2022: The year of bad 'documentaries' (Ava and C.I.)

AMERICAN MASTERS, PBS's piss poor series.  

Facts don't matter on the program -- see, for example, "TV: American Forgers and Billie Jean Fraud," "TV: PBS' long con," "TV: American Liars," "TV: Exclusion empowered by The Water Cooler Set," etc. Talent or interest don't really matter either -- as AMERICAN MASTERS demonstrated as the year round down with Groucho and Cavett.  

Are you scratching your head?

You should be.  The focus of the 'documentary' was the alleged friendship between Groucho Marx and Dick Cavett.  Groucho is a legend, part of the Marx brothers who made many classic films (including our favorite DUCK SOUP, but we love them all including LOVE HAPPY) and who was popular as the host of the TV program YOU BET YOUR LIFE.  Dick Cavett was the host of numerous TV talk shows.

They weren't wonderful friends and it's not a good 'documentary.'  Now a good one could easily be made about Groucho himself.  And, truth be told, if you wanted to focus on all of Dick Cavett's inappropriate behavior (which is not limited to sneaking on stage in the middle of a concert to pinch Diana Ross' ass), you could have a riveting documentary about a man who was endlessly praised while repeatedly preying on women.

Instead, you get this garbage.  

And so much that poses as documentaries these days is garbage.  Is that to be the legacy of AMERICAN MASTERS?

Or maybe it will be the never-addressed sexism of the long running series.  The first 200 'documentaries'?  Only 30 focused or co-focused on women.  Only 30. 

Public Broadcasting thought that was appropriate.  Tax payer money funded that sexism -- and it's on going sexism.  Diana Ross can't get an episode nor can Patti Smith, the late Etta James, Carly Simon,  or . . . But Doc Severinsen can and, in fact, did?  

In 2022, we saw a few outlets up their coverage of women.  But it really wasn't women that mattered.

We took on one 'documentary' here about a woman whose art was overrated in real time and who should be forgotten.  That's part of the reason we loathed the broadcast.  Part.  Another?  Well when you're over fifty and you can't come out of the closet, that's sad.  But it's sad and dishonest for filmmakers telling your story to play along with your lie.  Everyone knows she's a lesbian and most thought she would come out in the 90s.  She never has.  How very sad.

Another bad 'documentary'?  SHOWTIME's NOTHING COMPARES.

The world needed that?

No.

It offered nothing new.

The world wanted it?

No.

She's a one hit wonder.  She had a hit with Prince's "Nothing Compares To You" -- a song that The Family did better before she recorded it and that Prince and Rosie Gaines did better after Sinead recorded it.

But then, when you can't sing, you can't sing.  When, to have a 'range,' you have to let your voice sound like you're stripping the gears on a standard-shift car, you don't have a range.

She also couldn't write songs which is why her only hit is "Nothing Compares To You."  In the US, she got a moderate success with that first album (it went gold).  That was only because she was being lumped into a group of women coming up who were doing actual amazing work.  For example?  Tracey Chapman.  Why is that we get these mediocrities like Sinead and others from SHOWTIME but no documentary on Tracey?  

Her second album went platinum.  And it was her last hit album.  Seven years later, the label was desperate to grab some money after O'Connor flopped with two albums in a row, SO FAR . . . THE BEST OF which only became her third flop in a row -- and we weren't even done with the 90s by that point.

Some might see her as a political figure and, if that had been what the documentary wanted to focus on, we would have just rolled out eyes.  But to present her as a musical artist when she's really nothing but a spectacle?  At a time when there are no SHOWTIME documentaries about Tracey Chapman, Natalie Merchant, Liz Phair, Tori Amos, Michelle Ngo, PJ Harvey .  .  .

 The point is truthful documentaries.  And when you're scraping the barrel with Sinead or Doc, no one's being served.  As various 'documentarians' look back on 2022, let's hope that they grasp that and will learn from it.

 

Hard Pass on one Best Acting Academy Award (Ava and C.I.)

Hugh Jackman is only the latest in a series of performers who want the Academy Awards to gender neutral when it comes to acting awards.  THE LOS ANGLES TIMES also joined the cry recently.  Ourselves?  We live in the real world.

 

 

"Maybe if we think, and wish, and hope, and pray it might come true," sang The Beach Boys in "Wouldn't It Be Nice."  And maybe if we deluded ourselves we could go along with this nonsense.  Yes, nonsense is what it is.

