- Daniel
Well, it's been several weeks since I posted an article. And that's a shame, because it's right in the middle of the primaries. I mean, I missed talking about Hillary Clinton crying! I totally dropped the ball. Not only that, Bill Clinton recently berated a news reporter for asking him a question he didn't want to answer regarding the Vegas lawsuit. Apparently, caucusing is easy, unless it goes against the Clinton party, in which case it's just not fair.
Anyway, I started back with school, and have had to drop a few things out of necessity. I know the one or two readers out there willing to deal with the sporadic updates are probably a little sad, but I'm willing to bet you're not that worried about it.
If all goes well, this hiatus should be temporary, and if I can get things worked out, we'll have articles from other people.
So check back from time to time and we'll see where we go from here.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The Best in Default Fathers
- Christine
I will readily admit that I’m not a reader of Details magazine and frankly I am still a little confused as to who exactly their demographic is. With that said, they caught my attention when they mentioned Kevin Federline and Larry Birkhead as some of the most influential men under 45. What I find more surprising than the fact that someone finds these two guys influential, is the actual reason why Details lists them as influential in the first place. And it may surprise you too. Get this: it’s for their parenting skills. Perhaps this is a rouse or a joke—given the fact that on the front cover with other stellar headlines, such as “Enough Already with Fake Boobs” and “Are You Turning Your Kid into a Douchbag”.
But Seriously… Kevin Federline? Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes waiting in line at the supermarket knows the guy won the title by default. I am by no means defending “Unfitney’s” behavior these last couple of years, but has America completely run out of suitable father figures (and let’s not forget that for whatever reason—maybe a demographic one—the guy has to be under 45) to model their behavior? As near as I can tell Kevin Federline has no job. And did Details magazine forget the fact that he left his then pregnant girlfriend and mother of his kids to date and, then later marry Britney Spears? So yeah, he was given sole custody of his two children with Spears. But if fatherhood is as important to him as mentioned in the article, why has he not gone after custody of his first two kids?
In Kevin’s defense, he does come across as less of a pimp than the briefly mentioned Larry Birkhead, who, as the article mentions: “US Weekly now runs photo montages of Daddy Birkhead helping Dannielynn blow out the candles on her first birthday cake”. I wonder if this is the same first birthday party attended by over 100 guests who where required to turn in their cell phones and sign a release promising not to snap photos (reported by People Magazine). Could the no-photo request have anything to do with Daddy Birkhead’s desire to sell his photos of the party and his daughter to the highest bidder? But how am I to judge? Maybe all of his whoring the child out is just an attempt to create the same environment that girl had when her mother was alive. I can only guess at how lucrative of a career this must be for Daddy Birkhead. Perhaps the only reason Kevin hasn’t been able to employ his own version is due to the fact that his ex is still alive. Or could it have something to do with creating a steady stream of income? If he had the steady job of whoring out his kids, I’m sure his request for more child support would no doubt be denied.
Maybe the magazine is trying to champion the role of the single father. But I’ve got to believe there is a more suitable role model. Hopefully next year, Details can find someone a little more praiseworthy and/or influential in the parenting realm. In the event that guy doesn’t exist and they choose to follow the pattern they created this year; may I put in an early vote for Casey Aldridge (the most recent Spears impregnator)? Let’s face it, I think Details should admit that their description of an “involved father” has very little to do with parenting, and much more with knocking up a famous celebrity.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Praise Huckabee!
-Daniel
It's been a while since I've posted, and I hope everyone had a good Christmas, or Secular Day-Off (depending on how you want to look at it). There's lots of things to talk about, and certainly plenty of things to be angry with. But I wanted to take a moment to write about rising Republican nominee star and charisma hero Mike Huckabee.
Having crept his way to the top tier in the last couple weeks, it's been quite a surprise, making the race for nomination that much more interesting. He's a baptist minister, so I instantly have a semblance of distrust, but after hearing him in the debates, I thought: "he seems pretty charismatic, he can't be that bad." And honestly, the whole idea of the fair tax is really appealing to me. But this isn't about the fair tax (which congress would never allow), this is about the candidate.
I ran across this article in the Weekly Standard (which has an openly conservative bias), The Perils of Huckaplomacy. This article mentions several instances in which he avoids answering questions about foreign issues. When it comes to foreign affairs, the Standard says he "often sounded confused and naive."
