Oh My Gods! That Straight Guy is kissing that Other Guy!

Before you begin today's Riot, a quick disclaimer: This particular article discusses gay folks, gay porn, and the gay community. If you're a homophobic asshat or just don't particularly care to read about such topics, wait for the next Riot. Or, you know, just list 10 reasons why you hate Sarah Palin in the comments section below.

This is Nick. He's got a wife and he works out a lot. He's a straight guy.

This is his alter-ego Reese. Reese likes boys on camera for lots of money. 

A recent article in the UK issue of Marie Claire was highlighted by gay news magazine The Advocate that brings back into the spotlight an issue that has - for one reason or another - been a major point of contention in the gay community. Straight guys - or, at least, men who identify as heterosexual in their personal life - having sex with other men for money. It's a phenomenon called 'Gay-for-Pay' and it both pisses the gay community off and turns them on.

Now, at first, it might seem confusing as to why the Gay-for-Pay (G4P) guys are so controversial. It's two (or three or seven) guys, usually quite attractive, engaging in some toe-curling bedtime fun for the enjoyment of the masses of guys who can't seem to get it anywhere else. Who cares what the "actors" do in their personal lives, right? I mean, as long as the action is hot and the guys seem genuinely turned on, isn't that what purveyors of the adult arts want?

Yes and no. Apparently. I must warn you that when I was researching this topic, I had to tiptoe around Google. Typing in phrases like 'gay-for-pay' leads to both heated debates on the matter and veeeeeery graphic...umm...stuff. Be that as it may, I found a number of negative opinions on the matter. So, in the interest of flow, we'll look at these in bullet-point form:

• Umm...They're straight. There are quite a number of dissenting opinion on the G4P phenomenon that dislike the idea simply because the men are actually straight. For some reason, the knowing that the guy, against all appearances and despite the fervor with which he...works, likes to go home and have his way with the opposite sex is a major turn-off. 
• The Quality of the Art. The most obvious argument against G4P guys is that they just don't seem as in to the act of non-procreative male-on-male horizontal mambo. They appear 'flat' or can't get it up or are otherwise bad performers. Which, I suppose, might be a good argument against G4P. If the guys aren't truly wanting to do what they're doing, it's going to be a waste of time for all involved in the filthy filthy porn industry.
• It's a Huge Tease. This is like the first argument just with less bile and more of a sexual let-down.
• They're not really straight! Some in the gay community feel that it's a bit repressive to call these guys straight. This seems to be where the most prudish of arguments originate. Men who have sex with men for money on camera for the world to see that still call themselves straight seems get people pissed as it's a ploy to constrain a guy's sexual truth. Or something like that. Apparently, it would appease these folks if the "actors" at least came out as 'bi.' Though, they would probably not get as much work, as their appeal is the 'straight guy doing gay things.' The appeal of the forbidden fruit. (Pardon the pun.)
• Unrealistic Expectations. This idea highlights the notion that continuing to celebrate the macho, attractive, straight guy who - when his frat brothers or football teammates or whatever aren't looking - will engage in a little shish-kebob sword-fight does something worse than give guys mental blue balls. It perpetuates an unrealistic stereotype. For as long as anyone seems to remember, gay guys in the modern age have been pigeonholed into being the fairy, the queen, the drag-wearing, body-waxing, superficial sex-fiend who is less deep than a bird bath and as masculine as Miss America. While the gay community continues to make great strides in highlighting the range of masculine/feminine natures and mannerisms, folks who dislike G4P sometimes say that it perpetuates an unrealistic ideal. It somehow elevates masculine, athletic, 'you would NEVER tell I'm gay' guys as what is good, and designates anything else as less-than.

Maybe there is something to this preference-bending, G4P stuff. A little trivia: Have you ever heard of the show Will & Grace? Of course you have. And, yes, you watch the re-runs, and yes you hate Leo just as much as everyone else. But, did you know that the actor who plays Will (Eric McCormack) is straight? Probably. But!! Did you know that the part was originally going to go to an actor that some of you Torchwood fans might know, John Barrowman? However, he was replaced with McCormack, because producers felt he was too straight-acting, and they wanted someone who was obviously gay. 

Funny thing about this is that John Barrowman, the guy who was too straight to play gay, is actually gay. In real life. Like...well, I'll dispense with the gay sex metaphor. Suffice it to say, he likes penis. Barrowman later commented that he was quite displeased with the stereotype that all gay men act the same way. 

It was every little gay's dream. Being the band nerd who lives across from the gorgeous football star in high school and having him reluctantly and finally tells you he loves you at the prom. Oh, wait...that's a Taylor Swift music video. But, the dream was still there for many of us. Everybody in high school had that one guy or girl they longed for, but for the gays that was just not going to happen. So, maybe there's a little of that desire, that longing for the forbidden, that one guy you know you'll never get in our collective putting the masculine jock on a pedestal. 

