Gay singers
mi...@mail.com
Just wondering...
Opera seems to be quite popular among gay men. But are there or have
there been any out gay opera singers? (I mean, apart from Benjamin
Britten's boyfriend/muse and a couple of counter-tenors I can't
remember the names of.)
Minty
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
I find the question you ask is somewhat offensive...what difference does
sexual preference make?
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
<mi...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1118870871.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J S
does sexual preference make?>>
I'm always a bit surprised at how often this type of question elicits
the same response as Jon's.
I don't believe that Minty was trying to be offensive in any way. If
anything, I find the tendency on the part of so many to just ignore the
concept of gay people - including, or perhaps *especially* successful
professional ones - to be much more off putting.
This isn't about outing anyone - just a factual matter about those who
have already outed themselves.
I don't think it's about "making a difference" - of course it has
nothing to do with a singer's ability.
But by avoiding the issue, the public will assume, not that any straight
people are gay, but that the gay people are straight. What's so bad
about that? Well, why should black people want to be thought of as
white?
I thought we'd moved beyond the old closeted days into a time when the
individual could simply be what he is; and most importantly, could be a
much needed positive role model for younger gays struggling with their
own orientation.
Most gays would rather be known and accepted than simply ascribed non
entity status.
~ Roger
Handelmaniac
them...CH
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
BUSINESS. It's too personal and private a matter to bandied about on
different forums. Unless of course...the individual has totally 'come
out'...and is comfortable with their public image.
I know a many singers, dancers, painters, designers who are in fact gay.
Most don't go out of their way to hide this...nor do the majority seem to
want this to be total sum of how people think of them.
I merely believe it's the individual's right to privacy involved. Every
time I hear this type of thing discussed I get upset...as if this is what
makes the artist what they are...not the thousands of hours of schooling and
practice and dedication involved on their part.
I hope I'm clear on this. I'm not being 'off-putting'...just wary of
trampling of people's right to individual privacy. This is one our rights
as Americans...and I don't like seeing it violated...even innocently. You
must understand...that even in this day-and-age...there are those who would
seek to ostracize a person merely on the basis of their sexual preference.
I find that deplorable.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"J S" <somer...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25810-42...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
Handelmaniac
everyone is gay...Were they under the bed???"
CH
J S
<< Roger:You're reading my response incorrectly.>>
Jon, I do in fact understand what you're saying. I just think it's not,
in the long run,
a particularly good thing for gay individuals and the gay movement.
There is a huge difference between publicly opening up someone's
sexuality, and merely discussing that of someone who has already so
revealed his, which was only what the OP was talking about in the first
place. This is certainly everyone's privilege, but my personal feeling
is that the closet is a very unhealthy place, and that gays would be
better off to come out en masse. In fact, I suspect that everybody who
knows a gay person with any degree of familiarity are well aware of his
orientation anyway - as is the case with those individuals who are your
(and my) friends.
You can't avoid bigotry by pretending not to exist, anyway: I recently
encountered a gay basher on another group who was abusing gay people by
saying that the fact that they remained closeted was because they felt
deep shame, knowing that what they were was immoral, sick, etc. A
deplorable attitude, and yet I had to admit that a courage *is* a
quality that most people admire in anyone.
Of course the fact that an individual is gay is not the *reason* for
their talent or achievements. Why would anybody think that? Being
heterosexual isn't the reason either, but you don't seem to have a
problem with people assuming that a gay person is heterosexual.
I'm the last person to accuse you of being homophobic; but you're
attitude is one that bigots constantly employ: "I don't care what they
are, I just don't want to know about it", etc.
In other words, " Be invisible, unreal, don't exist."
For right or wrong, I think gays will obtain civil rights and
widespread social acceptance only when they refuse to obey this
arbitrary dictum.
~ Roger
Mark D Lew
<somer...@webtv.net> wrote:
> I'm always a bit surprised at how often this type of question elicits
> the same response as Jon's.
> I don't believe that Minty was trying to be offensive in any way. If
> anything, I find the tendency on the part of so many to just ignore the
> concept of gay people - including, or perhaps *especially* successful
> professional ones - to be much more off putting. [...]
