On Fort Hood: Beware of Pundits

Diversity is going to kill America. Or so say conservative pundits in the weeks following the shootings at Fort Hood. I think weak liberal pundits are going to be the death of democracy if they don't stop pussyfooting around issues of national security - in the case of the Fort Hood shootings the mainstream media has given conservative pundits plenty of ammunition (sorry for the gross pun) to voice all sorts of scandalous, racist opinions. To my friends at MSNBC and CNN: call a spade a spade - we are at war with Islam. And the shootings at Fort Hood were an act of terrorism. Neither statement is racist nor a call to violence - it's the fact of our times. While you're not talking about this, the Fox News Channel is having a field day playing upon Americans' worst fears. And guess what? This time around, I'm more inclined to believe their coverage of this incident over yours.

A summary of the attack on Fort Hood: The shooter is an army psychiatrist, but also a Muslim who had been exchanging e-mails with a radical cleric in Yemen for the past year and had made some shocking statements about non-Muslims, specifically calling them "infidels [who] should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats."

I shudder to think that I have gotten more information about this attack, and the link between the shooter and Al Qaeda, from the likes of Ann Coulter than, say, the New York Times. This time around Coulter has found a terrific platform to voice her idea that minorities (aka "victims") have their run of this country, and that it's possible to plan a terrorist attack here under the gaze of the law because the feds will be too scared of coming off as racist and insensitive. Here's her interview with Bill O'Reilly. If you can't watch, here are the three bits of information that are worth taking away:

1-The US media dropped the ball on reporting on the shooter's ties to Al Qaeda (:57)
2- The shooter had never been to sent to war (3:58)
3- The shooter wasn't treating soldiers coming back from war, he treated them before they went on their assignments (4:20)



But you know what else crazy said during her interview? When asked why government officials and the mainstream media have been slow to call the shooter a terrorist Coulter replied:

"We have a caste system in America with different levels of victimhood. You have the feminists, gays, blacks, Jews, but the number one victims, but only starting on 9-11 when they killed 3,000 Americans, became Muslims."

Crazy say what?

See, friends, when those of us on the right side of reason allow political correctness to get the better of us and we don't call things what they are, we lend credibility to the most far-right and un-American ideas. We are, in spite of what us urban elites think, a nation at war. Not just overseas, but here at home. If we can't question the place of Islam in our country, without fear of sounding racist or alarmist, then we stand to lose all of the gains made for minorities in this country. Step up your game, guys - now is not the time for Ps and Qs in journalism.

That Adam Lambert...

I'm a little slow on the uptake with the whole Adam Lambert-oral-sex-on-live-TV fiasco - forgive me, it IS a holiday week after all. But I do have an opinion on the matter if you care to read on.

Artists doing shocking things at awards shows is nothing new - this week's faux-fellatio and boy-on-boy tongue action harkens Kanye West's stage raiding and Madonna's sapphic cougar antics. So the American Idol runner-up shoved his crotch in a dancer's face - big woop - at least he sang live! Janet Jackson wore Uggs, a bad wig and 60 extra pounds of chunk to open up the show. And if you want to talk about bad wigs and bad attitudes, Whitney Houston needs to come off her high horse, talking about her strength. Honey, there are real people going through real problems - that you had the "strength" to go on Oprah and blame your husband for your crack addiction isn't strength. It's brilliant marketing.

While marquee names are looking and sounding tired, sorting through the darkness of grief or addiction to come up with NOTHING, a new crop of artists is clawing at stardom - and if they have to commit all sorts of crimes, from vandalism (LOVED Lady Gaga's turn at crazy with her performance of "Bad Romance") and public indecency, well, dammit, this is pop culture isn't it? You wanna be on top? Set the stage on fire. Literally. And have at it like the proud homosexual that you are.

I personally don't care for Adam Lambert's voice or look. His spectacle looked more like a coming out party for a high school closet-case who shocks the bejeezus out of his little redneck town by turning the school's production of, say, Oklahoma! into a musical rendition of Cruising. Not my cup of tea, but do you, girl.

Tear Down This Wall, But Build Another Here, Here and Here

I know everyone has moved on from the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I've been meaning to make a point about this historic event for a few days now. So here goes: while the world is celebrating the end of the Cold War and the unification of one country that would ultimately become a world super power, our country remains rife with division. In fact, we're very close to building our own literal and figurative walls within our borders.

I feel this most when I think about immigration and gay rights in this country. Both debates have spun out of control to the point of hate speech - Lou Dobbs stepping down from CNN doesn't undo the thinking of too many Americans who openly refer to other human beings as "illegals" and who fear the take-over of this nation by an illiterate, incompetent, brown menace. After all, the Fox News Channel is alive and well. And so is the push for a fence along the U.S./Mexico border, as is the idea that "illegals" should not be covered under a new, universal healthcare plan. In other words, Republicans are happy to plunk down 10 billion dollars on a fence that people are already going to find a way around, as opposed to developing a smart guest worker program that provides a channel for immigrants to enter and leave this country legally and safely. That sort of thinking would benefit everyone, except the contractors building the fence.

But the Republican party is not aiming for visionary, problem-solving policy, so long as people are afraid that undocumented gay Mexicans are going to take over the schools and absolve heterosexual marriage, the GOP will be in business for years to come. That's why the party has decided to abscond the Latino vote altogether by voting in a near single block against President Obama's recent hate crimes law because it has a provision outlawing attacks based on perceived immigration status. In other words, the Republicans voted against the Matthew Sheppard Act because it also grants protection from violent crime against "illegals." (And y'all know I've been writing about hate crimes against Latinos for some time now - this is a real issue, people)

And then there's the issue of gay marriage - in 31 states Americans have voiced a resounding "no" to providing same sex couples the right to marry. The issue is as tired as it pressing - it seems stupid to think that some Americans can be so vehemently interested in controlling other citizens, but then, that's exactly what's happening - it's scary and it's un-American.

But that's where our country is at right now. While I have seriously considered building up my own wall and not engaging with people who don't share my beliefs, I realize that I would then be making these problems worse. So I'll remain open for dialogue, in spite of my lesser, more Latino and argumentative self, and I'll keep writing and advocating for change.

Guess Who's Not Coming to Dinner

When you're an opinionated blowhard like myself you often - believe it or not - check your feelings at the door when you engage in political debate. You gird your loins by smiling politely and resting your chin in the space between your thumb and index finger, clenching your jaw and such when the person in front of you says things like, "look, I love you but I won't support gay marriage," or, "honey, it's a religious issue. Do you see where I'm coming from?"

And my answer to this, if I were a hothead in anddition to a blowhard, would be "Why, yes, I do see where you're coming from. And if you weren't my mom, or dad, or a friend who I really like most of the time, I'd love for you to go back there, forever, and get the hell out of my life." But I'm almost 30 and I do yoga and at this point I figure the people and demons in my life are there for a reason and I might as well play nice with them.

Or should I? Or should we, LGTB Americans, put up with the polite rancor of a nation that continues to dash our rights while passin the bread and butter across the dinner table? Can we comprpomise and make allowances for people who claim to like us but then, in states like California and Maine, vote to tear apart our relationships?

I hate to think that I'm becoming one of these militant Democrats who can't be civilized and accept other people's point of view. But when Republicans are voting in a single block to thwart my rights there's little to nothing that I'm willing to agree on with these people. I'll remain conservative in my opinion on self-determination and personal accountability, but it is becoming harder for me to play nice with a party that thinks my citizenship is debatable.

Friends and family, of course, are another mess. In political debate one often talks about winning hearts and minds, so for me, it's especially heartbreaking that I can't win over some of the people I care most about. Do I shut them out? Do I remain intransigent and force them to see it my way? Or do I allow myself to bend and hope that my flexibility will win them over? I doubt that will work but even I can't force myself to tow such a hard line with those I love. At least for now.

You're Worth $700 Billion, Baby

The pink dollar is a fat wad of bills, yo. According to Fast Company, the LGBT community is a $700 billion dollar spending force to be reckoned with. Recession be damned, gym memberships must be preserved (and in my case, upgraded - hi Equinox!), vacations must be had and drinks must be sipped. While the government is debating whether gays deserve equal rights, our spending just goes into the ether - have we stopped to consider who has who grabbed by the um, well, you get it...Seriously, $700 billion! I feel like the government should pay for my trainer AND my much-needed Louis Vuitton duffel just as a thank you for being a spending gay.

The November issue of the magazine profiles a few companies who are making a profit by courting the gay community. American Airlines, Macy's, Wells Fargo and Viacom (owners of Logo TV) are featured for the work they're doing to attract gay consumers in a thoughtful and honest way. That means they're not just slapping a set of abs on a poster and telling you to spend, spend, spend. Each of these companies is looking for ways to become a part of the gay consumer's life - note: as someone who works in PR, specifically in consumer marketing, I can't help but sound a little academic here - but the point I'm trying to make is that these companies are acknowledging gay consumers' spending potential as well as their humanity (as the President said in his speech yesterday). So, American Airlines isnt just telling you "go to Miami 'cuz the guys are hot;" instead, they've created a whole page listing events and attractions around the world that may be of interest to gays with a case of wanderlust. Logo, of course, is in the business of creating TV shows exclusively for LGBT audiences - and while many thought the network would fail - it's now thriving and it is the launch pad for many companies that want to integrate themselves in the gay community. They should have included Bravo and my baby-daddy Andy Cohen in the mix, but maybe that'll happen next year.

In the meantime, spend spend spend guys...just do so responsibly.

Thanks, Mr. President

President Obama has signed a bill that makes crimes against any individual based on sexual orientation, faith, place of birth or disability a federal offense. The Matthew Shepard & James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act "extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin." (Source: Washington Post)

And yours truly, he who once called the President the Antichrist, couldn't help but be moved by the president's remarks following the signing of this bill. What a thrilling moment this is for our nation's history, to see a President so committed to building a nation as opposed to tearing it up. How thrilling it is for this young gay man who remembers the days surrounding the Matthew Sheppard murder in 1998 and went further into the closet during his freshman year of college because all things gay scared the hell out of him. Today is a new day for our community - the work doesn't end and sadly, this doesn't stop future crimes from happening, but the message is clear: gays belong in this country, they are appreciated in this country and they will be protected in this country. As will anybody who comes here to live their own American dream.

The pesky issues of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and an increasingly agitated GOP who will only use this victory to scare people into voting for them in 2010 and in the presidential elections of 2012, still loom large. In other words, nothing in our democracy is every really, really certain. For anyone concerned with the propagation of human rights in this country our work should not only focus on getting pen to paper for the signing of legislation, but on building our communities, and educating our neighbors - gay rights are everyone's rights and the marginalization of any group in this country only deters from the values that we all claim set us apart from the rest of the world.

I remain thrilled, hopeful, but ever more vigilant.

About Being Latino in America

Last week I took a swing at CNN for their sensationalist depiction of Colombia as a country consumed by violence that worships at the cult of the drug lord, so I wasn't expecting much from the network's much vaunted Latino in America series. I wasn't expecting a ratchet job, but I was bracing myself for a condescending look at our community, a report that would be half Cosby Show (or, I guess, the George Lopez Show)and half "serious" journalism - perhaps a day in the life of a migrant worker or a maid. Such is the spectrum of Latino identity in the media today so what can one expect?

However, I thought the series was quite good - it was, in fact, bold. It addressed an issue that our community still hasn't figured out on this side of the border - the issue of identifying ourselves and asking: who are we? Ethnically, socio-economically, politically...we haven't figured out whether we're Hispanic or Latino, we still have issues surrounding color, and yet, by virtue of a shared language - which some of us may or may not speak - and the label of "other" that's imposed upon us in this country, we are, carajo, a community. For me and the millions of Latinos in this country (well, maybe not all of them, we do have some backwards people who couldn't care less what you call them but let's keep this post positive) this is a riveting topic - but why the hell would middle America care about it? That's a big question to ponder when you're a network competing against the right wing propaganda machine that is Fox News.

Still, CNN put forth all sorts of stories from within our community, some of which made my blood boil (like those about violence against undocumented immigrants, and teens who act out and make life difficult for themselves and their families because they feel they don't fit in) and others which were inspiring (Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the work Latino actors are doing in Hollywood). These stories set the tone for an informed, objective series - and what I had feared most, that somehow CNN would justify everyone's misconceptions about Latinos, even those that us Latinos harbor about ourselves - just didn't happen.

I worried that somehow the series would give some Latinos a free pass on issues like education (our high school drop-out rates are way high)and language - I worried that the series would focus on how hard some Latinos have it in this country and thus only discourage some people from even trying to better themselves and roil those Americans who feel they've been blamed enough for other people's problems. It's a tall order to tell the story of millions of people who, even among themselves, haven't reached consensus on who they are. But CNN took on this challenge and delivered a terrific program.

I think I've talked lots on this blog about what it means to be Latino - so if people aren't flocking here for the gospel, I hope they'll tune in to CNN.

CNN's "In-Depth" Coverage of Colombia Lacks Context; Reads Like Trashy Telenovela Script

Last week CNN.com ran a three-part series on Colombia's drug gangs, an expose on lives ruled by violence, greed and sex. It was hardcore journalism - the kind you need a flak jacket for - delivered with the pathos of a telenovela script. Reporter Karl Penhaul's reporting could have delivered an insightful series on an imporant topic that many Americans aren't familiar with, but instead, his three stories rattle off the tired narco-narrative we've heard before: people are poor so they kill; without one big boss petty thugs run amok; behind every great drug lord is a bedazzled beauty queen.

The stories are filled with graphic photos and quotes that make Colombia look and sound like a country on the brink of implosion - a Wild West with all sorts of thugs running around guns a-blazin'. That's simply not the case. These stories could have happened anywhere, but what makes the phenomenon of cartel violence distinctly Colombian is sorely missing from the report, as is an acknowledgement of the U.S.' culpability in the drug trade - Were it not for this country's demand for coke there would be no violence in Colombia. Penhaul's indictment should be spread around but instead it's focused solely on one country.

If you want to read about guys inhaling cocaine powder out of a blender or about shoot-outs in a poor neighborhood, and a naive beauty queen who was imprisoned in a "golden cage," then please click over to CNN. But you should know this: Colombia's drug trade is the developing world's version of capitalism. In spite of the violence within and the rising tide of socialism in neighboring countries like Venezuela and Ecuador, Colombia has remained one of Latin America's most stable democracies. In short, the drug caretls are a portrait of 20th century entrepreneurialism - albeit a bloody one. The cartels blew the lid off the country's class system and created a middle class, they created opportunities for people to stay and invest in their country. Of course, this was a double-edged sword - for every opportunity to send one's children to school or learn English, or even buy a house and a car, came full-scale terrorism: planes were blown out of the sky, restaurants were shot up and market places were attacked with grenades. No one in Colombia today is unscathed by the drug trade, and it's often pointless to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys - they're both probably at the same family function.

On that last point, Penhaul leads the reader to believe that, regardless of their victimization, "Ordinary Colombians seem to have an unshakable attraction to glamorous narco-lifestyles judging by the sky-high ratings of two TV soap operas." I'll admit I'm reading these articles on the defensive, but am I the only person who remembers "Growing up Gotti," "Goodfellas" and "The Real Housewives of New Jersey"? Again, it's the singular attack on one country, when there's a whole world, our nation included, that's complicit in the crimes outlined in this series that smacks of bias and sensationalism.

We have a saying in Spanish: no se puede tapar el sol con un dedo - you can't cover the sun with your finger. In other words, I know how bad things are in Colombia. I can't write this post and not tell you that I've seen violence in Colombia and that my own family has been a victim of the kidnappings and other violence stemming from the drug trade. But I can also tell you that it's not the worst place in the world, that there is culture, civility, and legitimate enterprise down there. That this vital part of Colombia's present is not included in an article about the drug trade is plain irresponsible.

Kylie Minogue Slays the 212

Glitter, lasers, high-high heels, muscles and feathers - Kylie Minogue's first-ever U.S. tour has finally landed in New York, and last night's opener at the Hammerstein Ballroom had all the elements of a gay pop revival. Can I get a witness? And a cosmo?




Miss Minogue, who descended on the stage on a large silver skull, was all sugar and spice, giggles and sass - she may as well have floated in, such was the air of expectancy and sheer queeny delight pouring from the 3,000-or-so gays that packed into the theater. Some women were in the audience, too - but this was a boys' affair. And homegirl knew it - one set featured her male dancers in a piquant locker room video that had all the fixins: speedos, showers and bulges of all sorts. Thanks, K!

With a nod to old Hollywood and showgirls of yore, Kylie's show covered the essential basics of her song catalogue (yes! the Locomotion, wooo!) and she introduced a new song, Better than Today, which will appear on her upcoming album. Yours truly, as I mentioned last night via Twitter, queened out like I never had (at least in the past week)when she sang In My Arms, which is one of my favorite songs ever.

What a fabulous time it was, and can be for you, too...if you're in town, Kylie is playing tonight and tomorrow. Tix here.

Is the National Equality March Worth a Trip to DC?

By now it seems silly to think that issues gay are, well, issues at all. If you live in a Bravo TV bubble like me and spend most of your day surrounded by svelte men in designer denim you'd furrow your brow in puzzlement at the thought of driving down to our nation's capital for a weekend to demand your rights. You'd ask What are we demanding? When do we want it? What does one wear for a rally?

Some people, however, don't live in a haze of indolence.

When a community is oppressed,the response to bigotry through the ages has been thus: some people will advocate for a no-sudden movements approach, hoping that gradual assimilation will sway hearts and minds, while others will want to seize the gilded gates of power, shake the powers-that-be by the lapels, and demand reparations for egregious wrongs. What everyone wants, however, is for the Red Sea to part and for the down-trodden to be delivered.

This weekend, hundreds of thousands of people will descend on Washington with such a hope as they gather for the National Equality March , a call to action by Equality Across America, "a network of decentralized organizers in every one of the 435 Congressional districts. These organizers form Congressional District Action Teams (CDATs) that will do the work on the ground in their own communities to achieve full equality." They're demanding full equality for the LGBT community, from the right to marriage to workplace protection, and they want it now.

Bravo!

President Obama (who can now add Nobel laureate to his distinguished resume) will address high-faluttin' gays and their sure-to-be-well-coiffed fruit flies tomorrow at an HRC dinner in Washington to lend his support for Sunday's march. While the President hasn't been parting seas for gay rights as much as skipping toward the water and then scurrying back everytime his toes get cold, it's a nice gesture.

And that's how one could dismiss this weekend's march. While I do love a parade and the spectacle of costumes and forgotten disco legends, to march aimlessly on Washington for a poorly publicized effort (I'd heard about the march earlier this year but didn't think it would really happen) seems counter-productive. At the same time, if the march is happening, and no one shows, isn't it my responsibility as an informed and concerned gay man to go? I'd almost hazard the trip but I'm traveling to LA for work this weekend. HONEST!

Elder statesman and gay patriarch Barney Frank has called the march "useless." Calling instead for the mobilization of gay activists to educate their local representatives on the importance of their issues, Frank, in an interview with the Washington Post, asked the gays to choose their battles: "'We don't have the votes to [repeal] DOMA,' he said, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law explicitly stipulating that marriage is between a man and a woman. 'We do have the votes to pass hate crimes, the employment non-discrimination acts and get domestic-partner benefits for federal employees. To divert energy for that, to a bill we have no possibility of passage, doesn't sound smart to me.'"

The time for action, when faced with injustice, has always been now. A group can't idle in the petty allowances made by politicians who have no right to dictate who is more American and more entitled to the rights of citizenship. With our right to existence on the balance, with our legitimacy of our citizenship the subject of debate and when lies are being spread about our community's alleged attempt to rob America's children, it is time to seize the capital and (politely) shake some sense into our leaders. This should be a non-issue but too many people on the right are making careers out of keeping the gays down. It has to stop. Now.

FARC Supporter on Short List for Nobel Prize

Via Bloomberg: "Colombia Senator Piedad Cordoba and Afghanistan’s Sima Samar, two women promoting peace and human rights in conflict zones, are among the top contenders for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo said [...]Colombia Senator Piedad Cordoba and Afghanistan’s Sima Samar, two women promoting peace and human rights in conflict zones, are among the top contenders for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo said."

Let me tell you something about Piedad Cordoba's attempts at promoting peace. In 2008, when millions of Colombians within the country and around the world rallied to decry the abuses of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), Cordoba took to the airwaves from a remote jungle location to dismiss the effort as another display of elitism and classism.

When she's not arm in arm with Hugo Chavez, who is amassing missiles so he can point them at her own country, she's gallivanting with the Castro brothers, singing the praises of socialism.

This woman has turned a blind eye to the countless kidnappings, bombings and other abuses perpetrated by the FARC. Her complicity with the group's leaders - men who are the new face of the country's drug trafficking industry, I might add - makes her worthy of handcuffs, not the same award that has been given to the likes of Martin Luther King and Jimmy Carter.

The ignorance behind the committee's support for Cordoba's nomination and their lack of understanding about the role Cordoba has played in legitimizing the terrorist activities of the FARC is disheartening and infuriating.

Supreme Court is Back in Session: Let's Talk About Guns on Amtrak, Shall We?

From Reuters: "The U.S. Supreme Court will again consider gun rights and decide an important case that could loosen restrictions on corporation spending in political campaigns in its new term beginning on Monday."

Now that the fearmongering behind Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court has abated it's time for liberals and other concerned citizens to voice a resonding "no" to a measure passed by the Senate last month which would allow people to bring firearms on board Amtrak trains.

The proposal, which was introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss, aims to redress the unfairness of a legal system that penalizes hunters in this post-9-11 world. From a release issued by the senator in April and quoted in Salon.com: "under current Amtrak policy, a lawful citizen who wants to take the train for a hunting trip could not because they are prohibited from storing a gun in any checked luggage.”

Um, how about letting GCL bring his colonge, moisturizer and a bottle of water on an airplane? While crazy-McCrazy Roger Wicker is advocating for the rights of blood-thirsty, flannel-clad rednecks, who the hell is looking out for the millions of barefoot Americans who brave swine flu, foot fungus and surly TSA staff at our nation's airports? When did the national security debate swing from water bottles on airplanes to guns on trains?

Senator Wicker embodies the short-sightedness and insensitivity that are pandemic in the Republican party. The same party that rails against the president for his alleged trespasses on national security has once again turned a blind eye to the all-too-common occurrences of public violence in our country to introduce a pointless and certainly lethal bill before the Senate.

When it comes the Second Ammendment and the right to protect ourselves from a foreign army I ask: how many guns prevented 9/11? A shotgun by the bed is one's right - I guess, especially if you live in the boonies - but guns on trains? In classrooms? Are we a nation or the Michigan Militia?

Perfect Weekend for a Birthday and a Wedding

...or a wedding and a birthday, depending on how self-centered one chooses to be.

I entered my 29th year of life with a margarita in one hand and my too-handsome boyfriend on the other. We were celebrating the marriage of our dear friends (and new neighbors) Anne and Kevin. It was a proper New England affair, from the chowder to the chilly sea air and creaky floor boards of our colonial inn, and the festivities distracted me from the fact that I have now begun the last 12 months of the number 2 prefix in my age.


But back to the newlyweds...

World Savers Unite

It's a pretty lofty (self-congratulatory?) name for a conference, but the World Savers Congress, hosted by Conde Nast Traveler Magazine yesterday, underscored the point that the tourism industry has tremendous potential to effect positive social change. From green operations to promoting fair compensation and education for workers and their families - your next vacation, if you do your research, could have a huge impact on our planet.

Have you ever heard GCL get this preachy?

There were some great speakers at yesterday's conference - including Wyclef Jean who spoke lovingly and optimistically of his native Haiti, and Mandy Moore (I know, wtf, right?) who is now covering Sudan in mosquito nets with Five & Alive, an organization that aims to stem the deaths of children in the developing world from preventable diseases, including malaria. All of them touted the same message: the billions of dollars generated by tourism, as well as the immeasurable good will that's sparked in someone's heart when they go somewhere new and are given an opportunity to help preserve the site they've visited, are a formidable force against the trend of poverty, disease and even conflict.

I loved the example shared by the CEO of Gap Adventures, an adventure tour operator, who said that travelers who had been to Peru with his company raised over $100,000 in a matter of days back in 2007 when an earthquake hit the country. Then there was a sobering message from Accor Hotel group, which owns thousands of properties around the world, about the AIDS epidemic. The hotel is taking prostitution head on, providing condoms and information on safer sex in all of its rooms - it's aggressive, forward-thinking and much needed.

One point that was made yesterday and hit home with me was "if you don't go you don't know." I got to thinking about how lucky I had been as a child to go to places like Colombia and Venezuela to see what poverty looked like - to come away from those trips smarter, more grateful and more informed has had a profound impact on me. I remember meeting people who couldn't read and people who lived without running water - I lived among them for a while, at age ten, no less. My mom not the least bit worried about my safety, she just thought it was brilliant that I was seeing how good I had it back in the U.S. I would say those trips helped shape the way I see the world, and I'm all the better for it. I went, therefore I know.

On Juanes' "Peace Without Borders" Concert

I'm watching Univision's live webcast of Colombian singer Juanes' "Paz Sin Fronteras" (Peace W/Out Borders) concert in Havana and it's easy to forget, listening to acts like merenguera Olga Tañon singing about bad boys and dark-skinned hotties, that this is a major (x a million) event in Latin American politics. A free outdoor concert is a common occurrence anywhere in the world, but when the image of Che Guevara looms large in the background, the stakes are higher and everybody has to make their opinion heard.

More often than not, I find the Cuban exile community to be a little, um, militaristic and self-righteous. A lot of people in Miami are making a public spectacle of trashing Juanes' CDs and calling for a boycott of anything associated with the singer. And my response to that is really? Come on guys, we all know embargoes don't work. I'm no fan of Castro, but fifty years of towing the hardline of starving Cuba into democracy hasn't worked. Isn't it time to change our approach?

In the meantime, I do love The Simpsons rendering of Juanes as a Pied Piper of socialism.
Image: Adventures of the Coconut Caucus

I want to know where these exiles were when the U.S. was only too happy to play along with China's hosting of the 2008 Olympics? It was communism's greatest feat - having the world bow down before China, worshipping Chairman Mao's vision at the Bird's Nest stadium -- the whole world watched the opening ceremonies in awe and here we are, a year later, in debt to China, but anti-communist Cubans are in a nit over a concert. Como que les falta perspectiva, no? Perspective, people. Please.

Juanes lends a much-needed legitimacy to this latest attempt at dialogue with Cuba. As a Colombian, as someone who has seen the devastation that a socialist revolution can cause, as someone whose country is being threatened by a socialist agitator nation (that would be Venezuela), Juanes lends a spirit of compassion, understanding and forward-thinking that is sorely needed in this debate. If Juanes can extend an olive branch to Cuba, a country that is regarded by Colombia's leftist insurgents as a beacon of what government should look like, then maybe the U.S., which is not the least bit threatened by Cuba at this point, can cut the crap and help the country embrace democracy?

Well done, Juanes. And if Miami gets too hot for you, eff the haters and move to NYC.

Big Day for NY Dems and for GCL

Today's a big day for NY dems: it's primaries and everything from the district attorney's post to the party's nomination for Mayor are up for grabs. As for me, Im in a car hurdling toward JFK for a conflagration of client events. There are mayors, helicopters, nobility and pinstripes. And yes, reporters. I should be a free man by noon, but in the meantime, competing with Obama, the UN and these pesky elections has me sweating in my starched white shirt as I think about how to make these events matter to news outlets that purportedly have 24 hours of programming to fill. Doesn't NY1 care about my ensemble today?

Seeing as We Need More Out, Proud Latinos...

...I'm happy to stand beside Perez Hilton as a trash-talking, high-profile, gay Latino.

According to CNN, gay Latinos are coming of age - there aren't that many of us to talk about besides Perez Hilton, but we're out there. And while deeply seeded notions of masculinity and homophobia still exist in our community, our home countries are one step ahead of the U.S. when it comes to gay rights - "Uruguay, Colombia and Mexico have passed laws granting rights and protections to gays and lesbians."

I've always felt that the Latino community has a love/hate relationship with homosexuality. Yes, it's derided in the church, but popular culture - from daytime talk shows to our telenovelas and our literature, are all laden with strong gay characters. From cross-dressers to fashionistas (after all, Latin America's biggest export is beauty queens - who do you think gets those girls show-ready?), Latinos here in the U.S. and back in our home countries are not immune to things gay - and guess what? They love it.

Of course, I'm writing about how fun it is to be gay and Latino from the perspective of a college-educated man with a white-collar job. I've been fortunate enough to create a community for myself and live the life I want with the man I want, out of the closet and with as much denim and leather as I like. But I do remember how frightening it was to come out of the closet, how horribly embarassed I felt for myself and my parents to confirm the rumors that I was a "pato" - Puerto Rican slang for gay - an insult that first came my way from a kindergarten teacher who thought I was too swishy.

When I think about the role of the church in some Latino communities, I think it's a blessing and a curse for gay teens to be around pious people who make no qualms about condemning gays. I was lucky enough to take the best parts of my Christian upbringing to build a life for myself, but I can see how the same messages that empowered me can devastate someone, sap their will to forge ahead, and ultimately render them another sad statistic.

But this was supposed to be a happy post. I do think things are changing, for the better, for gay Latinos. We just need more of them out there...soooo, maybe I should get a show on CNN? Just axin'..

Are We Done Being Scared of Healthcare Reform Yet?

It all came down to a speech.

In forty-five minutes, President Obama made a clear and logical case for healthcare reform. I was sold on the new plan when the president said that this effort would cost $900 billion - less than the war in Iraq - and would be paid for with money that's already being spent on a flawed system. In short, everyone gets basic healthcare and then additional care, with controls to ensure that rates remain competitive and citizens don't go broke to pay for medical care. No death panels, no dipping into medicare or social security to pay for it, no adding to our deficit, no coverage for illegal immigrants (I have a problem with that last part but I'll talk about that in another post).

Twice he cited the efforts of his former opponent and senate colleague John McCain in the area of healthcare reform; he invoked the late Ted Kennedy, asking us all to look beyond party lines and address a fundamental flaw in our nation's character that allows our least fortunate citizens to die of preventable or treatable illnesses because they can't afford care. The president asked us to stop the same quibbling that stalled social security during the Roosevelt administration and medicare in the 60s. We're on the cusp of much-needed and rather painless change - why, he asked without asking, are we addressing rumors and lies when we have the resources to fix a problem that can eventually save us money? If the dying people angle doesn't move you how does a $4 trillion reduction to our deficit sound?

To some people, specifically the long-faced, immovable republican block who scowled throughout most of the president's address, healthcare reform smacks of socialism. To those people, I would say that healthcare is as much of a national security issue as the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it's an issue that does require government oversight - when the markets imploded last year (a year to the day, actually) it was the government that eventually had to sweep in with a bail-out that has spiraled from an initial $700 billion loan to something in the trillions. Why, then, can't we safeguard the idea that everyone deserves access to basic medical care and that insurance companies should compete for consumers' business?

The democrats have a small window of time to push this bill through the House and on to the Senate. Next year is an election year and there are some on-the-fence dems who fear losing the support of ther conservative base. The White House needs to help these lawmakers make the case to their constituents that this plan is what's best for them and the country. This could very well be the issue that shakes up the balance of power in both houses of government, as New York magazine's Michael Tomasky pointed out this week. I doubt that will happen, I remain optimistic about the future of this plan.

The Dems Haven't Sold Us on Healthcare

President Obama is taking to the airwaves tonight to make a case for healthcare reform. The question that looms large and isn't being talked about is this: Should taxpayers really have to pay for everyone else's healthcare?

It's a tough question but I wonder: if we already have Medicaid and people can sign up for programs like Health Plus, why do over 45 million people in America still go without access to basic medical care? And is the solution to this problem really government oversight? The same government that signed off on legislation that gave everyone with a dollar and a dream a home they couldn't afford now wants to control billions of dollars of taxpayer money to dictate which doctors we can go to. That doesn't sit well with me.

CNN posits a frightening scenario: "the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction."

President Obama, in an opinion piece that ran in the New York Times last month, said his plan will give Americans "a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job...reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable."

That sounds great, but at what cost? Are we all going to be lumped into the same category to pay for care and services we don't use? Our neighbors up north are happy with that arrangement - except when they're not - and other countries' similarly libertine health spending are breeding lazy dependants of the state.

These are the issues the Democrats have to address if they're going to sell Americans on healthcare reform. We have to position reform as cost-effective and break it down in dollars and cents so the average American can understand exactly how much this new system is going to cost. In the meantime, we're getting nothing but bogus and convincing figures from both sides of this debate.

Spare the Children from Obama's "Indoctrination" - We'll Pay for it Later

And now he wants to talk to the children.

Conservatives have been in a tizzy over the past few days because of President Obama's decision to address schoolchildren in a live, televised address today.

"Indoctrination!" "It's not the speech it's the subtext!" "Homeschool your children!" "I'm afraid for this country!"

These are the cries from the far right's minions who will come up with any excuse to thwart the Obama administration. And as the crowds grow ever more vociferous in their indignation and fear of big government (ahem, Patriot Act anyone?), I just want to put this thought out there: Fine, leave your kids at home, don't let them develop critical thinking skills, let's put out another generation of stupid kids who can't even tie their shoelaces unless mommy and daddy are hovering nearby. Wanna know what that kid is going to be like at 25? Popping out kid number 3, recovering from some form of addiction, and with a penchant for fire or firearms. Or both.

Some parents aren't sending their kids to school today, some parents want to be in the classroom to watch the President's address; some parents, if you ask me, shouldn't be parents in the first place. But that's for another blog post.

Here's a link to the much-ballyhooed speech direct from the White House (via Twitter!).

"[...]we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself."

As you can see, it's some pretty incendiary stuff. Especially the part about personal accountability and respecting adults.

What the right is really doing is re-directing our attention from the most pressing issues facing our country: job scarcity, the need for healthcare reform, two wars and the one-year anniversary of the implosion of our economic system. How does a simple, welcome-back-to-school-now-hit-the-books pep talk from our Commader in Chief rank against the mammoth agenda of repairing our nation?

The right should know when to pick its battles. On this issue, they've only made a mockery of themselves.

**Image: Leo Alberti via Michelle Malkin