The all-seeing I

I have a tendency of very often having an overwhelming urge to write but no subject matter. Sure there’s a plethora of things going on but other bloggers have already written about it, and much better. So – my writing only happens when I am overly emotional or drawn into a subject or event. If it has an impact on me I tend to not be at a loss for words, otherwise I just stare at the MS Words white page. It is quite horrifying and normally either leads to feelings of profound apathy/despair/agitation or angst.

I acquired a contentious topic a week ago, did considerable research and gathered quite a lot of academic sources. The problem: I have to piece together an article which is an amalgamation of sources and syntheses of hypotheses. Meta-analysing the process should not be encouraged – especially to those with a tendency to be a tad bit over-analytical and employing psychoanalysis and feasibility studies on basically much of what they do. Damn those lecturers, textbooks written by smug academics, and pedantry. Had I not meta-analysed I could have been much more productive.

Then again it acts as a quality control filter and had I not purposely switched off these cerebral faculties this commentary would have never seen the light of day. I cannot write on demand – many other things I can. I am quite adept at writing pompous wannabe dissertations on pharmacology. It is normally lost on I’d say 99% of any audience in general. Anthropology and social dynamics coupled with psychology I find very interesting and I like to muse at it at length.

At around 01:00 I thought about the scenario and wrote this status update:

I am essentially a frustrated writer, ideas fleeting and rife but consummation rare, boredom quickly sets in; nonconformity, nonchalance stifles and formality abundant; modafinil or hypomania usually conducive to creation though usually utterly self-amusing or sardonically deprecating

I might not be a prolific writer but I read a lot. And with “a lot” I mean hours of reading every single day. LGBT advocacy groups’ blogs, my fellow executive’s blog, news in relation to all matters Pink and continually researching some item from the pharmacopoeia. I might not write that much but I am pretty much up to date.

I scan a lot of usually irrelevant Google Alerts – one might just see something in all the clutter. When I find something that I find to be in the ambit of our organisation I send emails and mobile text messages as an alert. We have an online conference and decide on a strategy and we pounce on the issue in a matter of a few minutes in a feline fashion.

Information is ubiquitous nowadays and according to some veneered academics wants to be free. We will thus see whatever happens and react on it.

The all-seeing I is watching, reading and occasionally writing. The all-seeing I might not be in the press all the time, the all-seeing I prefers relative anonymity and is acutely aware of his personal safety and thus vigilant. But the I still sees. Everything.

15 Minutes of fame – through “suicide”?

The famous words by the Pop Art extraordinaire Andy Warhol really manifest itself in the age of so-called Web 2.0 – the social networking hegemony.

In the future everybody will be world famous for fifteen minutes.

In February 1968 Warhol exhibited his first international retrospective exhibition at the Moderna Museet gallery in Stockholm. The exhibition catalogue contained "In the future everybody will be world famous for fifteen minutes." It is far and away the best-known of the many quotations attributed to Warhol; in fact it is probably the only comment of his that most people know.

The line began to bore Warhol in later years when interviewers kept asking him about it. In 1979 he did repeat it though, claiming that the line had truth - "my prediction from the sixties finally came true: In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes."

As things have turned out the rise of celebrity culture and reality television in the Western world since then has shown Warhol to be quite prophetic.

Warhol did one of his signature screen prints titled Shot Red Marilyn in 1964.

Marilyn Monroe died of a "possible suicide" in her home on 5 August 1962. Her death is still shrouded in mystery and conspiracy theories a plenty. Was she murdered? Was it a suicide? To this day in January 2010 we still don’t know so I’ll take the official report as truth (for now).

Uncanny it is that so many urban legends arise from suicide. I saw an article insinuating that James Dean also committed suicide. I wonder who else did. Kurt Cobain did. Or didn’t he? I guess only clairvoyants know. I might ask his wife, but she might throw me with a shoe.

A certain gay 18 year old Pieter Rossouw committed suicide, on either Sunday 9 January 2010 or the morning thereafter, after a coming out to his parents. His parents apparently did not react well and his friend Sean Cronje announced his death to his 1000+ friends on Facebook on Monday 10 January 2010. Quite a flurry erupted and a fan page created in his honour commiserated the passing of a young gay guy because of the evil of heterosexist prejudice.

After a day things didn’t seem to tie up and the online magazine Gayspeak.co.za initiated an investigation which was subsequently reported in Beeld of 16 January 2010.