We've had this discussion before. Evelyn is another who expresses an
opinion similar to Jon's.
I think it may be a generational difference, or at least cultural.
Some people's sensibilities were formed in a time and place where
society was hostile to homosexuality. Their main experience with
individuals being identified as gay was to see it as a means for
personal attack. Therefore, they tend to value the individual's
"privacy" and insist that sexual preference is "nobody's business".
Others, like me and perhaps you, Roger, grew up in a time and place
where homosexuality was accepted. We tend to be more offended by the
idea that one's sexual preference must be kept private, as if it were a
dirty secret that can't be shared.
In both cases, the motivation is to treat gay people decently, but a
different body of experience causes it to be expressed differently.
mdl
Mark D Lew
<jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Roger: You're reading my response incorrectly. I think it's NOBODY'S
> BUSINESS. It's too personal and private a matter to bandied about on
> different forums. [...]
> I hope I'm clear on this. I'm not being 'off-putting'...just wary of
> trampling of people's right to individual privacy. [...]
As I indicated in the other post, Jon, I understand where you're coming
from and I know your feelings are in the right place.
What Roger and I are suggestin is that it's demeaning to gay people to
call their sexual preference "nobody's business". When a man appears
in public with his wife at his side, he is announcing to the world that
he is straight. It's not a matter of flaunting or revealing, it's
simply a mundane fact of life. He is not alone in the world; he has a
partner who is a central part of his life. On any important occasion,
his wife will be at his side and people will accept that as perfectly
normal.
If a man is gay, why should it not be the same way? Why does the
simple fact of his homosexuality suddenly become a "private" matter
that no one is allowed to talk about? That's a double standard.
I'm not saying we should be talking about what a man and his partner
actually do in the bedroom when they're alone -- that really is their
private business, and discussing would be equally inappropriate for a
straight or a gay couple. But the simple fact that a man or woman is
gay, that shouldn't be private at all.
mdl
jol...@mail.terrace.qld.edu.au
with what may happen to be of (prurient) interest to the public. The
nature of a person't sexual preference, and whether or not they choose
to make that information public, is the decision of that person alone.
We have no right to expect a person to advertise their sexual
preference, and we have no right to be offended by that person's
decision. This is why the original question was so objectionable.
Simply to ask such a question is nothing short of gay bashing, so let's
not fool ourselves that we're any more grown up about this subject than
others who may belong to an earlier generation. We can claim to be
mature about this issue when it's no longer considered even worth
mentioning.
John
Roberto Reatini
at least in Europe I have heard strong rumors about Nicolai Gedda and Jon
Vickers.
I have seen in action with my eyes two less famous tenors: Beniamino Prior
(in Rome) and Bruce Brewer (in Paris).
Rob
<mi...@mail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1118870871.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrw
he may not appreciate being outed here. I tend not to believe rumours
of this nature anyway.
It could be an interesting take on singers and singing, I think its
interesting to examine the difference between gay and straight actors.
I think it would be better to confine the discussion to those who are
openly gay.
Inneundo and rumours of this nature are destructive.
Jeffrey Meyer
"Roberto Reatini" <roberto...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:oBase.28298$75.17...@news4.tin.it...
> Hi!
> at least in Europe I have heard strong rumors about Nicolai Gedda and Jon
> Vickers.
> I have seen in action with my eyes two less famous tenors: Beniamino Prior
> (in Rome) and Bruce Brewer (in Paris).
> Rob
>
One shudders to think who you've seen in Sydney.
--
Jeffrey
alanwa...@aol.com
Jon Vickers was married and helped produce five children so far as I
know. He lost his wife to cancer. The last time I looked Mr Gedda was
on his third marriage, apparently with more success than in the
previous two.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Handelmaniac
Jeffrey Meyer
"Handelmaniac" <Plac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118925058....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> VICKERS?????????VERY HOMOPHOBIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Oh, and another thing, Charles. This shouting of yours - it hurts my eyes.
Please desist.
