The Hot Blog

http://www.mtvmusic.com/green_jelly/videos/152182/three_little_pigs_version_2_.jhtml

well said, well said.

people think that because Obama has won, that racism no longer exists... not true at all. Hatred, racism, ignorance and bigotry will never be erased from society no matter how progressive we get.

I don't know what LAFF will do with Raddon, but I hope they make the right decision. Homophobia seems to be the last sort of hatred that's still seen as "widely acceptable" in many parts of the country... I'm so sick of it all.

imo, prop. 8 was a step backwards for ALL america...not just gay america.....

By the way, FIND = Film Independent Something Something?

DBTP - "I don't know what LAFF will do with Raddon, but I hope they make the right decision."

From the rest of the paragraph, it looks like you've decided what the "right decision" would be, but I'm curious about the legal ramifications of this now.

Rich Raddon turned in a resignation letter. His boss (I assume) didn't accept it. So now it's up to the board to... do what? Could they legally fire him? They could've accepted his resignation, but it sounds like that boat's sailed.

If they did fire him, how is that not a violation of the very equal protection principles that are going to be debated (presumably) in the CA Supreme Court when the Prop 8 lawsuits get there?

Keep in mind, a boycott is different. That's customers, not employers. This would be a case of a company terminating an employee because of a political donation. Is that really the level of retribution everyone's looking for?

To take the example to the extreme, could a company fire a neo-Nazi skinhead just for BEING a neo-Nazi skinhead? Or would the skinhead have to actually create a hostile work environment first? And if it's the latter, getting back to the actual case at hand, does Rich Raddon's donation rise to the level of "creating a hostile work environment"? There may be an argument there, but I think it's a pretty dangerous one to make.

If you think the guy should resign, that's your right. But if you think the guy should actually be fired, that's stepping onto some scary ground that I don't think we want to claim.

So what WOULD be the "right decision" for LAFF? Not sure I know the answer.

Apparently in California people cannot be fired for their political beliefs, including making donations to political campaigns. There's possibly a question also about whether it is legal to disclose the names of donors to ballot measure campaigns.

http://volokh.com/posts/1226609203.shtml

http://volokh.com/posts/1226609476.shtml

Re: the latter, there are a lot of cats out of that bag.

Jeff, on Prop 8 at least, you are completely correct. All the metaphors apply: cat/bag, water/bridge, crying/spilled milk, horse/barn door. Pick your favorite.

I'm not talking about Prop 8, I'm talking about the release of info about Prop 8 contributors.

Jeff, that's what I meant, Prop 8 contributors. I figured that's what you were talking about, as it's what I was talking about in my earlier post.

AOK.

dpoland wrote: Did Mr. Raddon show cowardice in trying to exit FIND rather than fighting for what he believes?

I would say no. To me it sounds like he swallowed his cyanide capsule before a probable sh#tstorm hit LAFF. Whether he felt he was justified in his initial contributions, it could’ve been that he didn’t want to affect the livelihood of others. Since that organization or its core purpose has nothing to do w/his personal position on an unrelated matter, my guess is he didn't want the organization to take the hit. Considering the resignation was rejected, I can’t see what other scenario played out. What else could it have been? (seriously asking, not sure what else it could be) Maybe in and of itself, a suicide is merely a cowardly run and hide but what reason would he have for doing that? If he’d drug this out and made a big public stink about it, then one could question whether or not he was playing a martyr. Quietly slip a piece of paper across a desk? Wouldn’t a more cowardly way out to have been to offer a buncha false platitudes, offer to go to “counseling” and become more sensitive just to do PR for the organization and save his own ass (job)?

In releasing the info, what would his detractors ultimately hope? That, to be honest with you, is something I don't understand at this point. Do they want him (others) to retract his vote? Lose his gig? Renounce his position on the matter? Give a matching contribution to their side? Here's something that greatly differs from some other civil protests is that many groups had a specific goal in mind. Change hiring polices, reverse an admission policy, give someone due process, etc. Is this going to reverse prop 8? What would be the next step to bring about change? Sure I get the anger one would have at opposing individuals but I'm missing the mission statement for enacting what means to what ends.