Marcia and Rebecca have already weighed in and we agree with them.  Marcia has noted that when the category for rock vocal at The Grammys went from Best Male Rock Vocal and Best Female Rock Vocal to just Best Rock Vocal was last combined (2005 through 2011), there were seven winners.  All of them were male.  During those 7 years, there were 35 nominees -- 33 were male (only two were female, for those who struggle with math).  Rebecca has noted that the Best Actress category sparks genuine interest each year (something that's harder and harder for the Academy to do) and it the most followed race.

Those two reasons are reason enough for say "no."

And, please note, we're fine with nominees designating which category they will appear in -- Best Actor or Best Actress.  

We're not okay with women being overlooked.

And that is what will happen.  Marcia used the Grammys to make that point.  But we're making it for a different reason: actors and actresses are judged differently.

A woman has to really act, show a real range of emotions, in order to win the award.  Gwyneth Paltrow being the exception but she was "Harvey's girl" and we all know that's why she won her Best Actress award for that flimsy performance.  

 

The norm?

Look at 1951.  The nominees for Best Actress were Katharine Hepburn (THE AFRICAN QUEEN), Vivien Leigh (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE), Eleanor Parker (DETECTIVE STORY), Shelley Winters (A PLACE IN THE SUN) and Jane Wyman (THE BLUE VEIL).  Each an amazing performance.  The winner was Vivien Leigh who delivered a multi-faceted performance with a wide range of emotions.  That same year, the Best Actor nominees were Humphrey Bogart (THE AFRICAN QUEEN), Marlon Brando (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE), Montgomery Clift (A PLACE IN THE SUN), Arthur Kennedy (BRIGHT VICTORY) and Fredric March (DEATH OF A SALESMAN).  Brando gave the best performance, showed the greatest range in a nominated role that year.  The award went to . . . Humphrey Bogart.

Now we like Humphrey and think he was good in the role.  Good.  Not great.

But a woman has to express a range of emotions to win and a man has to suppress emotions to win.

It goes to what we value in men and women, to the gender stereotypes our society imposes. 

Merging the two categories into one without addressing this reality would be insane.  

A man can be stiff and wooden and walk off with the prize -- Gary Cooper for HIGH NOON, Charlton Heston (BEN HUR), Rex Harrison (MY FAIR LADY), Cliff Robertson (CHARLY), John Wayne (TRUE GRIT), etc.  A man can flatten his personality completely for a role but win a Best Actor Academy Award while a woman, take Jane Fonda in KLUTE, has to deliver an amazing and deeply felt performance in order to win.

Fonda?  Henry Fonda makes the point for us.  Take him or any other actor that shades their characterization and digs deep (Paul Newman, Marlon Brando being two others) and they have to be nominated multiple times before finally winning -- if they're lucky enough to ever win.  Spencer Tracey  was considered the finest actor in the industry for decades.  Was the for pretending he was romantically in love with Katharine Hepburn?  Or for all the men and rent boys he slept with (including John Derek)?  It wasn't for what he delivered onscreen -- competency.  Henry Fonda delivered a career of riveting performances and it wasn't until he was dying, and forty-one years after his first Academy Award nomination, that Henry finally won.  

Gary Cooper is the text book example of wooden.  But he was a big star so he got nominations and, in fact, won five years after his first nomination.  Pauline Kael famously observed, "Moviegoers like to believe that those thy have made stars are great actors.  People used to say that Gary Cooper was a fine actor -- probably because when they looked in his face they were ready to give him their power of attorney."

Cooper was a nothing in terms of acting when contrasted with Henry Fonda.  He was wooden and cumbersome.  But he made off with two Academy Awards for Best Actor when he didn't deserve even one.

Luise Rainer won two as well and some feel she was overrated.  She may have been.  But look at the other women who won at least two Best Actress Academy Awards and grasp how deep they had to dig and how much emotion they had to expose to get those two awards.  Jane Fonda, Bette Davis, Sally Field, Olivia de Havilland, Vivian Leigh, Ingrid Bergman, Elizabeth Taylor, Glenda Jackson, Jodie Foster, Hillary Swank, Meryl Streep, Frances McDormand and Katharine Hepburn. 