The more I've read about him, the more leery I've become. The thing I'm most worried about is he's riding on the fact that he's a Baptist Minister. This is what he claims makes him the most competent man for the job. Maybe some people like that idea, it just makes me worried. How are we to know he won't let his religious affiliations influence his political decisions? Is he going to be taking orders from the Baptists, or the American people? I think he needs to give a Kennedy-esque speech to assure the non-Baptists of this country that he's not going to be taking orders from other Baptist ministers.
Anyone not worried about this, should watch the documentary Jesus Camp. Huckabee's not mentioned in there, of course, but I think it should still be required viewing in order to get a better understanding of the evangelical movement's interest in politics.
It's been a while since I've posted, and I hope everyone had a good Christmas, or Secular Day-Off (depending on how you want to look at it). There's lots of things to talk about, and certainly plenty of things to be angry with. But I wanted to take a moment to write about rising Republican nominee star and charisma hero Mike Huckabee.
Having crept his way to the top tier in the last couple weeks, it's been quite a surprise, making the race for nomination that much more interesting. He's a baptist minister, so I instantly have a semblance of distrust, but after hearing him in the debates, I thought: "he seems pretty charismatic, he can't be that bad." And honestly, the whole idea of the fair tax is really appealing to me. But this isn't about the fair tax (which congress would never allow), this is about the candidate.
I ran across this article in the Weekly Standard (which has an openly conservative bias), The Perils of Huckaplomacy. This article mentions several instances in which he avoids answering questions about foreign issues. When it comes to foreign affairs, the Standard says he "often sounded confused and naive."
The more I've read about him, the more leery I've become. The thing I'm most worried about is he's riding on the fact that he's a Baptist Minister. This is what he claims makes him the most competent man for the job. Maybe some people like that idea, it just makes me worried. How are we to know he won't let his religious affiliations influence his political decisions? Is he going to be taking orders from the Baptists, or the American people? I think he needs to give a Kennedy-esque speech to assure the non-Baptists of this country that he's not going to be taking orders from other Baptist ministers.
Anyone not worried about this, should watch the documentary Jesus Camp. Huckabee's not mentioned in there, of course, but I think it should still be required viewing in order to get a better understanding of the evangelical movement's interest in politics.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Romney Panders to People Unable to Access mormon.org
- Daniel
There's been a lot of hype about whether Romney should deliver a Kennedy-esque speech about his religion, gearing it towards Mormonism. Well, now he has! On December 6, 2008, Romney delivered his "Faith in America" speech. (see transcript here. a video excerpt here, or the full video here).
This week, building up to the speech was interesting in itself. My wife was watching a little bit of The View, where they talked about this upcoming event; I caught some of what they said. They all expressed their lack of knowledge about the religion, but did let us know what they did know--all of it completely wrong. I was especially appalled with Barbra Walters, who has interviewed countless people, and yet knows nothing! Someone whose job it is to research and find out the truth, can't figure out anything about Mormonism. This is really too bad.
Most reporters act this way, however. They want to know what Romney believes about his underwear, blacks in the church, the bible, etc. They can't quite figure out how to use those skills they learned in college to put in a little research, despite the fact they claim that this is such an important topic. Well, they don't want to learn anything, they want to put him on the spot.
So now Romney has given his speech in order to supposedly cater to the Evangelical vote. Apparently this requires a special separate speech, since fundamentalist evangelicals can't get their head out of their ass long enough to figure out that most mormons hold similar values to them. This speech however, he focused more on shared beliefs and common values, a bane to all those who wanted to know more about the actual doctrines of Mormonism. Doctrines like: "Were blacks really banned from your church until 1978?" (Although mostly I hear 1968, but give or take 10 years, and you get it right eventually).
Let me officially answer this: No.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism) was one of the few churches that existed in the 19th Century that actually had a non-segregated congregation. I live in the South right now, and Christian churches are still segregated, explain that one, Fundamentalists. Furthermore, during its early years, Mormonism supported the abolishment of slavery, which caused major political problems when they resided in Missouri (a pro-slave state). According to the media, it seems that church membership and priesthood are synonymous.