We're here! We're queer! We don't want anymore bears!

so, the board let raddon off the hook......hmmmmm....

btw -- is anyone here actually going to the nationwide prop. 8 protest tomorrow?..... just wondering....

This is not a political argument. Please don't reduce it to one, Dave. This is not Democrat versus Republican. It is a group of people who are putting their money where their morals are and attempting to determine how another group of people live their lives. If they can use their financial freedom to discriminate, we can use ours, too. And we gays have a lot of disposable income to withhold.

I'm not trying to narrow it, hepwa. There are many arguments in all of this. And I appreciate that most of the commenters on this have kept the sanity level high and personal cross-attacks to a minimum.

As a gay filmmaker who has worked closely with Rich and FIND, I find this situation to be extremely upsetting.

Should FIND fire Rich? No.
Should Rich resign? Yes.

Let's just imagine that Measure 8 sought to prevent marriage between blacks and whites. Unthinkable and outrageous, right?

So then let's say it came out that Rich had donated money to prevent interracial marriage.

Would FIND still stand behind Rich? (no) Would they deny his resignation? (yes) Would there be far more outrage in the community (certainly). Would Rich still be able to stand up in front of audiences and panels and introduce films made by minorities? (no).

If this were about black/white marriage, Rich would be excoriated for his actions. There would be no discussion. He would be gone from FIND.

The loss on 8 seems to be (finally) making Homophobia tantamount to racism in the public eye. And Rich seems to have gotten caught on the wrong side of history.

I like Rich. Up until yesterday I would have said I love Rich. I did not think he was homophobic. I would have said that he promotes diversity at FIND. And I think he has the right to spend his money how he pleases.

But I would not want to attend events that Rich is attending. I would not participate in discussions that he was moderating. I would not agree to let him introduce a film I had made.

Would FILM independent stand behind Rich if he was racist? Or gave money to a racist cause (just because his church told him to)?

If Rich issued an apology and an explanation, and donated an equal amount to a Gay Rights group - maybe things would be different. But if not, I'm sure the Mormon church has a film festival too.

Can we stop with the whole "what if it they were trying to ban interracial marriage" fallacy? That argument isn't convincing anyone who isn't already converted.

Regardless of effectivity, it's a good argument.

I disagree. I don't think it's a good argument, and therefore is not effective; and vice-versa. I think gays would be more successful crafting appeals which are couched in their own terms instead of ones which borrow from others. I would argue that it is counterproductive, and alienates more people, at least in the African-American community, than it attracts.

Such as?

"I like Rich. Up until yesterday I would have said I love Rich. I did not think he was homophobic. I would have said that he promotes diversity at FIND."

So how is it that Rich managed to fool so many for so long? How is it that one day he is open and tolerant, and the next he is a hateful bigot? Is he really that deceptive?

OR! Is there something more profound happening? Is it possible, even in the smallest way, that Rich is neither hateful nor a bigot? Is it at all possible that those who voted for Prop 8 did so for reasons other than discrimination, intolerance, or bigotry?

The problem is that a troubling false dichotomy has been established in this debate. You either vote No on 8 or you hate. It's a shame. It's a terribly narrow way to see the world and the people who live there.

Rich (and the gentleman in Sacramento who resigned) directly contradict established stereotypes of Prop 8 supporters. There is a false assumption that those who voted yes did so because they are one of the following: ignorant, bigoted, zealots, deluded, sheltered, or brain-washed. Rich is none of these. Rather, he loves, respects, and honors the members of the gay community who work with him. The gentleman in Sacramento spent nearly 20 years working closely and fairly and openly with the theater community. And because these two men have a different understanding of marriage, their combined years of tolerance and acceptance are instantly and aggressively dismissed.

Maybe, just maybe there is another way to see Rich Raddon.

Yes you can also see him as a confused fool who made a very big, very public mistake.

Perhaps you've heard of a program called "Project Involve" at FIND - a program I was a part of.

It's meant to promote diversity in the entertainment industry and to support minority filmmakers struggling to establish themselves in hollywood.