Elizabeth delivered a tour de force performance in WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF? and won her second Academy Award.  Her co-star Richard Burton was nominated but didn't win.  In fact, he was nominated six times and never won once.  He wasn't a stone faced, wooden actor.  If he had been, he most likely would have taken home a statue.

Best Actor and Best Actress merged into one category?  What's next, merging the 100 meter, the 200 meter and the 400 meter races into one track event at the Olympics?

Because that's the same as ignoring that what's required for a man to win Best Actor is so much less than has ever been required for a woman to be Best Actress.

We don't live in a gender neutral world so it seems very puzzling to us that people want to take two different categories and merge them into one.  Not only to merge them, but also to pretend that men and women are judged by the same criteria for their acting awards. 

Truest statement of the week

The rise of hate and violence aimed at the LGBTQIA community follows a surge of anti LGBTQ plus legislation driven by Republican state lawmakers including in my home state of Missouri.  The Human Rights Campaign has found that Republican state legislators have introduced and supported over 300 and forty -- 340! -- anti-queer and/or trans bills in the latest legislative session and 25 extreme discriminatory bills have already been signed into law across this country.  According to PROMO MISSOURI, in 2020, the Missouri State House introduced 23 pieces of anti-LGBT+ discrimination.  They've repeatedly -- this is absolutely disgusting -- filed library book bans, bans on doctor recommended care, student organization bans and sports bans.  

 

 

--  US House Rep Cori Bush at last week's House Oversight Committee hearing -- reported by Betty at her site.

A note to our readers

Hey -- 

Monday night. 

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,

Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, 

Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with? 

• Truest statement of the week

US House Rep Cori Bush gets a truest.

• Editorial: Words and silences have consequences

We're focusing on an important hearing from last week -- in part because so many left outlets ignored it.

• Those fake ass 'religious' litigants (Ava and C.I.)

Good points from Ava and C.I.  As always.

• BROS (Ava and C.I.)

This is a media piece.  C.I. announced Saturday night that they'd be doing something other than media for their piece here.  Some were really upset -- some readers.  Ava and C.I. decided to pull the important hearing into a piece noting again how important the film BROS is.

• Congressional exchange

We highlight US House Rep Katie Porter from the hearing.

• The Aunty GiGi Awards

For the disgraced and embarrassing.

• Tweet of the week

Ajamu Baraka gets another Tweet of the week.

• AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER

Repost of Stan's review.

• The Twitter Dumps

C.I. filled in for Kat and wrote about The Twitter Dumps.

• Season two wrap of THE CLEANING LADY

Rebecca covers the season finale.

• The Crazy -- How Can You Miss It?

Elaine appears to be the only one who caught the crackpot.

• BLACK ADAM

Repost of Ann's review.

• DISNEY's STRANGE WORLD

Repost of Kat's review.

• The hypocrisy and stupidity of THE WASHINGTON EXAM...

Marcia takes on the stupid.

• Survivors of Anti-LGBTQI+ Violence Underscore Dang...

Press release from The House Oversight and Reform Committee.

• This edition's playlist

What we listened to while writing this edition.

Peace,


-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Editorial: Words and silences have consequences

Last week, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired by US House Rep Carolyn Maloney, held a hearing entitled "The Rise of Anti-LGBTQI+ Extremism and Violence in the United States."

While Democrats on the Committee could -- and did -- ask questions about this topic, Republicans on the Committee were too busy observing Florida's Don't Say Gay or Trans policy to participate in the actual hearing.  

 

As US House Rep David Cicilline observed:

 

I want to begin by reminding everyone here -- especially my Republican colleagues across the aisle -- what this hearing is about.  It's called "The Rise of Anti-LGBTQI+ Extremism and Violence in the United States."  And despite this hearing title, colleagues on both sides of the aisle have obviously condemned the attack on Club Q and violence more broadly, it's obviously more telling that the Republicans on this Committee -- with one exception -- did not ask any questions about anti LGBTQI+ extremism and violence.  Instead, they've only wanted to talk about crime broadly or hate crimes against other communities.  I'm disappointed, yet not surprised that a few weeks after a killer murdered five people at an LGBTQI+ nightclub, Republicans on this Committee could not bring themselves to discuss anti-LGBTQI+ violence and its causes with our witnesses.  Our community is scared -- terrified that we'll be attacked going to the doctor, scared that we'll be attacked going to night clubs, scared that we'll be attacked for living as our authentic selves and, unfortunately, this fear is well grounded.  The attack at Club Q is only the latest high profile attack against our community.  In 2021, 20% of all reported hate crimes were motivated by hate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Let me repeat that: Despite the fact that LGBTQI+ people make up roughly 7% of the population, 20% -- or more than 1 in 5 reported hate crimes -- last year were motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity bias.  My colleagues want to talk about anything but this anti-LGBTQI+ violence and their rhetoric that has contributed to it.  This violence is impacting both LGBTQI+ individuals and their families.