But about Romney's speech itself. I was very skeptical prior to it, since it seemed pointless anyway. But I actually liked it. I felt inspired to come together with people of all faiths and share in our rich spiritual commonality. I even feel bad about writing that whole "head out of their ass" comment a few paragraphs before. In my opinion, it was an excellent speech. And then the CNN experts took over.
Immediately following the speech I was barraged by CNN reporters, contributers, and "experts", giving an analysis of the event. I didn't even have time to sit back and mull things over before I was informed that Romney only used the word "Mormon" one time, and how wrong it was that he didn't give a doctrinal discourse. Apparently they didn't listen to him when he said:
Another thing I found disconcerting was they kept saying things to the effect of: "Romney said [this] to appeal more to the religious right." I have my own theory: maybe he said all of it because he actually believed it!
It made me realize something. Most of the misunderstanding doesn't come from the fundamentalist movement (and while they do hate Mormons, more often than not they will admit that they're "good people"). It comes from the media. The media does not know how to deal with a religion like Mormonism, nor do they know how to deal with a politician like Mitt Romney, who has a clean past and actually believes what he says.
Instead they complain about how they just don't understand the religion, and seem like they haven't even gone to the press room section of the official church website.
On CNN, Glenn Beck (who himself is a Mormon) was interviewed a few hours after the Romney speech. He said something to the effect of (and I can't quote verbatim, and I apologize): "If anyone wants to know anything about Mormonism, just ask a Mormon, they'll never shut up about their religion." I agree. Let Mitt Romney focus on policy change and government, and most importantly running his campaign. I want to hear solutions about taxes, immigration, terrorism, the economy, foreign affairs, and yes, even as my friend John often brings up, the Patriot Act. If someone truly is interested in learning about Mormonism, they should either speak to a Mormon, or visit mormon.org. If they are interested, they won't need a politician to tell them about it.
There's been a lot of hype about whether Romney should deliver a Kennedy-esque speech about his religion, gearing it towards Mormonism. Well, now he has! On December 6, 2008, Romney delivered his "Faith in America" speech. (see transcript here. a video excerpt here, or the full video here).
This week, building up to the speech was interesting in itself. My wife was watching a little bit of The View, where they talked about this upcoming event; I caught some of what they said. They all expressed their lack of knowledge about the religion, but did let us know what they did know--all of it completely wrong. I was especially appalled with Barbra Walters, who has interviewed countless people, and yet knows nothing! Someone whose job it is to research and find out the truth, can't figure out anything about Mormonism. This is really too bad.
Most reporters act this way, however. They want to know what Romney believes about his underwear, blacks in the church, the bible, etc. They can't quite figure out how to use those skills they learned in college to put in a little research, despite the fact they claim that this is such an important topic. Well, they don't want to learn anything, they want to put him on the spot.
So now Romney has given his speech in order to supposedly cater to the Evangelical vote. Apparently this requires a special separate speech, since fundamentalist evangelicals can't get their head out of their ass long enough to figure out that most mormons hold similar values to them. This speech however, he focused more on shared beliefs and common values, a bane to all those who wanted to know more about the actual doctrines of Mormonism. Doctrines like: "Were blacks really banned from your church until 1978?" (Although mostly I hear 1968, but give or take 10 years, and you get it right eventually).
Let me officially answer this: No.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism) was one of the few churches that existed in the 19th Century that actually had a non-segregated congregation. I live in the South right now, and Christian churches are still segregated, explain that one, Fundamentalists. Furthermore, during its early years, Mormonism supported the abolishment of slavery, which caused major political problems when they resided in Missouri (a pro-slave state). According to the media, it seems that church membership and priesthood are synonymous.
But about Romney's speech itself. I was very skeptical prior to it, since it seemed pointless anyway. But I actually liked it. I felt inspired to come together with people of all faiths and share in our rich spiritual commonality. I even feel bad about writing that whole "head out of their ass" comment a few paragraphs before. In my opinion, it was an excellent speech. And then the CNN experts took over.
Immediately following the speech I was barraged by CNN reporters, contributers, and "experts", giving an analysis of the event. I didn't even have time to sit back and mull things over before I was informed that Romney only used the word "Mormon" one time, and how wrong it was that he didn't give a doctrinal discourse. Apparently they didn't listen to him when he said:
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."The reporters wanted a doctrinal discourse about how different Mormonisms was from mainstream Christianity. What they failed to realize is that Romney's speech was an average modern Mormon's view on government, freedom and tolerance. I even heard one person say Romney had no emotion, and that it wasn't "exciting". In regards to religion, people probably expect the fervent intonations of an exuberant Baptist or Pentecostal minister. You won't get that from a Mormon when they talk about religion. That tone is what you get when you go to a Mormon church. What they heard was Mormon public speaking at its core. You won't get shouting or yelling, you'll get simple straightforward, and oftentimes boring (although Romney's speech, I feel, was far from it) discourses. What those reporters heard was more Mormon than they realized.
Another thing I found disconcerting was they kept saying things to the effect of: "Romney said [this] to appeal more to the religious right." I have my own theory: maybe he said all of it because he actually believed it!
It made me realize something. Most of the misunderstanding doesn't come from the fundamentalist movement (and while they do hate Mormons, more often than not they will admit that they're "good people"). It comes from the media. The media does not know how to deal with a religion like Mormonism, nor do they know how to deal with a politician like Mitt Romney, who has a clean past and actually believes what he says.
Instead they complain about how they just don't understand the religion, and seem like they haven't even gone to the press room section of the official church website.
On CNN, Glenn Beck (who himself is a Mormon) was interviewed a few hours after the Romney speech. He said something to the effect of (and I can't quote verbatim, and I apologize): "If anyone wants to know anything about Mormonism, just ask a Mormon, they'll never shut up about their religion." I agree. Let Mitt Romney focus on policy change and government, and most importantly running his campaign. I want to hear solutions about taxes, immigration, terrorism, the economy, foreign affairs, and yes, even as my friend John often brings up, the Patriot Act. If someone truly is interested in learning about Mormonism, they should either speak to a Mormon, or visit mormon.org. If they are interested, they won't need a politician to tell them about it.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Fight For Your Right... To Wear Pants!
- Analisa
I am enraged by an article that was placed in the Daily Texan (please read and see The Daily Texan's Who Wears the Pants), which held the argument that women should wear dresses instead of pants. I felt that Ryan Haecker, a history major at the
Possibly the most unfounded and chauvinistic statement was “If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility.” If this statement was anywhere to being true, then the history of fashion supports that men are homosexuals. Now, this may be drastic, but men have always set women’s fashions. They have always created the fashion for themselves and then transferred it to women. Men wore earrings first (Elizabethan era), high heels (invented by Louis XIV and first to wear them, as well as creating ballet, which is now viewed as a very feminine form of dance), and robes (in fact, the French word for dress is robe). Therefore, if men wore these fashions as well as transferring them onto women, then they also love men who are “passive, domestic, child raising, [having sex], pious, and fertile.” Haecker claims that the “nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective” because they wear dresses. But if men love women in dresses, and men wore dresses first, what does that say about men?
He also states: “The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood.” As I recall, men had super short shorts in the seventies and ran around without shirts, so wouldn’t women’s fashion slowly follow this because men just want to see their images reflected in women?
As Haecker states, “what's not sexy is feminism, not to be confused with femininity.” Well I guess he is right that voting and having control of my own finances is not attractive to some men, but I don’t really feel that is my concern. I am thankful for all of the women who fought for me to have the right to vote, have control of my money, and the right to look at my own female anatomy in order to make and understand the decision of having a baby (Comstock Laws of the 1920s). I may not agree with some fractions of the feminist movement, but it seems he makes the mistake of assuming that feminism is one encompassing ideology (burning bras and castrating men) which it’s not.