But, consider this: guys get paid thousands of dollars to do one gay sex scene. They might get paid a couple of hundred at the most to do a straight sex scene. So, dollar for dollar, fudge packing is one profitable enterprise. (Come on, I am allowed one more bad euphemism.) According to the article featuring homo-for-money Reese Rideout - or Nick Dent - his wife is all for him having sex with men. It puts bacon on the table, and she doesn't have to worry about him cheating on her with a woman. Because, you know, having sex several times a day with someone who isn't your wife isn't cheating, as long as it's with another man. 

This debate doesn't just rage in the porn community. Many gays and lesbians get quite upset that an actual gay or lesbian actor cannot get a lead role in a mainstream, big budget movie. It's become a major interview point in the past several months with many big-named gays commenting on the problem. Yet, when big movies do come along that win critical acclaim and major awards and make the money, and they feature a gay character as the main character, Hollywood chooses straight actors to portray them. Brokeback Mountain, The Kids Are All Right, and many other movie titles highlight gay characters being portrayed by straight actors and actresses. Both of these movies have won many awards, made a lot of money, and supposedly have done a lot to continue the fight for gay rights by presenting positive portrayals of GLBT folks. 

And, yet, the gay community is pissed because the actors are actually straight. I can see the point. Were there no gay guys who could play cowboys? Were there no lesbians who could play moms? It's not that they don't exist, so what's the reason? I've met plenty of gay guys who were more masculine, more muscular, more athletic, and more all-around the stereotypical All-American Guy than any straight guy. They're out there. So...what's the ish? 

Some say it's a comfort thing. It's ok to watch the gay movie if you know the actor is straight. Or, it's a talent thing. The actor can convincingly play gay, so he or she can add that to his or her repertoire and pick up an Academy Award while they're at it. 

What do you think? Does Gay for Pay bother you? Does this say something about stereotyping, or is it a bunch of prudish queens getting up in arms over nothing? I'd love to hear your comments, Rioters!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Jaguar Watch: Ares and that Guy from Maroon 5

This week has been crazy. I'm not really sure that I can say anything except it felt like time just slipped away, like there weren't enough hours in the day. So, naturally, I turn to delicious menfolk to get the ol' crank turnin'. That is to say, hey look! Hot, shirtless men!

Today's Jaguar Watch is a two-for, because I haven't done one of these entries in a while. First off: Ares God of War.

Ok...well, the Xena & Hercules version of Ares: Kevin Smith. Swaying a bit from my usual type, there's just something I couldn't quite put my finger on initially with Smith as Ares. And then, I saw the Xena episode 'Old Ares Had A Farm.' All I can say is W A T C H  I T! Delicioso! Welcome to the Jaguar Club, Kevin Smith!

Heavenly. Sadly, though, Kevin Smith died in 2002. So, since it's not fair to drool over someone you can't have, there's that guy from Maroon 5. You know the one. The lead singer who doesn't seem to own a shirt: Adam Levine.

You're welcome.

Happy Weekend!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

So, about those Fox News Polls

In a recent episode of the Podcast, I mentioned a recent poll showing that Fox News viewers know less about current events than viewers of other news channels. Sadly, I forgot to cite my source, and a few of you Rioters - rightly so - called me out on it. I am so pleased! Really, I couldn't be happier. When the Riot first started, I made several mistakes that were hardly - if ever - caught. This not only tells me my listener/reader base is growing, but it tells me you all are growing SMARTER! (I'd like to think I had a little something to do with that. Though, I am constantly wrong.)

So, to clarify a few things, here are a few very interesting recent polls having to do with Fox News still not being news.

Back in December poll results were published by a University of Maryland based organization called World Public Opinion discussing how the television media - especially cable television media - swayed American opinion on several key issues to believe incorrect information. The study further postulated that political advertisements were largely to blame, and the more partisan the network, the more biased the ads. While viewers of network news, MSNBC, CNN, and others were found to believe some incorrect information, it was viewers of Fox News that believe the most incorrect information to be the truth.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.

When I said that this was the second time this decade that Fox News' viewers were rated as the least competent when it comes to current events and political matters, I was discussing a study that came out (and for the life of me, I cannot find the paperwork. It's back in a box of college notes from political science. So...take my word or not...) around 2004 which stated (remember, this info was true in 2003/2004, and has since changed):

• The majority of people that keep up with the news get it from TV.
• The majority of people that get their news get if from Fox.
• The majority of people that get their news from Fox were wildly misinformed about several key issues. At the time of this study they were:
• Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
• The terrorists that performed the acts of 9/11 were in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and possibly several other Middle Eastern countries. 