 

 But they couldn't talk about it, members on the Republican side of the aisle. 

 

At one point, US House Rep Shontel Brown declared, "Political violence and hatred targeted at the LGBTQ community is completely unacceptable." 

 

We're sure many of you nodded as you read that remark.  It's not that controversial.  But it was too much for any Republican to say.

 

Comer insisted, "I condemn all violence."  But he never once, in this hearing on violence aimed at LGBTQ+ individuals, could go on the record condemning violence against LGBTQ+ members. 

 

"Words have consequences," observed Committee witness and Pulse Nightclub survivor Brandon Wolf.  And he's right, they do.  Silences have consequences as well.

 

 

 

 For hearing coverage, see Monday's "Iraq snapshot," Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" and Friday's "Iraq snapshot," Ruth's "Allies are needed (House Oversight Committee)," Kat's "Respect for Marriage Act is only step one, more needed," "Cori Bush speaks some truth in Committee hearing," Trina's "LGBTQ youth need a safe nation (Dr. Jessie Pocock)," Mike's "Texas, come claim your idiot (House Oversight Committee)," Stan's "Shontel Brown, Chris Wallace, Wonder Woman" and Rebecca's "glenn greenwald wants to be the biggest bitch there is ."  

Those fake ass 'religious' litigants (Ava and C.I.)

Color us confused.

So many are claiming religious exemptions these days.  Now if you have a religious objection to a vaccine?  We understand that.  We think it should be respected.  If, like August Aguayo, you are a religious person in the US military and your religious beliefs grow and become stronger and you cite them as a reason not to deploy to Iraq, we understand that.  We understand many reasons you might opt out of certain things.

We don't understand this:

Two of Vivian Geraghty's students at Jackson Memorial Middle School in Massillon, Ohio, were undergoing transition-related care and wanted people, including their teachers, to use their proper pronouns.

But Geraghty, a third-year English teacher, went to school administrators in August to report a problem. Her Christian beliefs prohibited her from using the transgender students’ pronouns or their new names, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.

Jonathan Edwards wrote that report for THE WASHINGTON POST.  

Again, we're confused.  Crackpots tend to confuse us.

Vivian Geraghty is stating that she can't use pronouns (that she doesn't agree with) or names (that she doesn't agree with) due to her religion?

What's her next excuse?  The dog ate her homework?

We ask because of Matthew 22: 15 - 22.

For those unfamiliar, it's a book, chapter and verse in THE BIBLE.

We'll assume Viv Geraghty is among those unfamiliar with it.

It's where Jesus talks about "render unto Caesar."

Remember that, Viv?

Seems to us this is a render unto Caeser moment if this is any kind of 'religious' moment at all.

The government is telling her to use pronouns the students prefer, she's being told to call them by their preferred names.  And Viv's pissing her panties and screaming like a mad woman.  Where, in the Bible, is she finding her religious belief?

More to the point, where is her common sense?  

If DANCING WITH THE STARS' Mark Ballas were in her class, what would Viv call him?  

Would she call him "Mark"?  Or would she insist upon calling him "Mark Jr."?  Because he is Mark Jr.  He doesn't go by it, but that is his name.  If Will Smith were in Viv's class, what would she call Will? His name isn't Will.  It's Willard Carroll Smith Jr.  Would she insist upon calling him "Willard"?  "Willard Jr."?  If Robert Redford were in Viv's class, what would she call him?  "Robert Jr."?  Or "Charles"?  Charles is his first name (full name Charles Robert Redford, Jr.).  And if Beau Biden had been in her class, would she have refused to call him Beau?  Joseph Robinette Biden III was Beau's legal name.

 

Our point here is that children are called preferred names every day in every US school and it's nothing new.

Has Viv stuck to their legal first names with her students?  If not, why is this suddenly a problem?