--
Jeffrey
Handelmaniac
eyes.
Please desist.
--
VOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LJO
No you don't. It's just a noisy voice.
Valfer
don't know Mr. Gedda, but I know Mr. Vickers, and I believe he would
not take the comment lightly.
Valfer
NickTenor
if they are out or in. We can leave it to our imagination and even if we
say
she is Gay, he is Gay, they are Gay, who worries. I have always hope that
Thomas Handsome was gay.
I think in the Gay world we all hope that Mr So and So is gay or dream of
it.....
Life is too short, I agree with everyone, I disagree with everyone, now what
does
that make me..........hehehe no funny remarks please.
Happy listening to one and all and keep your dreams alive.....
mi...@mail.com
I certainly am not gay bashing. For a start, that would be a bit weird
as I'm happily (and openly) bi myself. And, as some readers noticed, I
enquired about OUT performers, as I have no interest in gossip, and if
someone wants to keep that part of their life totally private, that's
fine and we should respect it. I don't hang around with bigots so
admittedly I do tend to forget that some people are still in the stone
age and have an issue with other people's choice of partner.
Of course it has nothing to do with how one judges their performance -
that is a ridiculous suggestion.
But are you people really saying that you've never been interested in
finding out more about the singers you like? You haven't ever wanted to
know where they are from (or will I now be accused of racism?), how old
they are (am I ageist?), if they are married and who to (monogamist?),
what their favourite colour for socks is, etc?
It hadn't actually occured to me before, but I do agree that it would
be a good thing if there were more gay role models for young people.
Elton John and George Michael don't really cut it.
Minty
Handelmaniac
I also live bi myself....CH
J S
lightly.>>
Thn again, he just might be secure enough that he wouldn't even give it
a thought, as I would not for being considered straight.
Life is too short for such nonsense.
~ Roger
La Donna Mobile
mi...@mail.com wrote:
I find it curious that (in my perception) there is a much smaller
proportion of prominent 'out' classical musicians than there are pop
musicians or non-musical actors. I wonder if this is actually true, and,
if so, why. I recall reading some interview with Michael Tilson Thomas
where he commented that being gay had presented some career obstacles.
It seems counter-intuitive that the world of opera would be gay unfriendly.
In regards to friends and colleagues, I would like to know, even if just
for silly reasons - who do I address the Christmas card to, what is the
name of the other part of the 'we' you mention in discussing weekends,
holidays etc, and that to me is just an extension of good manners. So
the same logic applies, sort of, to public figures, I suppose.
Elsewhere on the internet I have posited a theory that 99% of supposedly
straight women are, in fact, bisexual, even if society, convention etc
prevents theory becoming practice.
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
J S wrote:
Hmmmm..... You may have a point. I've always assumed these
discussions were prompted by the poster's prurient
fantasies, hence I tend to agree with Jon's response: "What
difference does a singer's sexual orientation make to
his/her ability or lack of it?" But of course, I'm not gay
(although having been involved in classical music for most
of my life, I've certainly had plenty of friends who were),
so perhaps I misinterpret the purpose behind such inquiries.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
would be so...
If I hear or see a performance of a play which moves me due to the really
fine performance of an artist...I concentrate upon that performance and then
look the artist's body of work. I don't...however...immediately think of
the artist's religious affiliation...just as I would not immediately think
of the artist's sex preference. I think of the artist...and of their art.
When I meet someone for the first time...I don't immediately think...ah
where does this person go to church...or...does this person go to church.
And as such...I certainly would not think of their sexual preference. Even
though I admit...if I were single and unattached...such a thought could
possibly cross my mind if I found that person so stimulating.
Should I further want to know much more about the individual behind the
artist...in other words their educational background, their teachers, where
they've performed and what author/composer, in essence their private
life...then I suppose religious affiliation and sexual preference
might...just might...come up in discussion. Yeah...that I could
understand...just as long as it's not sticking your nose into someone's
private life just for the sake of so doing. Anything more would be more
like a stalker's thoughts I fear...or merely prurient motivations.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d9nle...@news3.newsguy.com...
