Hope

Looks like we have made a pretty big breakthrough on the road to a cure for HIV:

The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell, according to the study published in Science magazine. The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, the authors warned, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.

* * *

The researchers engineered an enzyme called Tre which removes the virus from the genome of infected cells by recognizing and then recombining the structure of the virus’s DNA.

I'm not even going to make a snarky comment about government funding (the scientists were German anyway).

"Gay Pioneers"

My firm's diversity committee sponsored a screening of the short (30 Min) documentary "Gay Pioneers." I went, though I was dreading it. I worried that this film would be the "woe-is-us, we're all victims" whine fest that I despise. I was quite pleasantly surprised. The film was all about the first (pre-stonewall) demonstrations for equal rights for gays and lesbians. The tone of the film was the much more optimistic "we've come such a long way (even if we still have a long way to go)" message that I and I think straight people can better relate to. I actually recommend it highly.

One thing that struck me: in the first Mattachine demonstrations (1965-1968) they had a strict code of dress and conduct. At the time they were fighting the misconception that gays were only a bunch of weirdo queens. Instead men had to wear suits; women had to wear dresses. They had to lower their signs when they played patriotic songs. They had to be respectful but firm. The message they wanted to convey was "we are upstanding citizens just like you." Contrast that with Pride today.

What does this say about us? It could go either way. On the one hand you might say our pride events that resemble gay Mardi Gras are doing nothing more than perpetuate the stereotype that we are weirdos. On the other, you might say, how great it is that we can be so visible, campy, and celebrate our differences without the (great) fear of people throwing stones at us. One could argue that the pride events of today have lost the message in favor of a week long party. Others might argue that Pride is more of a celebration of who we are than it is about gaining recognition, so a party is appropriate.

Not sure yet where I fall. I did enjoy my first "out" Pride this summer. But I do understand the importance of demonstrating that gays are just like ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, coming out of the closet is all about being honest instead of conforming to the requirements of society. These Pioneers in the 60s paved the way for social change that ALLOWS us take a weekend, week, or even whole month in most major cities to celebrate our progress and work towards even more. Then back on the first hand, I know that lots of people look at Pride as a prime example of the "decadence and immorality" of our community, making progress even harder. I don't have an answer here, and I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Dead

Good.


Dead-of-the-night backroom type legislation is almost always the worst of both worlds (if you are liberal you might point to the Patriot Act; if you are conservative you might point to Sarbanes-Oxley). Now, it's time to start thinking critically about this issue and go about reform the proper way: transparently, slowly, and with full debate.

Idiot Update

As something of a public service: go here to read about sun exposure. It gives information without the doom and gloom of most skin cancer/sunburn sites ("You had a sunburn one time? Better make out your will, NOW!").

As for me, the sunburn doesn't hurt much anymore. Instead I am now in the disgusting peeling stage. Below is a picture of what I look like right now:

I'll just think of it as a chemical peel.

Immigration cloture

Still not a fan of this immigration bill, for the same reasons as before. However, Stanley Kurtz at the Corner touched on something that I felt but never quite articulated (via GayPatriot) :

For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.

In response to Stanley Kurtz, Mark Stein writes:

There's something creepy about a political class so determined to impose a vast transformative bill cooked up backstage in metaphorically smoke-filled rooms on a nation that doesn't want it. It's an affront to republican government and quasi-European in its disdain for the citizenry.

This reminds me of something I read a while back. George Bush I famously didn't like broccoli (one of the things we agree on, he and I). When Clinton won in 1992, Hills made the comment "We bringing broccoli back to the White House." Commenting on that, someone (I can't remember who, so I cannot attribute it properly) noted that that nicely describes her politics: "I know you don't like it, but it's good for you, so eat it anyway." This immigration bill reveals that our senate seems to have largely adopted the broccoli model of politics, and I have to agree that it's one of the most offensive parts of the Bill. I've called my Senators. Have you?

More on Bong Hits

The following is edited from an email I sent to Paul at Right Side of the Rainbow in response to his post on the Morse v. Frederick (Bong Hits) case. I thought I'd share with you.

I will first admit that I have only just skimmed the Court's Opinion, though I have read more carefully Judge Kleinfeld's, now reversed, 9th Circuit Court decision, which I found quite illuminating. Kleinfeld carefully examines whether the Morse case most properly fits under Fraser (limiting offensive--as in lewd--speech), Kuhlmeier (granting schools the authority to limit speech that may be perceived as having the endorsement of the school), or Tinker (allowing students the right to free speech, so long as it did not cause disorder or interfere with the education of other students). Kleinfeld found that Frederick's sign at a privately sponsored event off school grounds would not be perceived as bearing the endorsement of the school, so Kuhlmeier did not apply. Secondly, the speech was not offensive in the sense of the lewd and suggestive remarks at issue in Fraser. Thus Kleinfeld determined that Tinker was controlling. Although the school board argued that the speech "undercut [its] critical mission of preventing use of drugs," Kleinfeld reasoned that a school may not censor speech "merely because the students advocate a position contrary to government policy."

Roberts quotes Tinker for the rule that "student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.'" This rule seems to focus on the disruptive, not the political nature or the substance, of the speech. Disagreement or a contrary viewpoint is not disruptive, nor was the delivery of the message (do we really think kids are going to start smoking pot because of the banner?). Indeed it could have been used as a teaching moment to further the mission of schools to educate students about illegal drug use better than a head-in-the-sand "no drugs here at all" attitude. The fact that the banner seems to advocate illegal activity is immaterial; no worse than a banner that said "Pirated Music 4 Jesus."

Regardless, Roberts distinguishes Tinker because the armbands protesting the war are more clearly political speech and thus get to the heart of First Amendment protections. (Query whether "Partial Birth Abortions 4 Jesus" would be allowed--much more clearly a political position a la the armbands in Tinker, but quite likely more "disrupt[ive] to the work and discipline of the school" than the bong hits sign). Making the inquiry whether the speech is clearly political creates a qualification on the first amendment not clearly drawn from the intent of the framers (Originalists my foot). What distinguishes political satire from speech advocating an illegal activity? These are not lines I am comfortable with the courts drawing. This decision is at best disappointing and at worst frightening.

The nightmare is over!

Thank Jesus, Allah and Science! The 23 day hostage crisis has finally come to a peaceful resolution: Paris Hilton has been freed! Not only is Paris free, but her grueling ordeal has helped her lose 10 pounds just in time for swimsuit season! It's a glorious day!

Now can we stop talking about her?