It's a problem, let's be honest, because Viv hates a certain group of people and wants to be a test case for the law.  Oh, Viv, you're so embarrassing.  We picture your God of choice, up in heaven, clucking his head and determining that this sort of behavior is exactly the reason he will banish you to hell.  You're trying to justify hate in His name but His son Jesus was very clear that you should ''Render unto Caeser the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Jesus' words are pretty clear, Viv.  Do we need to send you a copy of THE BIBLE?  We feel like we need to start a list for Viv and all the others -- like Lorie Smith -- who seem to think that Jesus' edict doesn't exist.  It's right there on the printed page, Viv.  You do know how to read, right?

Viv insists that she detailed her religious objection (she didn't and still hasn't, render unto Caeser nullifies any religious objection she might have thought she had) and then was "forced to resign."  At gunpoint, Viv?

We can't wait for Candice Cameron Bure to portray Viv in GREAT AMERICAN MEDIA's made-for-TV movie THEY FORCED ME TO CALL HER ALEX AND HIM DREW!!!  WHAT WAS I TO DO!!! THE STORY OF CRAZY VIV.

Viv also claims that she was ejected from the school "within two hours" of detailing her objection.

Which was it, Viv, forced to resign or tossed out on your ass?  As a Christian, Viv, you are aware that you're not supposed to lie, right?  It's in The Ten Commandments: "Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor."

Viv, do you struggle with comprehension issues?

Her attorneys maintain that the school insisted "she would be required to put her beliefs aside as a public servant."  But her religion dictates that: Render unto Caeser.

In the legal paperwork, Viv's cracked in the head attorneys cite the Constitution (wrongly) but we looked through the paperwork in vain to find her religious argument.

That's because there actually isn't one.  There's nothing in THE BIBLE that backs Viv up.  She climbed out on a limb and, in a sane world, we'd all hear it cracking at this point.  

The Constitution, Viv's attorneys insist, guarantees "a freedom to differ."  Not really.  They're extrapolating.  That's a fancy term for lying and lawyers do it all the time when they can't actually build on precedent.  

They insist of the people Viv is suing:

Defendants have abandoned this guiding light [Ava and C.I. note: "the right to differ" -- apparently a new amendment to The Constitution] and adopted one particular view on this subject, that a person's subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person's sex.  Compounding their unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plantiff Vivian Geraghty, to mount her own support of Defendant's views by forcing her, as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to participate in the "social transition" of children in her class.  

Ms. Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by her scientific understanding and her Christian faith.  

So which is it?  She citing religious reasons or "her scientific understanding" -- because we're willing to be she's even weaker on science than she is on religion.

 

And, to be really honest, Viv never knows the gender of her students.  She knows what she's told.  But she's not groping their crotches so she's really got no idea who is male, who is female, who is non-binary, etc.  

 

She really needs to get a grip.

 

And the courts need to stop taking these claims of I disagree for "religious reasons" when there are no religious reasons to disagree.  But there is Freedom of Religion which is why the nutjobs resort to lying about "religious reasons" -- it gives them something to pretend they're standing for and usually it intimidates courts.

 

From now on, the courts need to be demanding that those claiming "religious reasons" state what those reasons are and that those reasons are then examined to find out whether or not they really exist.  If Jesus told you that the government decides what the government decides and you do in the church what you do in the church, there's no 'religious objection' for the Christian faith in Viv's case.

BROS (Ava and C.I.)

BROS is one of the best films of 2022 -- for us, in fact, it is the best film.

 

Bobby (Billy Eichner) and Aaron (Luke Macfarlane) are two people that fall in love despite many obstacles in this romantic comedy from director Nicholas Stoller.  It's a magical film and we'd be thrilled to be either Bobby or Aaron in this relationship.  It's fresh, it's sweet and it's really beautiful.

We hope it gets some attention from the Academy Awards.  A best screenplay nomination for Billy and Nicholas is a nomination that's been more than earned.  

What's written works on the screen but it also works in terms of people's lives.  We were reminded of that with last week's hearing from The House Oversight and Reform Committee exploring the rise in violence against the LGBTQ+ community.  Time and again, issues the film raised popped up in the hearing.  

If you haven't seen BROS, it's now on DVD and Blu Ray and is streaming as well.  Streaming can be rented or purchased from many services including AMAZON, YOUTUBE TV and VUDU and, if you're a PEACOCK subscriber, you can stream it on PEACOCK for free.