Again, since I cannot find the exact source for this study, you may discount it at your leisure.

The most recent poll dealing with Fox News broke just about 4 days ago. A polling agency called Public Policy Polling ranked various news networks in order of viewers' trust in said network's ability to convey true information. Now, this is an interesting kind of poll, one that you may or may not want to put a bit of stock in. Personally, polls like this seem like popularity contests swayed by the ferocious manner in which cable news hosts bash on the other networks with which they disagree. Here are the poll results:

-A year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't. Conservatives haven't moved all that much- 75% said they trusted it last year and 72% still do this time around. But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network- a 12 point gain from 48% to 60% for moderates and a 16 point gain from 66% to 82% for liberals. Voters between left and center tend to be more trusting of the media across the board, which is why a fair number of them were still rating Fox favorably even a year ago at this time. But it looks like with a lot of those folks it has finally crossed the line to being too political to trust.

-Democrats trust everything but Fox. Republicans don't trust anything but Fox. And independents don't trust much of anything. For Democrats 73% trust PBS, 64% NBC, 61% CBS, 60% CNN, 56% ABC, and 22% Fox. For Republicans 67% trust Fox, 29% PBS, 22% CNN, 21% NBC, 17% ABC, and 15% CBS. For independents 44% trust PBS, 36% Fox, 34% CNN, 33% NBC, 27% CBS, and 26% ABC.

Basically, what this final poll tells me is that we have allowed - not really to the shock of anyone - partisan politics to enter into our media. Officially. And nobody seems to really care that we did it. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a news source that we can trust as impartial and straight-shooting. The past 3 elections - the last one, especially - was so contemptuous when it came to speaking to the American public that it set a firm dividing line in nearly every aspect of life. It's gross, and it is indicative of the kind of political climate that is being brewed these days in which politics is entertainment and not a way to run the country.

That being said, it is worth noting what networks are spewing the most bile and incorrect information. So, take the poll results for what you will. But, make sure that - whatever your source of choice - you're taking in more than one or two sources for news. I recommend a combination of a cable talking head (O'Reilly, Maddow, one of those) to get your blood pumping, a network like NBC or ABC or a middle-way cable network like CNN to keep your head level, and NPR or PBS to really get some straight shooting.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Book Review: Faery Tale by Signe Pike

Faery Tale: One Woman's Search for Enchantment in a Modern World by Signe Pike is, pardon the repetition, an enchanting book. Overall, the book struck me as a version of Eat, Pray, Love but for modern, American pagans - and those that love them. The only reason I say pagans is due to the, seemingly, very specific audience Pike was aiming for: those that love spirits, earth spirituality, and magic. While Pike admits she isn't necessarily pagan, she further admits to not truly claiming any belief system. (Though, she dabbled in Wicca in her teenage years.)

So, please, when you read this book - and you should - read it for the full story that it is. Too many people read books like Pike's (or her spiritual older sister, Elizabeth Gilbert) and focus on one part of the story. Most reviews I've read seems to be upset that Pike's personal journey kept inconveniently getting in the way of all the faery-hunting. The reviewers seem to be completely missing the point of the story, as it was not a field guide on how to properly hunt for nature spirits. Let me repeat that:

THIS BOOK IS NOT A HOW-TO-HUNT-FAERIES BOOK!

Or, at least, not completely. There is definitely that element to the book. It is a journey book. A book about deciding to find the mystical in the mundane, about seeking the divine with logic and reason and learning when to throw those things aside and follow your intuition. It tells grown, educated adults that it is ok to be curious about magic and faeries and ghosts and all the beings of folklore, and it is further ok to seek them out, sit them down, and have a chat.

The book came to me at a time when I was in need of a spark, an impetus to re-engage with my spiritual quest. Oddly enough, faeries had been on the forefront of my thoughts. After reading Faery Tale Pike inspired me to hunt for those winged sprites in my own backyard. I'll keep you posted on what I find. 

Read below for my 5 Torch Breakdown & Rating. 

• Technicals: Signe Pike used to be a book editor. As such, the sentence structure and grammar don't inhibit your reading. However, as with any book, there are typos. While it seemed like there were a few more typos as the story went on (perhaps her editor doesn't use a very fine tooth comb?), Pike assured me that they were being corrected for future editions and re-releases. Thus, this torch is earned.
• Obtuse/Obscure: The author is an open book. She tells you right up front what kind of story this is, whether the reader wants to focus on the entire book or not. While the story isn't for everyone, that isn't a negative. It is written for an audience, as is every book, and it is quite easy for members of that audience to become engrossed in the story. Torch earned.
• Characters: Sometimes in memoirs such as this the characters can be a bit one-sided, the author's narrow remembrance. While you don't see many of the characters for very long, you are able to get to know a very intimate piece of them during the conversation between the author and the person. Pike was keenly aware of every nuance of her interviewees and didn't write in a question/answer format. The folks in her story are believable, though they are a bit stunted. Many of the conversations didn't seem as fleshed out as I'd like, and I found myself thinking, "But why didn't you ask this? Or that? Or...really, you're already done talking?" These are the earliest interviews, however, and don't represent the latter meat of the book. Torch still earned, though some points get deducted out of sprite...I mean spite. (Come on...someone had to make the fairy joke.)
• Memorable: If you're a member of Pike's target audience, then this book will stay with you. In fact, I don't doubt you'll pick it up and flip to a particular chapter/country and re-read just for the pleasure or reference. While it doesn't break new ground in the travel-book-as-spiritual-and-emotional-journey category, it does do its predecessors justice. I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be a movie. Or, at least, a really good show on Lifetime. Torch earned.
• Story: The story is a treasure. Though, to be fair, it vacillates rather quickly between flashbacks of an emotionally abusive and physically ill father to singing in a field with chocolate in hand trying to catch a faery. I sort of get what the other reviewers were saying. It's not that the two stories don't fit together, but the transition between the two, the blending of past and present, wasn't always the smoothest. Just as you're getting used to intuitional kismet of black feathers and blue jackets and hunting for the Sidhe, you're back with a young girl who doesn't understand why her dad broke her stopwatch. Granted, this is Pike's first book, and I am sure things will be smoother in future endeavors. 

I'm a picky reviewer. So, please, don't let anything I say stop you from reading the book. There are a few imperfections, but all books have them. All in all, I'd say this book is 4 1/2 Torches! The only reason it didn't earn the full 5 is because of those minor details. The abrupt change of tone and pace that could happen when a flashback hits you right in the middle of an emotional high in the faery-hunting, present-day storyline. The characters who were so interesting that you wished there were just a page or two more spent filling out the interview. 

I had the pleasure of speaking with Signe Pike, the author, for an interview on Inciting A Riot: the Podcast. I truly hope each of you will go and take a listen, because she is a wonderful person. She is bright and bubbly and knowledgeable and deeply wishes to share her experiences and hopes they fuel your own journey. Buy this book. It has my full recommendation. 

Have YOU read Faery Tale? Send in your emails to FireLyte@incitingariot.com, because Signe has agreed to do a follow-up show where she will answer listener/reader questions about the book, about faeries, about tolerance in the pagan community - oh yes, there's a whole sub-plot involving snooty pagans - and anything else you want to know. So get those in or leave a comment below!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

A Few Responses

A few chunks of news have broken in the last week, some big and some merely irksome. The following responses are by those that have become targets of the stories in question. And, of course, I respond.

Or, Riot, as it were.

In Chik-Fil-A News: I love Chik-Fil-A. The delicious, breaded chicken breasts are second-to-none in the fast food industry, and possibly in the entire breaded chicken breast food industry at large. Though, to be fair, I'm a southerner - despite my inability to admit it - and I am biased. Growing up in an exceedingly conservative, Christian part of the country - East Texas - it was common knowledge that this franchise is pretty Christo-centric. They are closed on Sundays. If you're a group that wants to have, say, a car wash in a public area, Chik-Fil-A will match all donations you receive if you're a Christian organization. They are big proponents, and have been for years, of Christian organizations, etc. etc. etc.

So, it didn't come as a shock to me when, last week, news broke that Chik-Fil-A had donated food to an event put on by an organization called Pennsylvania Family Institute. You can almost be a brain-dead piece of under-grown broccoli and still guess what kind of 'Institute' the PFA is, especially the way organizations are naming themselves these days. They're uber-conservative, Christian, against abortion, pro-marriage, anti-The Gay, etc. etc. etc. Thus, Chik-Fil-A has caught a bit of flack over this donation because some gay blogs got together and decided that this was just unacceptable.

Have they never heard of Chik-Fil-A?

Here's the response of Dan Cathy, the president of the company:



Now, notice the guy doesn't back down from his company's involvement with the PFA. They're proud of it. And, honestly, I see no reason why they shouldn't be. They DONATED FOOD. They didn't picket a gay wedding. They didn't go on a gay witch hunt and fire all the homos from their restaurants. They donated food to an organization they like. It's their prerogative.

It would be a different story if Chik-Fil-A was militant about their Christianity. It would be different if they were openly, blatantly, angrily against gay marriage, abortion, racial minorities, civil rights, pro-guns, etc. They're not. They're a business that makes good food, tries to give their employees good perks, and happens to be run by folks unwilling to compromise their Christian values. Hey, y'all... These are the 'GOOD' Christian values you hear about, but don't see very often. Build a bridge. Get over it. And enjoy the hell out of those waffle fries.