Jeffrey Quick
With women, it's slightly relevant...I've found myself attracted to
lesbians and it saves embarrassment if I figure it out before I hit on
them. Since I'm not likely to get close enough to any Famous Singer to
get sexual, it's even less relevant.
Mark
Isn't that thweet?
Terry Ellsworth
"announcing to the world that he is straight." All he is really
announcing is that he has a wife.
To even remotely imply that Mr. Stostak is using the same arguments as
bigots do is the most offensive thing in this thread.
I think Mr. Stostak has it exactly right. There is no "double
standard." One's sexuality is one's own business and no one else's and
shouldn't enter into a discussion of a person's career.
Terry Ellsworth
Mark
mi...@mail.com wrote:
> Just wondering...
> Opera seems to be quite popular among gay men. But are there or have
> there been any out gay opera singers? (I mean, apart from Benjamin
> Britten's boyfriend/muse and a couple of counter-tenors I can't
> remember the names of.)
>
> Minty
Why would this matter to anyone? You are born, you can't choose your
parents, religion, hair color or sexuality. Yes, there are gay singers
out there, but, so what?
Richard Loeb
actor "came out" it could be the finish of his career esp. if he was a
romantic lead. Now I agree that it would be the right thing to do morally
but it is not always feasible considering the current society esp. now which
is a particularly homophobic and even dangerous time for openly gay people.
Best Richard
"J S" <somer...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20659-42D...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
> << Why would this matter? Yes, there are gay singers out there, but, so
> what?>>
>
> We've been through all this before.
> There only seems to be two types of people out there: those who feel
> that being gay is a perfectly legitimate and honest orientation, for
> which one need have no reason to apologize; and those who feel that it's
> a deep, dark, shameful secret, knowledge and discussion of which must be
> avoided at all costs. I've long thought that one thing the gay community
> has been in bad need of are positive role models, especially in the case
> of struggling young gays, who are usually very proud to know that
> outstandingly talented people in any profession, including opera
> singers, are one of them. Why do you think blacks revere other black,
> talented, successful individuals rather than just saying, "why should
> their race matter; so what?" It's because they identify with them, are
> proud to know they are one of their own - they are heroes and role
> models. Why should it be any different with gays? Ordinarily, without
> having some indication to the contrary, straight people are never
> assumed to be gay; but gays are usually assumed to be straight - unless
> they in some way reveal themselves. This makes it nice for bigots who
> don't have to deal with the fact that there are attractive, successful
> artists and other professional people out there who happen to be gay.
> The gay person thus becomes an invisible man, more or less living a lie;
> and the gay community as a whole is denied a tremendous amount of
> inspiration, and is helped kept in a second class citizen state.
> While everyone has the "right" not to out himself, it's disturbing to
> think that in 21st century America, anyone, least of all powerful,
> popular and successful entertainers would feel so intimidated by a few
> bigots in our society that they would feel it necessary to hide their
> natural orientation.
> I hate to use the term "uncle Tom", but it's not only an unhealthy, and
> frankly cowardly way to live, but it does nothing to help, and probably
> does a great deal of harm to the efforts of the gay community to attain
> acceptance and legal rights.
> So, while I'm sure one's orientation "doesn't matter" to homophobes
> (including some gay ones - and there are some); it matters a great deal
> to many gay people.
>
> ~ Roger
>
J S
what?>>
We've been through all this before.
J S
for gays. In fact, I think this might be about as benign a time as I can
recall: society overall is more accepting (except for the religious
fundamentalist types - a minority); and gays are experiencing
unprecedented legal rights and positive media exposure At any rate, I
do feel that as long as gays contnue to "play the game" according to the
other side's rules only, nothing will ever change. I think there just
has to come a time when you have to stand and fight for your rights - to
have some integrity and let the chips fall where they may. Again as an
example, the blacks in America would not be attending white schools and
not being allowed to vote, if they hadn't been willing to take some
punches and make some sacrifices. Virtually everyone has more respect
for people exhibiting some moral courage than they do for those merely
out to protect themselves.
