FreeThinker

I recently wrote an abuse scene that disturbed me, as well as my editor. it will not see the light of day. It is hard for me to write suspenseful scenes or create despicable characters. i can't write a tragic ending for a story. I try to write these things, but they just don't come off right. I have trouble writing about injustice. I want to end it right then and there, and its hard for me to drag it out for several chapters, waiting for the wrong to be righted.

Addym-- I was an early member of Awesome Dude when it first started and then disappeared for a few years before coming back in the summer in 2012. When I returned, I was a bit thin skinned and on my first weekend back, I blew up online about something that doesn't matter now and caused quite a kerfuffle. I have since, I hope, learned to let things roll off my back and understand that sometimes I and others write things that are occasionally misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have found the members of Awesome Dude to be some of the nicest and most understanding guys on any board I have ever visited. Some of the closest friends I have on the Internet are on this board. The article on Salon which I linked was just something I thought had some interesting comments. Perhaps we have all gotten off on the wrong foot. I've read your profile and you seem like a fascinating person. I would like to read some of your work and I have no doubt that you could make a great contribution to the Awesome Dude community. Don't take anything in this thread personally. I would suggest perhaps posting about something interesting you've read and commenting on it. I am sure you will find us to be eager to discuss it and to share our views with you. As a fifty-six year-old who also enjoys science fiction, as well as several other genres, I think you will find we and other members of the board have a lot in common. Part of the backstory to this thread was another thread in which we were debating whether or not to see the Ender's Game movie in that we all seem to have strong opinions about Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuality and what some see as homoerotic themes within his writing. This has been a subject of great debate on the board for quite a while. if there are other books you enjoy or work involving the GLBT community, please share your views with us. I'm sure we would all like to read them and discuss them.

I'm so jealous!!!! At this very moment, as I write this post, it's 2:45 in the afternoon in the middle of America, but it's 8:45 in the UK and Dr. Who is kissing Queen Elizabeth (according to the live blog on The Guardian site) and I can't watch it! BAH. The BBC is showing the 50th Anniversary episode and I am sure all good British Awesome Dudes are glued to the telly. I am reduced to reading the live blog on The Guardian and reading the snarky comments of their readers. I want to watch it!!!!!!!!!! I love Matt Smith and David Tennant, but my favorite was Tom Baker. Unfortunately, those are the only three Time Lords I've seen-- oh I did see one episode decades ago with the guy who played Tristan on All Things Great and Small. I expect a complete report from across the pond on EVERYTHING that happened! God Save the Queen.

Beautiful and moving. Maybe there's hope for this generation of kids.

The Conservatives in Parliament have made mandatory, effective next year, a porn filter on all ISP accounts that defaults to the Opt-In and if one wishes to view naughty things, one has to actually ask the ISP to opt-out. David Cameron says this is to protect the children. Bullshit. This is a perfect example of typical right-wing hypocrisy, declaring they don't like the nanny-state and then turning around like good nannies and telling us what we can and cannot do. If the British public does not demand an end to this hypocrisy and stupidity, how long will it be before the Republicans in the US decide that they can follow Cameron's lead and be hypocritical on yet another point? Why should I have to have my ISP's permission to do anything? And where will it stop? If the government can institute this on porn, what's next? What else will the government decide for us is not good for us? Or how will they abridge free speech even further? Britain doesn't have the protections on Free Speech the US has, but the First Amendment won't stop the next Republican administration, particularly if they can put a clear Republican majority on the supposedly non-partisan Supreme Court. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/23/britain-s-idiotic-opt-in-porn-ban.html

Here's a rather elfin young dancer from American Ballet Theater whom I offer as inspiration for a story written under the influence of this magical Middle Earth wine, perhaps including dancing sprites and leaping lizards. (oh, that was Little Orphan Annie. I'm mixing my metaphors and allusions--and maybe illusions). I think I'll quit before someone wonders if I've been tasting a bit of the vino myself!

I remember that Twilight Zone episode! I think the historian was actually a descendant of JFK. He was playing with the 50 cent piece on Air Force One and one of the Secret Service agents saw it. That was a good episode. I once found a great book, Alternate Presidents, which is a collection of short stories in which the losers of Presidential elections or other people win their elections and what happens as a result. It was fun. This is a link to the Wikipedia review of it.

I am aware of the National Security memo, though I am also aware that Bobby was more hawkish at that time than the President and that a number of events in Vietnam in '64 would probably have persuaded JFK to continue the escalation. A bio of JFK which recently ran on PBS on American Experience describes JFK's belief in confronting Communism with small, regional conflicts instead of large-scale confrontations ala the Cuban Missile Crisis. They played a tape recording of JFK dictating his memoirs to Mrs. Lincoln in which he admits to ordering the assassination of Diem, but regretting how "messy" it was. It is interesting that several tapes have been released by the National Archives of telephone conversations between LBJ and several Senate leaders, all of whom were southerners filibustering the Civil Rights Act in the spring and summer of 1964, but also expressing skepticism of expanding the war, including Richard Russell of Georgia, who was quite emphatic in opposing escalation, but agreeing with Johnson that there didn't seem to be an alternative that let the US save face before the Communists. I think the idea of Kennedy withdrawing is more the wishful thinking of the left, inspired by the myth of Camelot and hatred of LBJ. Jeff Greenfield, a CBS News commentator for years and a speechwriter for Bobby in '68, has written an alternative history in which Kennedy lives. Once again, more of a liberal example of wishful thinking, but he does make some compelling arguments for a view of what might have happened. He, too, thinks JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam and that the counter-cultural left would not have formed. He also mentions the campaign finance scandals around LBJ, which Life magazine chose not to pursue after JFK's death, which would have surfaced if he had lived, resulting in Johnson's resignation as VP. Another documentary about JFK on the History channel several years ago, back when it's programming was still about history and not about 'gator wrasslin' and redneck pawn brokers, suggested that Kennedy's health issues--as well as the use of painkillers and stimulants and his womanizing-- would have come out during his second term and that the health issues might have resulted in his death during the second term. Of course, the History channel's always been more appealing to conservatives than PBS, so their interpretation might be suspect. Here's a link to the article about Greenfield's book. I plan to read the book. I love stuff like that! http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/19/21523433-what-if-jfk-had-lived-book-reimagines-a-presidency-a-war-and-the-60s?lite

I think Pecman makes a good point about the drastic difference in thinking between 1963 and 2013, the innocence of that period and the cynicism of today. And, I think Chris James makes a very good point that had Kennedy lived, we would have a completely different perception of him. He would have continued the war in Vietnam and probably escalated it. I wrote a paper in college about Kennedy's foreign policy and one of my sources was Cold War and Counter-revolution, by Richard Walton, in which describes how much more of a hawk and anti-communist JFK was in the 1960 campaign than Nixon. He also believed in the domino theory. His father's foreign policy was quite conservative as Ambassador to the UK and later. Joseph Kennedy, in fact, was a friend of Joe McCarthy, who was actually Robert Kennedy's godfather and hired Bobby to join his staff. I suggest Bobby's later opposition to the war in Vietnam was inspired more by his loathing of Lyndon Johnson than by his idealism, as witnessed by the fact that he didn't enter the 1968 Presidential race until after Eugene McCarthy's strong showing in the New Hampshire primary. The doves had begged Bobby to run and he had refused until Eugene McCarthy, (no relation to Joe McCarthy), had done the hard work and demonstrated Johnson's weakness. And, we should remember it was Johnson who pushed through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Equal Housing Acts after JFK had vacillated on the civil rights issue, fearful of losing the south in 1964 and not speaking out on the issue until after the outrages of Birmingham. This is not to say the JFK wasn't a good President and a great man. He was inspiring and brilliant and he saved the world from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis by persevering over the fascist General Curtis LeMay, who was demanding an all-out attack. For that alone, we should honor Kennedy. He was an inspiring President, but had he lived, we probably wouldn't revere him to the extent we do. Was the assassination the defining event of the sixties? Yes. Was it the event that disillusioned young people in America and around the world? Yes. Was Kennedy an inspirational leader? Yes. Very much so.

On Friday, November 22, 2013, we will have a rare, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to witness history in a way that is quite rare. Beginning at 12:40 pm US CST, (1840 GMT) CBS News will begin streaming their coverage of the assassination of President John F, Kennedy-- the ENTIRE four days of nonstop coverage, as it happened at the same times as it happened, beginning with their cut-away from the soap opera As The World Turns and proceeding on through to the shooting of Oswald live on TV Sunday morning, to the President's funeral Monday. This is a truly amazing opportunity to experience history, to travel back to Friday November 22, 1963, to see how television news was handled fifty years ago and to see, as it happened, one of the three truly momentous events of my lifetime (the others being the landing of men on the moon in 1969 and the attacks of 9/11). For those who were not alive then, this is an incredible opportunity to witness history as it was happening and to see what television was like in the era of black-and-white, to witness the event that convinced the networks to start taking news seriously. Walter Cronkite would later say that everything they knew about covering great events they learned, they invented that weekend. An interesting anecdote about that day-- CBS at that time did not have an actual studio for the news in 1963. They simply rolled a camera into the newsroom and set it in front of Walter Cronkite's desk for their usual evening broadcast. When the first flash of a shooting in downtown Dallas came over the UPI wire, there was no television camera for Cronkite and he had to go into the CBS radio booth for the first twenty minutes of his broadcast over the TV network while the control room simply showed a graphic on the screens reading "CBS News Bulletin." At that time, they had to wheel a giant, cumbersome camera in from another studio and then it took twenty minutes for the vacuum tubes in the camera to warm up before they could use it. It was not until after 1:00 CST before they could actually show something other than the CBS News graphic. It is amazing in this day of ubiquitous webcams and instant communication through multiple media that such was the case back then. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57612192/cbsnews.com-to-stream-1963-broadcast-coverage-of-jfk-assassination/ A personal anecdote-- I was six years-old at the time and lived in Ft. Worth, Texas. I was privileged to see President Kennedy the night before he died when my parents took me downtown to see the President and the First Lady at the Texas Hotel. The following afternoon, I was in my Kindergarten class at South Hills Elementary School, when we were all lying on our little rugs on the floor taking a nap as my teacher, Mrs. Cox, entered the classroom with moist eyes and struggling not to cry to announce the President's death. After school, I walked home and found my mother crying before the television set in the living room, which frightened me terribly. She served me a dish of Neapolitan ice cream to make me feel better.

When checking Writers Digest about the "snuck v sneaked" conundrum, I noticed a link regarding the rule of "a" before consonants and "an" before vowels. WD says the rule refers to pronunciation. Since the "h" in "hour" is silent, one would still write "an hour." Similarly, I would write "a history." However, I feel uncomfortable saying "A historical," even though the "h" is not silent. I feel more comfortable saying "an historical..." Am I wrong? (I frequently am.) Thoughts?

I've been accused of having a stick up my ass when it comes to tradition and rules, but I am genuinely wondering about this particular issue. I've read an article in Writers Digest about this point and I am almost converted. I catch myself all the time using "snuck" in conversation, but when writing, I always stop and feel guilty using it instead of "sneaked." I know Shakespeare took wild and entertaining liberties with English and of course there is the famous video of Stephen Fry telling us language-Nazis to get over ourselves, but what is the Awesome Dude consensus on the battle of Snuck v. Sneaked? I noticed just now as I typed this that the Chrome-spell-checker doesn't like it. What about y'all?

Check out the new Awesome Dude Radio. Mike has just upgraded to a new system and it has twice the quality sound at the same bandwidth. Amazing sound, amazing music. A good eclectic mix of hits from the last fifty years with some great tunes you might never have heard. Check it out. He's put a lot of work into this!

I saw this report this morning on Good Morning America and if it doesn't put a lump in your throat, you're dead.How wonderful that so many people would go to all this trouble to make this little boy's dream come true! Miles is a very lucky little boy. http://abcnews.go.com/US/batkids-make-transforming-san-francisco-gotham/story?id=20899254 http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/11/watch-make-wish-turn-san-francisco-batkids-gotham-city/71657/

An interesting commentary on the real meaning of Ender's Game from someone who actually liked the book when it came out. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/30/the_twisted_mind_of_enders_game/

A severe storm with hurricane force winds and torrential rain is to hit southern Britain within a few hours. It is the worst storm to hit the area in decades and will disrupt air, rail, and highway transport in and out of London and may fell millions of trees. The last such storm, in 1987, killed 18 and felled 15 million trees. It has been dubbed the St. Jude Storm, after the patron saint of lost causes, whose feast day is celebrated on Monday. Let's hope this isn't a lost cause! Let us all wish our British friends the best of luck during this emergency. Our thoughts are with you! http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/27/21196097-hurricane-force-st-jude-storm-to-hit-britain-at-rush-hour-forecasters-warn?lite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690552

I've not seen the movie or read the book, but I am curious if this might have been "inspired" by The History Boys (which I absolutely adored)?

Stepford fags! I love it! LOL. Good one, James.

Well this didn't generate the discussion I was hoping for. Perhaps my post was a bit too tongue-in-cheek, but it is a topic that interests me. We as a society--or at least most of us, those of us who don't believe the President was born in Kenya-- don't tolerate stereotypes of women, African-Americans, Latino Americans, or religious minorities. However, the media seems replete with gay male stereotypes, and gay men don't seem to be too bothered by this. Is it because this particular stereotype actually represents a large segment of the gay male population? I doubt it. When I used to frequent the bars, a large segment of the patrons certainly did adhere to the stereotype, but most didn't. I think there is a significant portion of the gay male population that does not participate in "gay" activities--going to bars, volunteering at HIV clinics or at the community center, participating in political activities, etc and they probably lead perfectly "normal" lives in which one would never have a reason to assume they are gay. So, I wonder why we are so blase about the prevalence of the stereotype on television and in movies. I'm not irritated by the swishing, etc.and its not my internalized homophobia. As I joked in my original post, I exhibit several of the stereotypically gay attributes. What I wonder is why we don't see more gay men portrayed in ways that don't conform to the stereotype and why gay men do not complain about this more, rather than praise those programs and movies that portray them.

I suppose I'm probably one of the few non-Republicans in America who doesn't like Modern Family. I had never seen the program until ABC released it into syndication and it is now on two-thirds of the 535 channels on my cable system. Its not on the Home and Garden channel and it might not be on AL Jezeera America, but I don't know since my cable system is flag-waving and God-fearing and thus doesn't show Al Jazeera. However, I have now seen it and I am not happy, which is probably no surprise to anyone who reads my righteously indignant rants. Just once, just once, could we have a gay man on television who doesn't swish, who doesn't speak with a flamboyant style, and doesn't like Broadway musicals? Now, I know that I just described myself, but I don't want to watch myself on television. Yes, I swish, yes I am flamboyant, and yes I love Broadway musicals, but just as there are African-Americans who like fried chicken and watermelon, we don't see every black person on television eating fried chicken and watermelon. I'm sure there are some Jews in America who aren't doctors or lawyers and aren't outrageously frugal and fortunately television doesn't stereotype them that way anymore. Why does the gay community still accept these stereotypes on television and in movies, even applauding the shows that display them? As one can see just from Awesome Dude, we're not all Jack from Will and Grace, we're not all Mitchell and Cam. Please! Can I see a hot, sexy queer man with big pecs and awesome arms? Can I see an insurance salesman with a beer gut who likes guys? How about anyone who isn't a limp-wristed, flamboyant queen? I'm not prejudiced against limp-wristed, flamboyant queens. Some of my best friends are limp-wristed, flamboyant queens. Hell, I'm a limp-wristed, flamboyant queen! But does every gay character on television have to be portrayed as such? Okay. I'm done. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to a web site now for gay men who adore Les Mis and try to find a new boyfriend.

Don't worry, Graeme! It's still yesterday in America! (Oh, wow. Maybe that's a good metaphor!).

This is seriously cool. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/leonardo-da-vinci-mural-sforza-castle-restoration_n_4157965.html

Happy Birthday to Mike!

There once were two Canadian teams in Major League Baseball, the Montreal Expos and the Toronto Blue Jays. The Blue Jays actually won the World Series and are the only non-American team to do so, coincidentally on THIS day in 1992. The Expos, named after the Montreal World's Fair Expo '67 eventually moved to Washington and became the Nationals. But I take your point. Baseball is enormously popular in Japan, South Korea, Cuba, and many Latin American countries. A true World Series should include the champion teams from those countries as well, as the Little League World Series does. Also, you asked about Hockey. The National Hockey league consists of both American and Canadian teams, though hockey is almost a religion in Canada, It's popular in America, but not manically so and ranks behind American football, baseball and basketball in popularity.

Perhaps that would be called "striped dick" as opposed to "spotted dick," the world-famous English pudding. I've always thought the English were a bit--shall we say-- unusual in certain ways.