In Sarah Palin is a friggin idiot news: I'll try and keep this one brief. After the massacre involving Gabrielle Giffords, Sarah Palin - and the conservative media in general - has come under a lot of fire for their literal and rhetorical speech involving anger, bias, incitement, and generally dangerous tone regarding Democrats and liberals. Specifically, her involvement was due to a list she posted on her Facebook account with shotgun crosshairs over the faces of 9 members of the Democratic party that voted for healthcare, Gabrielle Giffords being one of them. As well as Mrs. Palin's repeatedly dogged attempts to make her base unbelievably fearful of Washington, D.C., Democrats, Liberals, and anybody that makes more money or comes from a bigger city or otherwise looks, smells, acts, or is different from them.

This is her response:



I'm going to make the joke and get it out of the way, and all of my conservative or Republican or Palin-loving readers can just skip over this part: Does anybody else get the feeling that she doesn't know most of the words she just said? Like...seriously, somebody give her speech writer a raise!

Ok...that's out of my system. I would just like to add - because this will be a much bigger topic for another day - that I am becoming a bit desensitized to the folks that spew such violent rhetoric - We don't need to retreat; we need to reload./crosshairs over faces/2nd amendment remedies/Tiller the baby killer/etc. - backtracking immediately after one of the targets of their hate speech gets killed or injured. Sarah Palin is just one of a myriad of commentators and pundits - talking heads, if you will - that cannot politely disagree. They seem bent on using the strongest, most violent language possible to instill fear and distrust in their audience. (Possibly the reason why a recent poll showed that, for the 2nd time this decade that I know of, Fox News' audience members are well behind the rest of the country on the actual facts of the news.) They seem shocked that after, for instance, Bill O'Reilly - among many others - called for someone to 'do something' about Dr. George Tiller (dubbed Tiller the Baby Killer by the conservative media) that someone finally went and shot him.

The backtracking and finger pointing disgusts me. No. They didn't pull the trigger, and they have the First Amendment right to say whatever the hell they want, but...shouldn't there be a limit?

I'll save the rest of that rant for another day.

In Succinct Bumper Sticker News: The blog Imagine Katrina has a very insightful piece on a bumper sticker that reads I learned everything I need to know about Islam on September 11th. It's a great piece, and I highly recommend you read it. I just wanted to add one thing: this is exactly how a first impression is made.

Yes, the bumper sticker is extreme, but it should be used as a lesson on first impressions. Just think about if the message had been I learned everything I need to know about Paganism from my first festival. Since beginning Project Pagan Enough (click the link above to learn more about that) I have gotten - literally - hundreds of emails in the past year regarding such sentiment. The first impression many of you, according to your messages, had of paganism was quite terrible, and it was all due to someone treating you poorly at an event, a shop, a meet-up.

We're told that we should always judge a person's actions individually and not relate them to the greater wholes of which they are part. The player should be blamed for his bad pitching, not the entire team. The cook should be blamed for your undercooked steak, not the waiter. Etc. But, how quickly we ignore this sentiment when the impression we have is negative. Positive action is rewarded quickly, usually, and individually. If the player pitches a perfect game, he is celebrated as a hero, not the entire team. If the steak is perfection on a plate we give our compliments to the chef.

But we have to watch that negative. So, great blog Katrina! I hope to see more like it in the future.

That's all for now! Remember, YOU can respond to everything you read on the blog by emailing FireLyte@IncitingARiot.com. (Yes, it's different from the podcast email address. I just get so much feedback, I like to differentiate it for time's sake.)


Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Episode 46: Inciting A Faery Riot

Episode 46 of Inciting A Riot the Podcast finds us Inciting A Faery Riot!

I had the great pleasure of interviewing author Signe Pike about her phenomenal new book Faery Tale: One Woman's Search for Enchantment in a Modern World.

We discuss Faeries, how to properly go about your own spiritual journey, what a Faery is, and what happens in the bathrooms of Mexico involving hairy little trolls.

And, no, that's not a euphemism.

It's a great - nearly hour-long - show! Send all feedback to IncitingARiotPodcast@gmail.com. Also, if you have any questions for the author, Signe Pike, she HAS AGREED to do a follow-up show answering any and all questions.

Places you can find her book:

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Faery-Tale-Womans-Search-Enchantment/dp/0399536175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294677230&sr=8-1

Barnes & Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Faery-Tale/Signe-Pike/e/9780399536175/?itm=2&USRI=signe+pike

Google: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Signe+Pike&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=7114986609726535416&ei=IDUrTf_QIIeenAfOwpC2AQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEoQ8wIwAA#ps-sellers

I highly recommend this book! 5 out of 5 torches from this Rioter!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Gabrielle Giffords shot by fanatic.

Here is one of the news articles in its entirety. I'll let you decide what to make of it yourself.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

A US congresswoman was shot in the head at point blank range today at a public meeting outside a grocery shop in Arizona. The attacker was a gunman who hit up to a dozen other people at the constituency event before being restrained. Gabrielle Giffords, a 40-year-old Democratic member of the House of Representatives, was taken to hospital where she was last night undergoing surgery.

The shooting happened shortly after 10am local time outside a Safeway store in Tucson where the attacker, said to be a white male in his late teens or early 20s, ran up and opened fire on Giffords and a number of members of her staff. The event, called "Congress on Your Corner", allowed members of her district to meet her.

American news channel, MSNBC, said that the gunman ran into a "crowded area" and began "firing indiscriminately" as Giffords was talking to a couple. Several people were last night thought to have been killed. An eyewitness told ABC News he heard 15 to 20 gunshots and saw people running and screaming.

Andrea Gooden, a witness who was working across the road from the scene, said: "I heard about 15 shots. Then there were people racing across the parking lot."

Another witness, Steven Rayle, who was on the scene at the time of the shooting and helped pin the suspect down until the police arrived, said: "The event was very informal. Giffords had set up a table outside the Safeway and about 20 or 30 people were gathered to talk to her. The gunman, who may have come from inside the Safeway, walked up and shot Giffords in the head first."

Giffords's Tuscon constituency office was vandalised last March after she voted in favour of Barack Obama's controversial health bill, which has been bitterly opposed by the American right. Giffords had been named as a political campaign target for conservatives in November's elections by former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin for her strong support of Obama's reforms. Palin had published a "target map" on her website using images of gun sights to identify 20 House Democrats, including Giffords, for backing the new health care law. At an event in 2009 which was similar to the one Giffords was holding today, a protester was removed by police when his pistol fell to the supermarket floor.

Giffords, who was born in Tucson and has two children, took office in January 2007 supporting immigration control, embryonic stem-cell research and the right to abortion. While the motive for today's shooting was not immediately clear, Giffords was one of 10 Democrat members of Congress who were the subject of harassment over their support for the healthcare overhaul. Although a Democrat, Giffords was a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and was re-elected to her third term last November in congressional elections, edging out the Tea Party favourite Jesse Kelly.

Jason Pekau, an employee at a shop close to today's shooting, said two bodies were covered on the pavement after emergency services had arrived at the scene. Reports tonight quoted a number of sources, including an unnamed Democratic member of Congress, who said that a number of people had died, including Giffords.

Giffords is married to Mark Kelly, an astronaut who was the commander of the Endeavour, the final planned mission of the American space shuttle programme, and a veteran of the first Gulf War. She served as chairwoman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and also holds seats on the House Science and Technology and Armed Services committees.

Giffords was the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Arizona, the third female ever to be elected for that state, and had been building up an prominent public profile with frequent appearances in the national media.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! PPSM Numero DOS!!!

Attention, Attention! One and all! Witch and Wigglian. Hooligan and Student. Those with black cats and those with roots, stones, and bones! Harken to the following poorly written poem that I completed, start to finish, in approximately 14 seconds announcement:

In the month of September, that's in the fall,

a gathering shall happen; one that's for all!

Both Podkin and Listener shall finally meet,

and stay up all night at the annual Nog Feast!

It's the second time it's happened, this Supermoot of sorts,

and we hope you'll join us to frolic and cavort.

The 17th is your target, the whole weekend really,

plenty of time to geek out something silly.

So the date you know, but the location not yet,

for the best part of this moot is where it is set.

In Ol' Salem we've chosen to place this year's meet.

You're probably in shock! I know! It's so neat!

So I'll see you in Autumn, for now I must leave,

and with Love and Lyte I shall take my reprieve.

That's right Rioters and Witches and Wigglians and Listeners and Hooligans and Students and Ass Eaters and  lovers, old and new, of podcasts, I am talking about the Pagan Podkin Supermoot 2011!!! Velma and I have been working very hard already to prepare for this year's event, which I hope will blow last year's out of the water! (Not that it wasn't fun...just...you know...it was late fall in Chicago. Not quite a super happy fun time with the weather and all.) 

The official date is the weekend of the 17th of September. While there is not an itinerary as of yet, I'm assuming it will go something like last year's. Everybody will be arriving all day on Friday the 16th, we will frolic and make merry on Saturday throughout Salem. We will continue to frolic - unless you happen to be leaving - on Sunday. And then everybody that's left goes home on Monday.  Unless, of course, you are Velma, and you plan on moving to Salem for at least another week.

The first PPSM was an unbelievably amazing experience, but the biggest complaint we got was from listeners who wanted to come but didn't have enough notice. Well, fear not, loyal listener! It is JANUARY and the event is not until SEPTEMBER! You have 9 months to plan, book a hotel if need be, and prepare yourselves for the event of a lifetime. 

Or...you know...until the next one. 

Podkin, don't worry. I will be emailing you individually with dates and hotel information. But, don't fret, because you will have until Midsummer to make a decision. 

Pack your bags, Rioters! I cannot wait to see you all in SALEM, Massachusetts the weekend of September 17th! Please comment or email me with any suggestions on stores, events to attend, or if you're a shop owner that would like to host a listener/podkin meet & greet! (Witchy Wearables did quite well due to our visit, or so I hear. So...it might be lucrative! Plus! Free publicity never hurts!)

May his Holiness, the Nog, bless you with fear and revelry.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Captain Owen disHonors position. (And I make bad puns)

The USS Enterprise is now going to cease being synonymous with a bald captain ordering up rounds of photon torpedoes and fighting Klingons. Captain Picard will now be replaced by a man named Captain Owen Honors - whose name will become an obvious oxymoron in just a few moments. Ok... Maybe your idea of the Enterprise won't completely change, but it will be skewed.

Captain Owen Honors made some videos, being described by the news blogs as 'raunchy,' while supporting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007. News of these videos was broken over the weekend by a newspaper called The Virginian-Pilot complete with excerpts and in-depth descriptions.

A quick summation of the contents of the videos is as follows:

One video, produced for distributon over the ship's closed circuit video system, shows two male Navy sailors standing in a shower stall pretending to wash each other, and two female sailors pretending to shower together to conserve water; sailors parading in drag; some language that has been described as homophobic slurs; and there are scenes of simulated masturbation and a simulated rectal exam.

Apparently, the videos were shown once a week on closed-circuit television in the nuclear vessel to the crew of nearly 6,000 sailors and Marines. Now, of course, there are those that have come out in defense of Capt. Honors and those that have condemned him.

Initially, the Navy came out for Honors, saying:

The Navy released a written statement late Friday in response to The Pilot's inquiries.

"The videos created onboard USS Enterprise in 2006-2007 were not created with the intent to offend anyone," the statement said. "The videos were intended to be humorous skits focusing the crew's attention on specific issues such as port visits, traffic safety, water conservation, ship cleanliness, etc."

The statement said that when leaders with the carrier strike group became aware of the inappropriate content in early 2007, production of the videos ended.

At least one video that includes anti-gay remarks and officers pretending to masturbate was made after July of that year, according to Honors' comments in it.

And, the statements that have come out from those that actually served under the Captain echo similar, harmless sentiment:

"The clips being shown on the news are out of context and edited to look vulgar," Melissa Nielson posted, calling the reporting a "witch hunt. Where are the inspirational messages to the crew that were aired?" she asked.

Wes Stooksbury, one of those who [showed his support on Facebook], wrote, "To whichever 'loyal' crewmember has betrayed your captain: It's stunts like that that make me wish the days of corporal punishment were still around. You need to be keel-hauled. Shame on you for potentially destroying at least one great man's career, possibly two now that they have opened an investigation into Admiral [Larry] Rice's involvement. But, alas, you hid behind anonymity like the coward you are."

"I'm ashamed that Capt. Honors is being investigated for this BS. He did his time and served his country as I, and many others have. I am one of those who enjoyed not only his PRESENCE, but also his leadership," Justin Thomson wrote.

On ABC News' "Good Morning America" today Lt. Carey Lohrenz, a former female Navy pilot, also defended Capt. Honors, saying the video had been taken out of context, "I think it's important to remember this is being taken, to a certain extent, out of context," Lohrenz said. "We need to proceed very cautiously when we just automatically have a really strong reaction and say, 'Hey, this guy needs to be out of there."

Contrarily, there are those that believe that, despite the Captain's intentions, the office of military leadership should come with a level of decorum and professionalism:

"A laugh shouldnt come from such offensive material especially from such a high ranking officer," wrote Benjamin Daniel Jenkins, whose comment received many angry replies from Honors' supporters.

Other retired military officials disagreed with Captain Honors' videos, regardless of the context.

"I'll laugh along with South Park along with everyone else but that's not his job. He's the senior leadership on that ship, he sets the tone of what is appropriate and what is not. You can bring comedians on the ship and that is good for morale, but that's not his role on this ship," retired Marine Corps Col. Steve Ganyard, a former F-18 pilot who commanded an Air Group, told ABC News.