At least that's what Rich told us when he spoke to our group.

So now we learn that Rich is also giving a considerable amount of money to write discrimination into the state constitution? Hmmm.

So does he "love, respect, and honor members of the gay community?"

Apparently just up to a point.

Is he a bigoted zealot? Probably not, most likely no. Is he filled with hate? Decidedly not. His church asked for money and he gave it. A simple act which his faith required of him.

But isn't it going to be a little awkward the next time they prop him up in front of a group of minority filmmakers at his non-profit organization - and he tells them "there is a place for all us here" - ?

AND

if Rich "voted for Prop 8 did for reasons other than discrimination, intolerance, or bigotry"

then I would LOOOOVE to know what those reasons are.

I would love to have a list of those reasons. I would love to have your name signed at the bottom of that list. And I would love to revisit that list in 20 years - publicly - and see how you feel about it then.

"Can we stop with the whole "what if it they were trying to ban interracial marriage" fallacy? That argument isn't convincing anyone who isn't already converted."

Converted to what, BC?

And please... besides just repeating, over and over, that it is not a good argument, please explain why, in detail.

The only possible explanation I can think of is that you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not genetic, therefore different than other minorities.

If this was all about the word, "marriage," why did the Prop 8 proponents advertise it as being about children been taught about homosexuality at school?

And this is the problem with so many ongoing discussions about Rich. People like the guy, as a rule. And a lot of people feel terrible for him. On some level, I feel terrible for him. But when you scratch the surface and see what's underneath the choice he made, it gets very ugly and very personal.

Of course there are options, as Dove wrote, other than hero or villain. But it's not really about him, in the end. It is about the people whose lives are directly changed by Prop 8. Prop 8, in reality, has NO effect on Rich Raddon's life. Let's say it lost. Would his life have changed in any demonstrable way?

But the prop passed and now many of the people who work around Rich have had their lives changed… after winning a right that was denied them for hundreds of years by tradition in the courts (including a conservative US Supreme Court), that right has been stripped away in the state.

So do you expect silence from the people who lost a right and no response to someone who not only voted to strip them of the right, but gave a significant percentage of his annual income in pursuit of this goal?

One does not have to be an ogre to be a bigot. We just went through an election in which they were discussing The Bradley Effect through the first hour of election night. Every person who was uncomfortable voting for Obama because he was not the traditional ethnicity for the presidency was not saying, “I hate me some niggers.” Obviously, Rich is not so uncomfortable with homosexuality that he can’t work with a lot of homosexuals year in and year out, day in and day out. But apparently, he just doesn’t think they should be allowed to marry.

Oh.

And for you righties in here, there is a flip side. I believe in absolute equal rights… but I also believe that laws forcing indiscriminate hiring can go too far. I also think that states restricting smoking and transfats and other legal lifestyle choices have overreached. I also think you should be allowed to have discriminatory private clubs, within reasonable boundaries. Etc, etc, etc.

Both the right and the left often decide that they know what’s best for others… and both sides can be dead wrong.

In this case, no matter how rationalized your thinking, if you are pro Prop 8… you’re a bigot. Maybe a very nice and tolerant one. Maybe an ignorant one (such as thinking “gay” is a lifestyle and not a life). But there is not a lot of room for negotiation. And really, had gay America been given a legitimate alternative and could keep “marriage” where it belongs… in a church of your choice… the “no on 8s” would not be as shrill.

"Can we stop with the whole 'what if it they were trying to ban interracial marriage' fallacy? That argument isn't convincing anyone who isn't already converted."

Converted to what, BC?"

Converted to the belief that they're equivalent. As I said, it's a bad argument because it's counterproductive. There is a lot of exasperation and confusion expressed about why blacks, who historically have suffered oppression, are not siding with another group that has suffered discrimination. One reason is that many blacks don't believe that their experience is comparable to that of gays. So when gays (and others) try to equate the two, blacks, instead of being persuaded of their similarity, are alienated by what they see as the attempt to equate gays' inability to marry with the historical legacy of slavery and racial discrimination in this country. That's why it's a bad argument. Instead of getting peole to sign up, it erects an initial barrier beyond which a bunch of people can't or won't get.

