a black president: he tries to dictate the movement of the cosmos. While I don't think our president has that super power (yet!) he certainly has the power to make bold statements with his nominee for our nation's highest court. He's made a terrific choice, one that is a major overture to Latinos who were on the fence about his own candidacy for the White House last year, and one that brings a significant percentage of our population into the political process.

Well done, Mr. President.

They're Coming After Civil Unions Too

The consensus among the well-heeled and educated gays I know is that the California Supreme Court decision to uphold (the discriminatory,hateful) Prop 8 is not worth getting angry about. So, no need to riot or march, just focus on the more progressive states that are doing right by their citizens. Fine, I'm happy to postpone activism for one more cocktail.

But here's the thing kids: the conservative right doesn't care about gay marriage. What they want is the complete anhilation of gay life in this country. Don't believe me? Think I'm being melodramatic? Check out the comment thread on Michelle Malkin's blog post about this latest development on Prop 8. Now that gay marriage has been dashed in the Golden State the hate mongers behind this legislation are gunning to undo civil unions - so what's next?

If you weren't mad before, start re-thinking that:

Will Marriage Make Gay Communities Stronger?

In spite of beauty queens and gossip queens, the slow clip toward marriage equality for gays and lesbians remains steady. In the debate over this issue, supporters of gay marriage claim that communities are strengthened by stable, legally recognized unions. Thanks, Meghan McCain, for saying that. The comment got me to thinking, will gay marriage strengthen the gay community?

As is bound to happen with any group of people, personalities will clash and not everyone, in spite of shared experience and purpose, will get along. Throw in a penchant for doling out cutting one-liners and a me-first-cuz-I've-always-been-a-victim mentality and you've got the current gay conundrum: why do we want civil rights when we can't even be civil with one another?

True and true, I live in New York and I work in media - in other words, I'm not destined to know from nice. From gay OR straight people. But on the premise of shared experience and purpose, I would expect for us gays to, at the very least, be supportive of each other. To root for each other if only to see one of our own forge ahead. But that isn't always the case. If you're a twenty-something year old gay like me, at the crossroads of the Stonewall Riots and Prop 8, a space occupied by the Real World, Gossip Girl and Logo, you don't need a community, you don't need a secret society of other marginalized gays, you're out, loud and proud - the world, miss thang, is your oyster. The only problem with that is that you have a whole generation of gay men who get riled up for a rally or a cause celebre, but who couldn't care less about each other as people. And I'm not pointing fingers here, I'll be the first to tell you that more often than not, I find myself disliking most gay people I meet. It's the Blair Waldorf in me.

So, in the spirit of unity and equality, hours before California Supreme Court decides what to do about the Prop 8 mess, I'm promising to change my hatin' ways and inspire other gays to do the same.

This Morocho Takes his Coffee with Legs

I'm finally home after two weeks of cris-crossing through South America for work and play. I'm gayed out, having escorted one very lively group of journalists on a gay scavenger hunt through Santiago, Chile and Buenos Aires, Argentina and then meeting up with my cousins in Cali, Colombia, to explain that yep, much like last year, I'm still gay and quite happy about it.

So, some highlights from this last visit to some of my favorite places in the world:



In Santiago, which is as smoggy, sprawling and devoid of personality as Los Angeles I found that a morning jolt of caffeine need not come from a PhD candidate in a green apron, but rather, a damsel in a g-string and body paint. Blame the trauma of a repressive dictatorship for the phenomenon that is "cafe con piernas," or, coffee with legs. You just rock up to a little cafe in downtown Santiago - there are lots of places like this in the area - and order up your latte or espresso from a busty waitress who, for 1,000 pesos (about $2) will pose for a picture with you (like my friend did here). No one touches anyone and no liquor is served, it's just coffee. With legs. And g-strings. And boobs.