No person by the name of Petrus of Pieter Rossouw was born on 7 April 1991 in South Africa. None of his 1000+ friends ever met him in real life.

Strangely enough Sean Cronje’s profile was only created one day before Rossouw’s alleged suicide. It became evident from the investigation that the photos on Rossouw’s profile were manipulated.

Anecdotal information has come to the fore that nobody by that name died in Cape Town on the dates mentioned from either suicide or any other cause.

The press is calling it a cyber joke. A lot of people are extremely upset, especially in the gay community because of the very sensitive nature of the issue. Gay teen suicides are a pressing issue compounded by social bias, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and even more serious criminal offenses.

We still do not know for sure if this was an elaborate cry for help or an outright sick joke. If it is the latter it plays right into the hands of the anti-gay propagandists who claim things such as “suicidal lifestyles” and declare gay people “mentally ill”.

If this is a horrid faux pas I would like to tell Mr Rossouw or whatever his name is that it is a deplorable scam which not only destroys the image of the gay community but invalidates the severity of suicide, depression, suicidal ideation, and rejection. Suicide is no laughing matter. Perhaps this fraudster should be taken to an ER or psychiatric hospital to see firsthand what pain and anguish he mocked and exploited.

If it is indeed an elaborate cry for help someone has to make an appointment with a healthcare professional, preferably a psychiatrist. The South African Society of Psychiatrists is a non-homophobic organisation and their website lists psychiatrists all over the country. Please seek help.

http://www.sasop.co.za/

Gay Californians should be able to marry – everyone has the right to be miserable

The sardonic title aside, herewith a rough dissection of the issues pursuant to the very contentious federal court case currently underway in San Francisco, CA.

The United States Ninth Circuit Court is currently in session with both sides of the aisle fiercely debating marriage equality in Perry v Schwarzenegger. The federal trial is to determine whether Proposition 8 was in contravention of the United States Constitution. The scope is further expanded to ask the question if individual states have the right to ban same-sex marriage under the Federal Constitution.

For the uninitiated – Proposition 8 was a ballot measure brought about by a plethora of religious organisations (a huge Mormon influence) and other social conservatives. During the 2008 US Presidential Elections Proposition 8 was passed with 52% to 48% much to the dismay of Californians, Americans and the entire world. Effectively Proposition 8 amended the Californian Constitution to declare marriage a union between one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. Sorry Mormons, no chauvinist polygamy here...

The foundation of the modern American collective psyche was mapped out by the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

This document is of great significance to Americans and underpins the core values on which the independent America was formed. The salient quote applicable in this instance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note that Jefferson unambiguously mentions that there are certain unalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Is it not the unalienable right of same-sex partners to be treated equally in the eyes of the law? Is it not their pursuit of happiness that is immensely cramped here as the underdogs and underclass of America are denied happiness central to enjoying their rights to liberty without fear of prejudice?

Thomas Jefferson also engraved a very central element in the ethos of the American State: the separation between church and state. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801 Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

It is thus uncanny that in our day and age the religious convictions of the slight majority are able to trump individual liberties and deny citizens very basic rights. Aforementioned latter was written centuries ago yet it seems Americans completely forgot their basic founding principles and documents.

According to John C. Eastman of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange County, California the trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger is weighted slightly in favour of the LGBT community:

The trial to determine the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, is being held in San Francisco, one of the most pro-gay marriage venues in the country. This is a decided home-court advantage for those challenging the law and, by implication, the nation's marriage laws.

The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters.

Eastman further supplies some information on the arguments of the first day of the trial:

Perry co-counsel David Boies has said traditional marriage is nothing but "the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing." The plaintiffs will argue that gays and lesbians are a politically powerless class of people who are entitled to the highest degree of legal scrutiny of a law that applies especially to them.

In this regard, they say, Prop 8 should be viewed by the same legal standards that are used to evaluate claims of racial discrimination. They'll argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. And they will argue that Prop 8 was passed because of "improper" religious views. They say that there is no rational basis for Proposition 8 and that it could have been adopted only because of voter "animus" toward gays and lesbians.

In my personal opinion there is no difference in the premise and justification of discrimination and inequality that the LGBT community suffers than the justifications of discrimination and inequality people suffered in the form of racism and slavery. The same holds true for the oppression of women who only very recently acquired the right to vote.

Many of my counterparts all over the world have said this and I stand by it: one day we will look back at where we are now in shame and disgrace as a period akin to the Dark Ages.

(first published: Litnet: Gay)

Doctors For Life – South Africa’s ex-gay medical propagandists

It was towards the end of June 2009 that an activist colleague of mine discovered an anti-gay and ex-gay organisation based in South Africa which purveys junk science under the name Doctors For Life International. After I did some digging in the South African companies’ registry I found that this organisation was truly wholly South African and owned two section 21 companies which provide them with tax exempt status. The two companies were also registered Non Governmental Organisations and the government records provided the names of the fiduciaries.

Several official complaints were lodged at the South African Department of Health and the Health Practitioners Council of South Africa for what I labelled malfeasance. It took considerable and relentless lobbying before action was assumed to be taken though this was kept in camera. I first noticed the completely rewritten statement on homosexuality on the Doctors For Life website on the last day of 2009 as I did some research.

Legally all medical practitioners are bound by a code of conduct and these organisations fall within in the ambit of these conditions. The two companies were in contravention of the Equality Act and the Constitution, and did not keep to proper medical practice by deviating from accepted standards. Note also that Doctors For Life isn’t a statutory body and not at all akin to the South African Medical Association which represents medical practitioners.

The most worrying was that vile propaganda was spread under the auspices of medical credibility when there was really nothing to substantiate the outlandish claims.

Herewith excerpts of the original text:

Homosexuality is an attempt to get a normal need met in an abnormal way. Homosexuality is not about sex, but is about a need for love and acceptance in a person who through circumstances or conditioning often did not receive or perceive to receive love or acceptance as a child and/or was sexually abused as a child. Homosexuality is not genetically based, but nurture-based, and therefore treatable. Homosexuality is unnatural and no society or religion has ever endorsed it as an ‘acceptable norm’. This behavior pattern is contrary to the God-ordained state of marriage between one man and one woman, and is not conducive to a stable family environment to raise children.

Medically, some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard human anatomy and function. These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy. Among those involved in homosexual acts, there is an increased incidence of drug/or alcohol dependency, compulsive sexual behaviour, anxiety, depression, and suicide.

Socially, men who commit homosexual acts have a high incidence of promiscuity, child molestation, and sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual behaviours burden society with increased medical costs, increased disability, and productivity loss. Legalizing or blessing same sex marriage or civil unions is harmful to the stability of society, the raising of children, and the institution of marriage. If the only criterion for marriage were mutual consent or commitment, there are no grounds to prohibit bestial, paedophilic, sodomous [sic] or incestuous unions.

It is thus not uncanny that Doctors For Life was one of the amici curiae in the landmark Constitutional Court case of Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs of 2005 which led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in South Africa.

Herewith excerpts of the completely rewritten and more politically correct version of the statement on homosexuality (it is still propaganda though):

The discussion of sexual orientation is complex and emotional. It is complex because it encompasses a wide range of scientific fields such as behavioural genetics, neuro-anatomy, psychiatry, psychology, sociology and many others. And it is emotional because sexuality is such an integral part of our identity as individuals. Homosexuality has undoubtedly been one of the most debated socio/political topics in the west over the past few decades.

It is necessary to mention that even though the idea of a so called, ‘gay gene’ has been popularized by the media, that there is not a shred of scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore immutable (unchangeable). That is not to say that studies to prove a genetic cause have not been undertaken. Many studies have been undertaken by research professionals from respected academic institutions. Here are three famous ones:

1. Geneticist, Dean Hamer, author of the ‘gay gene’ study tried to link homosexuality to a string of DNA on the X chromosome called Xq28.

2. Simon LeVay, a neuro scientist, studied the differences in the front hypothalamus (INAH3) part of the brain of homosexual and heterosexual males.

3. Bailey and Pillard did studies on identical twins that had 100% the same DNA, non identical twins, siblings and adopted siblings of the same sex.

In reviewing the research, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction.

Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up.

While it is a new toned down piece of propaganda the use of the Masters and Johnson study is truly flabbergasting. Truth Wins Out reported on the refutation of the Masters and Johnson study quite a while ago already.

Laying complaints of medical malfeasance is not a matter of gagging free speech but rather a matter of law enforcement. Medical practitioners have the obligation to steer clear of conjecture, misinformation, propaganda, and prejudice. The Constitution as supreme law of the land may not be subverted and individual liberties have to be protected at all costs especially by those in positions of power or influence including doctors.