"The only possible explanation I can think of is that you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not genetic, therefore different than other minorities."

If you're going to make up stuff about me, could you also make me handsome, fabulously wealthy, and ten years younger while you're at it?

It's dumb to compare banning gay marriage to slavery, but I'm not really sure what the difference between not allowing gay people to marry and not allowing people of one race to marry someone of a different race is, unless you think gay people aren't equal to African Americans.

Here is an African-American writer who does equate the two struggles.

Some blacks forgot sting of discrimination
Related Content

By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@miamiherald.com

Sometimes, progress carries an asterisk.

That's as good a summary as any of a sad irony from last week's historic election. You will recall one of the major storylines of that day was the fact that, in helping make Barack Obama the nation's first black president, African Americans struck a blow against a history that has taught us all too well how it feels to be demeaned and denied. Unfortunately, while they were striking that blow, some black folks chose to demean and deny someone else.

Last week, you see, California voters passed an initiative denying recognition to same-sex marriages. This overturned an earlier ruling from the state Supreme Court legalizing those unions. The vote was hardly a surprise; surely there is nothing in politics easier than to rouse a majority of voters against the ''threat'' of gay people being treated like people.

But African Americans were crucial to the passage of the bill, supporting it by a margin of better than two to one. To anyone familiar with the deep strain of social conservatism that runs through the black electorate, this is not surprising either. It is, however, starkly disappointing. Moreover, it leaves me wondering for the umpteenth time how people who have known so much of oppression can turn around and oppress.

Yes, I know. I can hear some black folk yelling at me from here, wanting me to know it's not the same, what gays have gone through and what black people did, wanting me to know they acted from sound principles and strong values. It is justification and rationalization, and I've heard it all before. I wish they would explain to me how they can, with a straight face, use arguments against gay people that were first tested and perfected against us.

When, for instance, they use an obscure passage from the Bible to claim God has ordained the mistreatment of gays, don't they hear an echo of white people using that Bible to claim God ordained the mistreatment of blacks?

When they rail against homosexuality as ''unnatural,'' don't they remember when that word was used to describe abolition, interracial marriage and school integration?

When they say they'd have no trouble with gay people if they would just stop ''flaunting'' their sexuality, doesn't it bring to mind all those good ol' boys who said they had no problem with ''Nigras'' so long as they stayed in their place?

No, the black experience and the gay experience are not equivalent. Gay people were not the victims of mass kidnap or mass enslavement.

No war was required to strike the shackles from their limbs.

But that's not the same as saying blacks and gays have nothing in common. On the contrary, gay people, like black people, know what it's like to be left out, lied about, scapegoated, discriminated against, held up, beat down, denied a job, a loan or a life. And, too, they know how it feels to sit there and watch other people vote upon your very humanity, just as if those other people had a right. So beg pardon, but black people should know better. I feel the same when Jews are racist, or gays anti-Semitic. Those who bear scars from intolerance should be the last to practice it.

Sadly, we are sometimes the first. That tells you something about how seductive a thing intolerance is, how difficult it can be to resist the serpent whisper that says it's OK to ridicule and marginalize those people over there because they look funny, or talk funny, worship funny or love funny. So in the end, we struggle with the same imperative as from ages ago: to overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. But if last week's vote taught us nothing else, it taught us that persistence plus faith equals change.

And we shall overcome.

"it's a bad argument because it's counterproductive" is not an argument at all. It is simply restating what you already choose to believe in another sentence form.

The reason "blacks sided with" Prop 8 is that they, as a group, tend to me more serious about their religion (not unlike Mormons) and were sold the LIE that this was an infringement on God's will in their churches. To wit, bigotry against gays was sold from the pulpit. This was in conjunction with the LIE that schools would teach homosexuality to small children in schools.

Slavery is a non-issue. Civil Rights, circa the 60s is an issue. HUGE difference. And the only reason to compare it to slavery is to obfuscate.

The other accurate comparison is the right to vote for women.

Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

PERIOD.

amen DP

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: