Harlan Ellison, 1934-2018

Mother of God!

That was the entirety of Harlan Ellison’s review of the 1970 premiere episode of The Partridge Family.

Seriously.

Three words (find them at page 190 of the 1983 printing of The Other Glass Teat.)

I never truly ‘met’ him, but I was in his presence once – while he was conducting a charity auction at the 1986 World Science-Fiction Convention in Atlanta.

Katrina Rose - 00169

I’m not worthy.

Bear in mind that my praise for a three-word review – and, more importantly, the man who wrote it – comes from someone who writes 100-page law review articles in her sleep and did a 700-page dissertation draft which I fought tooth-and-nail to cut down to only 400.

“Less is more” so often is used as an oppressive tool of the Religion of Mediocrity.  But Harlan was an exception to so many rules.

The first Glass Teat volume contains a two-part column (originally printed in the L.A. Free Press) simply entitled “Texas.”  It encapsulates his visit to the campus of Texas A&M University in 1969.

The visit was not billed as such at the time, nor truly intended to be such, but it is now recognized as Aggie Con I.  I was hoping, on general principle, that he’d make it to the fiftieth anniversary of that event – but its not going to happen.

We’ve lost Harlan, and I must scream.

Advertisements

Again I Ask: Was Barney Frank Ever Right About Anything?

Almost two years prior to the Dec. 15, 1976 issue of The Advocate in which St. Barney promised that the Massachusetts state gay rights bills would pass in 1977, he had this to say about the 1975 session.

Advocate - 19750312 - Barney

No link, of course, but that is from page 5 of the March 12, 1975 edition of The Advocate.  In case the image is fuzzy, this is the money shot (paragraph spilling over from the bottom left column to the top right):

Rep. Frank has stated that because of the new and important differences between the 1974 and 1975 local political climates here, the general anti-discrimination measure’s chances of passage are “pretty good” this year.  Frank, who did not think the bills would pass during 1974, is considered one of the most astute political observers in Massachusetts.

I wonder what happened between 1974 and 1975.

Did the Democrats get 15-20 more seats?  Because we all know that that will guarantee passage of even a trans-inclusive anti-discrimination bill (and we all know that St. Barney did not even pretend to support one of those until 2007 – and we all know how little he really supported it.)

#sarcasm (but not as to The Advocate excerpt; that’s totally real.)

“Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement”

AlabamaDogs

Was Barney Frank Ever Right About Anything?

From the Dec. 15, 1976 issue of The Advocate (page 8), please note the quote at the beginning of the paragraph halfway down the third column:

Advocate1976

For those who can’t make it out:

The bills will pass in ’77.
– St. Barney

For those not keeping score, Massachusetts did not pass a gay rights bill until 1989.  By then, St. Barney had been in Congress for eight years (though he was spending 1989 calling in every political favor, marker and chit he could unearth in order to avoid getting kicked out of Congress.  Google ‘Steven Gobie.’  Just sayin’….)

Thirty years after his declaration of what would happen in 1977 he bullied the LGBT community – trans people most pointedly – with what he *knew* was capable of passing and not passing.  And then he professed to know for certain that 15-20 more Democrats would make a legitimate (read: trans-inclusive) ENDA a sure thing.

Between the Massachusetts Legislature and Congress, St. Barney drew a legislative salary for forty years.

In all of that time, was he ever right about anything?

If I Could Have the New York Daily News’s Baby, I Would

TrumpForBrains

Jake Tapper for the Slam Dunk

TapperSlam(We would also have accepted ‘Jake Tapper Slams the Skunk’)

 

To No One’s Surprise, The Roseanne Revival Will be TERF TV

From EW:

Darlene’s son Mark (Ames McNamara) likes to dress up in girl’s clothing. But it would be wrong to assume the 9-year-old character is transitioning or is gay. We asked executive producer Sara Gilbert (Darlene) to explain why she created the role of Mark….

SARA GILBERT: He doesn’t. That’s something that got out in the press that’s not true. He’s not a transgender character. He’s a little boy. He’s based on a few kids in my life that are boys who dress in more traditionally feminine clothing. He’s too young to be gay and he doesn’t identify as transgender….

So, to recap: An obnoxious, Trump-worshipping Roseanne Barr allows lesbian Sara Gilbert to create a 9-year-old character and defining said character in a way that insults LGBs (maybe Gilbert didn’t realize she was gay at nine – and I am not criticizing her if she claims that she didn’t; some people don’t but plenty – and probably far more – do) and erases trans people (most of whom realize that they are trans long before nine) in a way that only TERFs truly love.

One truly has to wonder if the character was not concocted in some sleazy law office in Maryland.

What made you want to create this character?
It represents the world.

No. It represents the obnoxious, Trump-worshipping Roseanne Barr’s TERF-on-steroids view of trans women.

At this point I’ll just pass along Toni D’Orsay’s response:

It is extremely bad. It means that we are going to have to go after this representation by attacking the thoughts and ideas that support it, especially since it will rely, in part, on the desistance myth, and will function in direct opposition to all the science…

… while still allowing folks for whom this is real to exist.

Yes, they explicitly say he isn’t a trans character, but do you think the media will be able to project that nuance, and do you you expect the very subtle transphobia of Barr to not be involved?

The only part of that I disagree with is her description of Barr’s transphobia.

It is anything but subtle.

#TERFismIsTerrorism

#TERFIsNotASlur – never has been, never will be.