In Buenos Aires, where dark good looks like mine get you called "morocho" (affectionately, of course) I shopped cuz that's what one does when the exchange rate is at a very favorable 4 pesos to the dollar. But the highlight of the trip, which included the sexy Rojo Tango show at the Faena Hotel+Universe, was the Evita suite at the Legado Mitico hotel in the Palermo district. Shopping and gaudy first ladies - this is my kind of town. The highlight of the trip was meeting my new friend Fabian, the tour guide to the stars and the gays, who got me hip to the camp yummyness that is Lia Crucet. See for yourself why I'm obsessed:






And in Cali, Colombia, where I spent many a summer as a kid, I ended a weekend of morning prayers and sing-alongs with cocktails at the Chipichape mall, known to the locals as Chipi-gay cuz it's where the gays go to buy Diesel jeans and cruise. Now, I don't make it a custom to frequent malls when I'm on the road, but you do what you have to for a cocktail in a town where people take their liquor straight up. After two days of pleasantries, it was nice to finally be real with my cousins who said "next time we'll take you on the gay circuit, there are tons of clubs and bars in town." Why no one thought to offer on this trip yo no se, but it was nice of them to think of hooking me up just the same.

And now, back to work...

Quick check in from MIA

Hi kids - I'm the worst blogger ever. On those days when I look out on Times Square from my office, wondering why Rachel Maddow hasn't invited me to guest host for her, I should look back on my carelessness and say, "GCL, you done did this to yourself by neglecting your blog like a cheap trick."

But (I think) I have an excuse. I've been traveling over the past two weeks for work, hitting Chile, Argentina, now Miami, and am off to recoup in Colombia with my fam.

I couldn't even tell you what's happening here in the States unless you care to know about my own life, and let me tell you, this American is not very happy these days. Man problems, y'all. Man problems. That's all I'm gonna say.

But as of Tuesday, May 12th, I promise to bring back the same salty, biting commentary that has endeared this blog to the two of you who still read it. Loves you, kids- and stay tuned for some serious posts.

And if you care to learn a little about where I'm off to, watch this:

Hola from Santiago, Chile

Hi kids, am in South America this week for work. First stop: Santiago, Chile. Six million chic, well-dressed people call this city, nestled beneath the Andes alongside several rivers, home. What stands out? This is the cleanest and most modern city I´ve ever seen in Latin America. Have had lots of interesting chats with the locals about gay life, politics and Madonna - more details on that to come but time is limited and I didn´t bring a laptop. Argh.

Stay tuned...

Bea, Thank You for Being a Friend

Picture it: Brooklyn, 1989. A wide-eyed Latino kid ignores the game of stickball unfolding on the street outside his brownstone to sit in front of the TV and laugh along to the salty adventures of four old ladies living in Miami. The references to Broadway and silver-screen legends fly over his head, yet, for some reason, he feels at home in a world of cheesecake and hot flahses.

Sigh. I'm mourning the passing of Bea Arthur today.

Growing up, I was the kind of kid who gravitated toward adults. Spending summers in Colombia with two over-protective and hyper-opinionated grandparents taught me to feel comfortable around older people - especially when my grandmother, to this day, dictates that one should sing or entertain her somehow for their supper. Leaving them behind after a month or two was always hard, but soon enough I'd find solace in the hijinks of Dorothy, Rose, Sophia and Blanche, otherwise known as The Golden Girls.

The show is my gay cultural touchstone. Much like queens of yore fondly recall singing along to the score of Funny Girl, it would be years before I would connect the dots between my own gayness and fondness for the Golden Girls. Little did I know that while I was sitting in front of the TV on Saturday night laughing along to Dorothy's acerbic retorts (e.g. Rose, played by Betty White, once asked Dorothy "why do people die?" to which Dorothy replies "I don't know Rose, I still haven't figured out why fools fall in love.") the boys across the river in Chelsea were watching the show at their favorite bars.

And why wouldn't they? At the height of the AIDS epidemic the show tackled the issue head on, and approached other gay and lesbian issues with frankness and compassion. In a time when the gay community felt especially marginalized, the Golden Girls provided relatable characters who also dealt with the malignment of youth-obsessed society with laughter, men, and food. The ladies were the moms we wished we had or loved to pieces, their heartaches and joys resonated at any age, and their camaraderie seemed genuine and powerful, much like the friendships gay men forge to bound against the world.

Today, years after my Saturday nights with The Golden Girls, I still stop by the lanai and prop a seat on the ladies' wicker sofa to listen to Rose's St.Olaf stories and watch Blanche's sexcapades. While I have a bit of Blanche streak, Dorothy's sharp-tongue and Brooklyn girl savvy always spoke to me.

Here's to you, Bea.