Best,
~ Roger
Richard Loeb
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
should know of their sexual preference. If anyone thinks otherwise...I find
it too nosy...and prurient. That's the kind of thinking a stalker might go
through.
Vickers would probably chuckle at the question of his preference...he's
quite religious...but also tolerant...but watch out...don't go too far...or
you'll get a preaching the likes of which you'll never, ever forget.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"J S" <somer...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17633-42D...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
A. Brain
news:L6OdnXYpgN7...@giganews.com...
> Roger: I'd rather leave to the individual to decide whether or not
> people should know of their sexual preference. If anyone thinks
> otherwise...I find it too nosy...and prurient. That's the kind of
> thinking a stalker might go through.
>
> Vickers would probably chuckle at the question of his
> preference...he's quite religious...but also tolerant...but watch
> out...don't go too far...or you'll get a preaching the likes of which
> you'll never, ever forget.
Back in the mid to late '80s, when the local
so-called "Christian" relgious right political
machine was at its peak here in Texas, Jon
Vickers appeared in HGO's "Peter Grimes"
and was interviewed by the local press.
Vickers explicitly linked the opera to public
attitudes toward homosexuals, implying not
that the character is homosexual or a pederast
or something, but that he is an outsider with
his own way of living that is at odds with that
of the community at large and that Britten was
making a larger point.
I doubt that Vickers' relgious beliefs embrace anything
comparable to the obsession the "religious right" has with
gays, as if JC had preached against the homosexuals of
his day rather than against the self-righteous and the rich.
Many scholars reasonably believe that the early Old
Testament admonitions stem from a prudent sense of
self-preservation, while later ones, the very few in the
NT, are reactions to Hellenistic and Roman culture spreading
around the world.
Going back to Britten, I reject the notion that his operas
are somehow paeans to homosexuality or that they reflect
some kind of pedophilia, a contention that one sees here
and there. Obviously, there are elements of homoeroticism
in some of them. Curiously, the one that is most open to
that kind of emphasis is, in my view, not about homoeroticism
at all, or shouldn't be.
Not too long ago, I wrote here about Chicago Opera
Theatre's "Death in Venice" after seeing that production.
By using a young man, instead of a young boy as Tadziu,
that production and others make "Venice" more about an aging "queen"
lusting sexually after a young man rather than an artist who
is astounded and bewildered by his obsession with an
unattainable and ambiguous ideal form. Visconti's film
is much closer to the mark.
Santa Fe offers "Grimes" this year with the oustanding tenor
Anthony Dean Griffey (who starred in "Of Mice and Men"
and ought to be a perfect Grimes). Alas, they're not doing
it in the final week, when I always attend.
Back to the subject at hand: I know of very few "out"
gay singers. Patricia Racette and David Daniels, that's
about it. Racette came out with her then-lover, Beth
Clayton, in Opera News a few years ago. I don't know
if they are still together, haven't seen Clayton in some time,
unfortunately. She's easily the best Cherubino, Octavian,
etc. I have ever seen.
It is of course much cooler to be out as
a Lesbian. In the U.S., lesbian scenes or plots are
practically a requirement for mature audience entertainment,
and have even appeared in mainstream television aimed
at the teen or "tween" market, like Fox's "The O.C."
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Though I sympathize with your argument - you must know that if a successful
> actor "came out" it could be the finish of his career esp. if he was a
> romantic lead. Now I agree that it would be the right thing to do morally
> but it is not always feasible considering the current society esp. now which
> is a particularly homophobic and even dangerous time for openly gay people.
> Best Richard
And yet, Rock Hudson's sexual orientation was an open
"secret" for many years, and SFAIK did nothing to detract
from his popularity as a leading man! I guess I've had so
many gay friends, over the years, that I regard it as just
one of the ways in which human beings differ from one
another - hence nothing about which to make an issue.
I always considered questions about who is and is not gay to
be evidence of unhealthy prurience on the part of the
questioner. I never considered sex to be a spectator sport,
so believed people's privacy in such matters should be
respected. However, I think Roger has a valid point - I'd
simply never considered it from that angle, because in my
mind it has always been a non-issue. (Unless I cherished
romantic feelings toward a gay man, which happened a time or
two when I was young and naive, and men were less willing to
admit they were gay - but I got over it.)