Maybe what gets to me the most is the fact that this was written by a history major. Now I minored in history, so by far I supposedly have the least knowledge, but despite that, I am angry that he doesn’t recognize that he is perpetuating the enduring historical Victorian ideology, which really only makes up a small portion of human history. He has based his definitions of being feminine and elegant on the Victorian era ideal of a “lady.” The Victorian definition of a lady is called the Madonna and the Whore complex. Ladies are to be seen and not heard, passive, domestic, fertile, rear children as upstanding citizens, and be devout to her religion and her husband. Essentially all lovely qualities attributed to the mother of Jesus. Anything that is remotely against this ideal makes you a whore. I think I am far from passive, yet I do enjoy being “domestic;” however, I love to wear shorts and jeans. Am I now to conclude by this man’s article that I am a whore because I enjoy wearing my jeans and don’t meet up to his Victorian ideal? Who should he be more horrified by, me or Hugh Hefner, who he shares the same ideological themes, mainly wanting women to be passive, domestic, sexually clean, and lady-like. The only difference is Hefner likes his girls naked while Haecker wants his in a dress. Either way, both women they paint are supposed to be sexless.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Eating a Political Burger is Hard
- Daniel
In a recent campaign video to highlight caucusing, Hillary Clinton pulled out the big guns: her husband, former President and scandal hero Bill Clinton. In the beginning of the video it shows Bill running on a tread mill as the narrator describes a nice juicy burger, flipping between the burger and Bill as he is tempted with it's delicious sweetness. Then the words pop up: "Exercising is hard." Follow that with a few similar situations, like dancing, singing, and so forth. But don't worry, caucusing is easy. But keep watching, and Bill succumbs to that tender juiciness of an all-beef patty. Very clever. But I think they should have added something else, just to epitomize the Clinton legacy: "Sexual restraint is hard." Remember when that happened? "Telling the truth under oath is hard."
But aside from that, it's safe to say that Bill is a very charismatic person, but it just seems like every time Hillary needs a little boost, she calls on Bill to bail her out. This video seems no different. It seems strange that when she ran for senator of New York, she did everything she could to distance herself from him, now she can't get to the White House without him.
Who are we voting for? Bill already had his eight years. I think Hillary needs to figure out how to have charisma on her own, without to help of her 'faithful' husband. Whenever she pulls him out for those emergencies, it just seems like she's still living under his shadow. If she wants to lead this country, she needs to prove it.
In a recent campaign video to highlight caucusing, Hillary Clinton pulled out the big guns: her husband, former President and scandal hero Bill Clinton. In the beginning of the video it shows Bill running on a tread mill as the narrator describes a nice juicy burger, flipping between the burger and Bill as he is tempted with it's delicious sweetness. Then the words pop up: "Exercising is hard." Follow that with a few similar situations, like dancing, singing, and so forth. But don't worry, caucusing is easy. But keep watching, and Bill succumbs to that tender juiciness of an all-beef patty. Very clever. But I think they should have added something else, just to epitomize the Clinton legacy: "Sexual restraint is hard." Remember when that happened? "Telling the truth under oath is hard."
But aside from that, it's safe to say that Bill is a very charismatic person, but it just seems like every time Hillary needs a little boost, she calls on Bill to bail her out. This video seems no different. It seems strange that when she ran for senator of New York, she did everything she could to distance herself from him, now she can't get to the White House without him.
Who are we voting for? Bill already had his eight years. I think Hillary needs to figure out how to have charisma on her own, without to help of her 'faithful' husband. Whenever she pulls him out for those emergencies, it just seems like she's still living under his shadow. If she wants to lead this country, she needs to prove it.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Harry Potter and the Wizard of Gayness
- Daniel
Recently, JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, revealed that one of the main characters, the school master Albus Dumbledore, is... wait for it... gay. (see BBC's JK Rowling outs Dumbledore as gay)
This stunning revelation came during a Q&A session in New York's Carnegie Hall on this last Friday, being part of her US book tour.
Gay hero and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell jumped right on the news. "It's good that children's literature includes the reality of gay people, since we exist in every society." (Oh, good, even fictional societies). But wait, the series is over and there was no mention of Dumbledore's sexuality in the books, so the beloved children's literature still doesn't include the reality of gay people. Tatchell goes on to explain, "But I am disappointed that she did not make Dumbledore's sexuality explicit in the Harry Potter book. Making it obvious would have sent a much more powerful message of understanding and acceptance." Just how 'explicit' does Tatchell require? I think the books were fine as they were. Maybe she can write an adult prequel for the gay community later on, depending on the 'explicitness'.