In the film, Bobby has dinner with Aaron's family and Aaron's mother Anne (played wonderfully by Amanda Bearse) does not believe her students should be taught about any gay ancestors or any gay history.  They're just too young, she insists.  Too young to know that some men like men and some women like women?  They have classmates with gay parents.  What are you trying to protect them from?

No one's asking you to explain sex to second graders.  But you do explain couplings -- at least if it's a straight couple.  Why can't you note the same-sex coupling as well?

We were reminded of that in the hearing when Pulse Nightclub survivor Brandon Wolf was being lectured to by US House Rep Byron Donalds.  Byron isn't just a member of the House, he's also a noted criminal.  1997 saw him busted for distributing pot and, three years later, "he pleaded guilty to a felony bribery charge as part of a scheme to defraud a bank."  Donald may still have access to pot -- that would explain why he's declared his purpose to be fighting in the US against Socialism.  Or why he's an election denier who objected to Arizona and Pennsylvania's electors being certified.  In the hearing, pro-Don't Say Gay Donalds, tried to railroad Brandon Wolf.

Didn't he asked, looking for a fight, parents have rights with regards to their children's education.  Yes, they did.  Brandon didn't disagree.  He thought the school and education benefited.  Puzzled, Byron Douglas then tried to call out Brandon because superintendents of schools have rights too!!!

Brandon never said that they didn't.  But children have rights to.  And children in schools do include gay children, yes, children that young can already know they're gay.  While straight kids get affirmed, the others suffer.  They're not represented.  They have no idea what they can be.

And that's a point Bobby makes to Aaron's mother.  If he'd been exposed to possibilities earlier in life, he might not hate his life right now.

 

Inside Out Youth Services' Dr Jessie Pocock noted in the hearing:

It is not okay that we expect more maturity and compassion from our youth than the public servants entrusted with their care.  Daily, our staff sit with youth experiencing suicidal thoughts who are impacted by these types of harmful and inaccurate messages. It is not the fact these youths are LGBTQ that puts them at risk.  It's the way our culture views them. Their mental health is impacted when politicians legislate away their rights, when they witness unmitigated hate speech on social media.  This is not normal.  This is not okay.  These are kids.

 

And they need real protection which isn't ignorance, it's awareness.  They need to know that they are natural and normal and nothing is wrong with them.  

In the film, when Anne realizes the harm that's been inflicted on her son, she comes around to the need for teaching gay history. 

Bobby also takes on the efforts to erase LGBTQ+ individuals.  That's why he's a curator for the country's first LGBTQ+ museum.  

 

And the Committee members worked overtime to erase all LGBTQ+ individuals.  They did it over and over throughout the hearing.

We've knocked Byron Douglas but, in fairness to him, he's the only one who could say LGBTQ+ -- the only one on the Republican side.

 

The others -- in a hearing entitled "The Rise of Anti-LGBTQI+ Extremism and Violence in the United States" -- avoided the term.  Over and over.  They erased over and over.

 

Take Ranking Member James Comer who served up an opening statement that was over 640 words long but never included LGBTQ+.  He did include attacks on African-Americans, Asian communities, Jewish communities, Christian communities, churches, pro-life institution, all races and ethnicities but never managed to say LGBTQ+.

 

Erasing was happening right there in the hearing. 

An important moment in the film is when Bobby discusses how he's had to struggle and how he's had to endure people trying to shame him over who he is.

 

 Comer reminded us of that as well -- when Club Q survivor Michael Anderson declared:

To my fellow LGBTQ community, events like this are designed to discourage us from speaking and living our truth.  They are designed to scare us from living openly, courageously and proudly.  We must not succumb to fear, we must live prouder and louder than ever before.  We must continue to be who we are, for who we are is exactly who we are meant to be.  And to the children watching this, feeling you may not be like other kids:  I understand you and I see you.  You deserve to be exactly who you are, no matter what anyone has to say.  In the words of my personal gay icon Christina Aguilera, you are beautiful no matter what they say.  Words can't bring you down, so don't let them bring you down today.

 The look on Comer's face was that of someone attempting not to roll their eyes.  

It was just too much for Comer.

And BROS was too much for some audiences.  Because it's real.  It's funny.  It's hilarious.  And it takes shots at everyone, it's not 'woke' humor (whatever that is).  But it's also incredibly real.  And it could sure use some love for what it accomplished.  It's rightly been nominated for Best Comedy by the Critics' Choice Movie Awards and the Hollywood Critics Association Award.  It's also won a Hollywood Music in Media Award for "Love Is Not Love" (written by Billy).

If you've got the time, stream BROS -- make the time in fact.  It's hilarious and it actually has something to say about the world we're living in right now.

 

 

Congressional exchange

 

 Last week, The House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the rise in violence aimed at LGBTQ+ members.  US House Rep Katie Porter in the exchange below is speaking to the second panel made up of Human Rights Campaign's Kelley Robinson, Pulse Nightclub shooting survivor Brandon Wolf, National Center for Transgender Equality's Oliva Hunt, Inside Out Youth Services' Jessie Pocock and The Williams Institute's Ilan Meyer.

 

US House Rep Katie Porter: I wanted to start with Ms. Robinson, if I could.  Your organization recently released a report analyzing the five hundred most viewed, most influential Tweets that identified LGBTQ people as so called "groomers."  The groomer narrative is an age old lie to position LGBTQ+ people as a threat to kids and what it does is to deny them access to public spaces and it stokes fear and it even stokes violence.  Ms. Robinson, according to its own hateful content policy does Twitter allow posts calling LGBTQ people "groomers"?

Kelley Robinson: No, I mean Twitter along with FACEBOOK and many others have community guidelines.  It's about holding users accountable and acknowledging that when we use phrases and words like "groomers" and "pedophiles" to describe people, individuals in our community that are mothers, that are fathers, that are teachers, that are doctors,  it is dangerous.  And it's got one purpose -- it's to dehumanize us and make us feel like we're not a part of this American society and it has real life consequences.  So we are calling on social media companies to uphold their community standards.  And we're also calling on any American that's seeing this play out to hold ourselves and our community members accountable.  We wouldn't accept this in our families, we wouldn't accept this in our schools.  There's no reason to accept it online. 

US House Rep Katie Porter: So I think you're absolutely right and it's not just this allegation of groomer and pedophile, it's alleging that a person is criminal somehow and engaged in criminal acts merely because of their identity, their sexual orientation, their gender identity.  So this is clearly prohibited under Twitter's content yet you found hundreds of these posts on the platform.  Your team filed complaints about these posts, correct?

Kelley Robinson: Yes.

US House Rep Katie Porter: And how often did Twitter act to take down these posts which violated its own content policy?

Kelley Robinson: Very rarely.  

US House Rep Katie Porter: So from our calculation, it looks like about 99% of your complaints.  They basically acted on one or two of the 100+ complaints you filed. Instead of taking them down, Twitter elevated them.  Allowing them to reach an approximate 72 million users.  This is not just about what happens online.  What happens online translates into real harm in people's lives.  Ms. Popcock, you provide services to a community that experienced the devastating LGBTQ attack.  Can you provide some examples of the link between speech online and the attacks against providers like you.  

Jesse Pocock: We know really, I mean, online threats, in addition to creating an atmosphere of bullying for young people, it also creates an atmosphere of delegitimizing our real professional trained work at INSIDE OUT YOUTH services.  And it is just so critically important that we can continue doing the work that we do.  But I want to tell just one quick story because it's beautiful.  We have an online community center and it is moderated by peer advisors and when asked how many issues of like fighting or contention do you deal with on the disport server our young people tell us "Well, it doesn't happen very often."  So I'm here to tell you that our young people have figured out how to moderate platforms in positive, productive ways?  Twitter, FACEBOOK, everybody else can figure it out too.  

US House Rep Katie Porter: Absolutely.  Ms. Robinson, your report notes that these radicalizing posts, these 'groomer' posts, these other posts that attack LGBTQ communities are related to acts in the real world -- what happens online is often reflective of what happens in the real world.  After Governor DeSantis of Florida passed his so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill, what trends did you observe online with regard to 'grooming' related discourse.  

Kelley Robinson: Unfortunately, we saw a 400% increase on Twitter of this sort of hateful language.  Particularly calling our community members groomers and pedophiles.  And we know that rather or not the bills move into effect, the lasting impact of that online bullying of defining our communities in that way, it sticks -- especially with our kids. 

US House Rep Katie Porter: My time has expired but I just want to say I'm proud today, I'm proud to stand with the gay community and I'm proud that you're all here as part of our country and giving us testimony.  I yield back, Madam Chair.