Richard Loeb
public in the later stages of his career (and even then I would think the
average movie goer would not have known) - as a matter of fact, Confidential
magazine was going to blow the whistle on him in the mid 50s but the studio
offered up Rory Calhoun's arrest as a teenager instead - you can be sure if
the truth came out about Hudson in the 50s (or Clift or whoever) their
careers would have been derailed. Best Richard
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:db5vt...@news2.newsguy.com...
J S
or whoever), their careers would have been derailed.>>
This is almost certainly true - those were indeed hellish times for
gays. But Richard, please keep in mind - that was a *half century* ago.
Despite a lot of hot air from the fundamentalists, and fascist Plans
--times *have* changed.
We have people now like Kevin Spacey, Ellen Degeneris, and Ian McKellen
who seem to be doing very well, thank you.
~ Roger
Richard Loeb
will!!!)- from your mouth to Gods ears!!!!! Hope you are right - but some
of the current happenings in this country make me afraid - very afraid!!!!!
Richardnews:20657-42D...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
J.Venning
news:pLGdnRu-Wd4...@comcast.com...
> As my sainted Grandmom used to say (before we put her away against her
> will!!!)- from your mouth to Gods ears!!!!! Hope you are right - but some
> of the current happenings in this country make me afraid - very
> afraid!!!!! Richard
And what may those be, pray tell.
J.
La Donna Mobile
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
I think I have said before, when it comes to colleagues and
acquaintances, I would rather know, just for simple boring stuff like
who to address the Xmas card to. I know the first names of the partners
of many of my straight colleagues, and when I use my partner's name eg
at work, I assume that most people will guess, if they don't know, by
context, that I'm referring to my SO. I would far rather refer to this
couple I know, Mike and Kevin, rather than
Mike-I-think-he-might-be-gay-and-maybe-I-shouldn't-mention-Kevin-as-person-with-whom-he's-just-celebrated-twenty-years-together.
Obviously, that doesn't translate exactly to celebs (I don't tend to
send them Christmas cards); nevertheless, it really isn't an issue in
the pop world. At Live8, I was so surrounded by women squealing for
George Michael that I even joined in myself. And I've squealed for kd
lang. I am not aware of anybody straight or gay, male or female, of my
sort-of age group who has any issues about George Michael's sexual
orientation. Or kd lang's. It doesn't matter in the slightest, but there
again, does it matter in the slightest that Paul McCartney is married
with 5 children? I like them all as singer-songwriters; I have never met
any of them, they are not part of my life. But they are part of my
record collection.
I suppose what I find confusing is double-standards. Brought up a good
Catholic, I was indoctrinated with the idea that a good marriage is
about companionship, mutual support, etc etc: just this evening watering
the garden, paying some bills and watching the News has been really good
teamwork - and we're not even married. I cannot accept that a gay
relationship isn't partly about watering the garden, paying some bills
and watching the News. Most of us have bedrooms; I really really don't
want to know what goes on in anybody else's, regardless of their
orientation. But when I care about people, however remotely, I suppose I
care about who they share their life with. And life is mainly about
watering the garden, paying some bills and watching the News, rather
than mindblowingly earthmoving sex five times a night.
J S
afraid. Very afraid!!>>
J. Venning: <<And what may those be, pray tell?>>
Oh, Mr. Venning, don't get me started, please.
As you're not a resident American, your unawareness of the seachange
here the past 4 or 5 years is perhaps understandable. We even have
people here who are blissfully unaware that our country is like a
derailed train. In the hysterical aura that followed 9-11, legislation,
in the form of the unpatriotic "Patriot Act", (much of which was passed,
not only unthought-out, but even unread!) dismantled much of the bedrock
upon which our country was founded, especially the Bill of Rights. We
now have an ever growing police state, a government that's working here
and abroad basically in a spirit of lawless hubris, in which long
cherished personal rights and freedoms have been obliterated, citizens
can now be arrested without any probable cause, held indefinitely, and
denied a lawyer, among other injustices. The Supreme Court recently
ruled that your home, which you and your family have owned for decades,
can simply be taken from you with no more reason than that your city
feels it's in its best interest to build a casino there. Our Social
Security, indeed, our entire financial structure is being depleted in an
imperialistic war of aggression in the Middle East - the first stage of
a planned takeover there and on to the rest of the world - something a
lot of countries with nuclear weapons don't exactly go for.
Although we're supposed to be a Democracy, and the wall between church
and state has worked splendidly for all concerned throughout our
history; a large and zealous fundamentalist religious group is working
hand in hand with the current administration to enact laws based upon
their personal beliefs, which include mandatory group (Christian) prayer
in schools, criminalization of homosexuals and replacing the concept of
evolution with "Creationism Science" and making fundamentalist
Christianity the One Religion and Law of the land. I believe that's
called a Theology, not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.
On top of all this, while there as always been crime to some extent,
lately it seems to be taking an unusually odious form: almost every day,
we hear of another poor child being kidnapped, raped and murdered. A
symbol of a societal system with profound disorders. I suppose we
shouldn't be surprised to learn that the Boy Scout who was recently lost
in the woods, hungry, cold, weak and in danger of perishing, actually
*hid* in fear from his rescuers. Pitiable but true.
A "Dumbed Down" Society? You bet.
A while back a military jet flew over a school in a populated area and
*strafed* it. Several children probably would have been killed had
school not just let out. There was a time when such irresponsible
nonsense would have outraged the country, with demands for explanations,
apologies and insistence that measures be taken that it never happen
again. When asked, local residents' responses were largely along the
lines of "Oh, "accidents" will happen. I feel sorry for "our boys" who
are protecting us (!) Let's give them a break." Give me a place to
vomit.
Oh, I could go on, but I don't have time. Suffice it to say that
thinking people, such as Richard, do indeed have reason to be deeply
alarmed.
There have always been complacent optimists, but that quality has never
protected them from evil.
~ Roger
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Richard Loeb wrote:
> As for Rock Hudson - his sexual orientation was only "open" to the general
> public in the later stages of his career (and even then I would think the
> average movie goer would not have known) - as a matter of fact, Confidential
> magazine was going to blow the whistle on him in the mid 50s but the studio
> offered up Rory Calhoun's arrest as a teenager instead - you can be sure if
> the truth came out about Hudson in the 50s (or Clift or whoever) their
> careers would have been derailed. Best Richard
Actually, it was during the fifties that I learned about
Hudson! Clift, too, come to think of it, but since he was
more a character actor by then, it didn't seem as strange.
(And I was not particularly interested in movies and movie
stars - opera was my "performing" art - so it must have been
fairly general knowledge.)
J.Venning
> Oh, Mr. Venning, don't get me started, please. ..(snip)
Thanks for the enlightment, I truly appreciate it. Now, aren't you glad
to get some of that off your chest ?
J.
J S
Yes, it helps a bit, but I'd feel a great deal better if I could see the
citizenry reawakened with some of the old revolutionary spirit that was
willing to fight and even die for freedom - a quality that, due to our
apathy, we are losing.
And I'd feel a lot better had I used the correct word "Theocracy"
rather than "Theology!" :-)
~ Roger
J.Venning
You may gather by now that I travel extensively across the U.S. every
summer, taking my colleagues on a rampage to bring what we call "The Joy of
Music" to those who otherwise do not have the opportunity of listening to
live singers belt our arias and the likes. We are housed in private homes,
and consequently we get to be very close with our hosts, and the
conversation invariably get to American politics - which they too need to
let off steam once in a while. On the one hand, I feel that it is wonderful
that everyone has the freedom to express his/her feelings about how the
country should be run, but on the other, I find it also sad that this
freedom has divided the country into two opposite camps that approaches a
civil war condition. The ploy to divert attention towards foreign enemies
don't seem to work anymore - maybe we need an invasion from outer space to
unite the U.S. :<(
J.