But that's fine if Dumbledore is gay, really. I still like his character, because JK Rowling didn't fall under the sway that so many writers over here in the states fall under, mainly screenwriters of TV and movies. And that is she made Dumbledore's character interesting and developed for reasons aside from the nature of his sexuality. Often times in film and movies, if a character is gay, he is automatically 'interesting', grounded on the fact that he is gay. They are portrayed as having everything figured out, kind and tolerant, etc. Which is fine, I just think that gay characters need to be interesting for other reasons aside from the fact that they're gay.
The British television show Doctor Who pulled this off with the character Jack Harkness, played by John Barrowman, who is gay, and stars in the last 5 episodes of series 1. His character does not act with the usual stereotypical mannerisms of the homosexual characters often portrayed in American movies and television shows. Also on a side note, John Barrowman was considered for the lead role in NBC's Will and Grace, but was turned down because the producers felt he was "too straight", despite the fact that he's gay, so the role went to Eric McCormack, who in reality is straight. Barrowman expressed his contempt at the idea that all gay men act the same way.
But back to JK Rowling and Dumbledore. She could've revealed this little bit of information at any time. After getting a round of applause, which is pretty easy to do when you advocate gay rights in New York, she said "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."
I don't think the richest woman in the world is worried about making people happy. Her series is ended, and she claims she isn't writing any more Harry Potter novels. The first thing I thought, was this was a publicity stunt. She's trying to stay in the game, keep her name out there. Whether Dumbledore's character has always been gay in the author's mind, I'm not doubting. But the timing of her public revelation is a bit suspicious. Her last book broke records, selling 11 million copies in 24 hours. With this announcement, though, she's bound to get more sales. Imagine all the books that hardcore Christian churches will buy, just in order to burn them.
Recently, JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, revealed that one of the main characters, the school master Albus Dumbledore, is... wait for it... gay. (see BBC's JK Rowling outs Dumbledore as gay)
This stunning revelation came during a Q&A session in New York's Carnegie Hall on this last Friday, being part of her US book tour.
Gay hero and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell jumped right on the news. "It's good that children's literature includes the reality of gay people, since we exist in every society." (Oh, good, even fictional societies). But wait, the series is over and there was no mention of Dumbledore's sexuality in the books, so the beloved children's literature still doesn't include the reality of gay people. Tatchell goes on to explain, "But I am disappointed that she did not make Dumbledore's sexuality explicit in the Harry Potter book. Making it obvious would have sent a much more powerful message of understanding and acceptance." Just how 'explicit' does Tatchell require? I think the books were fine as they were. Maybe she can write an adult prequel for the gay community later on, depending on the 'explicitness'.
But that's fine if Dumbledore is gay, really. I still like his character, because JK Rowling didn't fall under the sway that so many writers over here in the states fall under, mainly screenwriters of TV and movies. And that is she made Dumbledore's character interesting and developed for reasons aside from the nature of his sexuality. Often times in film and movies, if a character is gay, he is automatically 'interesting', grounded on the fact that he is gay. They are portrayed as having everything figured out, kind and tolerant, etc. Which is fine, I just think that gay characters need to be interesting for other reasons aside from the fact that they're gay.
The British television show Doctor Who pulled this off with the character Jack Harkness, played by John Barrowman, who is gay, and stars in the last 5 episodes of series 1. His character does not act with the usual stereotypical mannerisms of the homosexual characters often portrayed in American movies and television shows. Also on a side note, John Barrowman was considered for the lead role in NBC's Will and Grace, but was turned down because the producers felt he was "too straight", despite the fact that he's gay, so the role went to Eric McCormack, who in reality is straight. Barrowman expressed his contempt at the idea that all gay men act the same way.
But back to JK Rowling and Dumbledore. She could've revealed this little bit of information at any time. After getting a round of applause, which is pretty easy to do when you advocate gay rights in New York, she said "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."
I don't think the richest woman in the world is worried about making people happy. Her series is ended, and she claims she isn't writing any more Harry Potter novels. The first thing I thought, was this was a publicity stunt. She's trying to stay in the game, keep her name out there. Whether Dumbledore's character has always been gay in the author's mind, I'm not doubting. But the timing of her public revelation is a bit suspicious. Her last book broke records, selling 11 million copies in 24 hours. With this announcement, though, she's bound to get more sales. Imagine all the books that hardcore Christian churches will buy, just in order to burn them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)