This last bit is a good point. Sure, it can get tight and cramped and all kinds of serious and No-Fun on a nuclear vessel in the middle of a war zone, but - to borrow a Red Foreman phrase - if it were supposed to be fun they would call it 'Super Happy Fun Time' not work. Or, in this case, War.

We like to believe that a leader holds him or herself to some sort of higher standard than the rest of us. They are supposed to be the example. Honors was a good leader, or so the soldiers under him would have you believe - complete with threats of violence against those that disagree. And, our political and social sensibilities aside, there is a different, more troglodytic level of humor in the military - especially the Navy...or so colloquial knowledge goes. A frat-house mentality, as it were. These men and women did this as a joke, and I suppose it would be a completely different story if it had just been the soldiers making the videos and not the supervising officer.

What do you all think? Two of the videos are below. Watch them and weigh in on the comments section. This is a great conversation on the meaning, purpose, and role of leadership, military dynamic, propriety in the workplace, and whether videos like this should affect your career.

On that last point: Recently, a coach of a professional sports team recently had a foot fetish video of him and his wife leaked online. This caused him ridicule, but - as far as I know - it's not cost him his job. Is this the same thing? Or is it different because of the nature of his job? Is it different because of who recorded, starred in, circulated, and the setting of the videos?  (Psst... I think so.)

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Margaret Cho and My Mom

Margaret Cho has this bit she used to do - or...I dunno...maybe she still does it. I don't keep up with Ms. Cho all that much - in which she talks about a time her mother left a message on her answering machine asking if she is a lesbian. Cho says her mother repeatedly informs her that, "You can tell me. You have a cool mommy. Mommy know all about the gay! You have such a cool mommy!"

Well, I first heard that bit when I was - I'm pretty sure - around 18 years old. I don't believe I had even moved to West Virginia, yet. It was the summer after I graduated high school, and I was just beginning to experience the world of The Gay. Cho, being a pretty integral part of the gay comedy scene, (I would come to learn there are almost an infinite number of gay scenes with almost as many sub-scenes, niches within niches, all with their own types, dress codes, and ways of doing the Deed.) was one of the first comedians I'd heard talk so openly about sexuality. Also, being young and stupid, I decided this was funny enough to play for my mother.

You know, the mother who was still firmly holding on to the belief that all that drama I did and gay porn she found me looking at meant that I was not actually gay, but really a straight guy who needed more Jesus. (Who, by the way, I think might have been a bit bi. But, my opinion on this is heavily influenced by the book Lamb.) 

I played it for her in our living room with my brother - the archetypal jock/frat guy - listening in. While she giggled at parts of it, she promptly made sure to tell me that we did not have a cool mommy. Furthermore, if either of us - though I believe she looked at me when she said this - tried to tell her we were gay, she would most definitely never be cool with this.

Now, this did not come as any kind of shock to me. My mother was, and still is, an exceedingly conservative woman who likes her bubble to stay nice and unpopped. Gay men were on television, in big cities, and could most definitely not have come from her womb. They were obscure and probably disease-ridden and most definitely godless heathens. Or, something like that.

So, when she said this, it wasn't like it was a hurt to my ego or anything. But, it was something that came up, and still comes up long after she met, became okay with, and subsequently seems to care for my Partner, in my thought process over the years. In fact, though I have come out to my mother (actually, I came out to her several times over the years, but it wasn't until I moved in with Partner that she began to get the big ol' gay picture) I never had the heart or guts to say the key words, "I'm gay." It's obvious. It's there. We've talked about it, but something about the way our family has always communicated meant that I shouldn't say those words.

Communication like talking around phrases like, "I love you," or "Even though you're related to me by blood, I really don't think I'd pull over if you were stranded on the side of the road bleeding and burning." You know...stuff like that.

Nothing really triggered this to come up, again, but there it is. Her words pop up over time, sometimes coinciding with traditional family-related events - like holidays - and sometimes just while I'm mulling things over in my head on a coffee break. This time it was a combination of both: We just celebrated two holidays, and I've been mulling over my familial relationships. Something which I plan on discussing a bit more about later on this week.

It's funny. My family has come so far in their acceptance of me, but so often a conversation or email or comment turns up that surreptitiously lets me know that - or at least makes me think that - it's all sort of an act. To look like, or make themselves feel they're being, the 'good' parents. Headway, yes, and they've not done anything outright to upset me. But scratch a little off the top layer, and it's there.

Perhaps the point of this it to mind your words. As the Buddha would say, you must have Right Speech. Weigh your words, for they may be the very phrases that follow your children, friends, co-workers, or perfect strangers around for years thereafter. It's kind of inconvenient, this, because it's never those exceedingly harsh or rude or outlandish statements that seem to follow us like Eeyore's cloud. No, it's the small things. The lines spit out the sides of our mouths. The ones we almost fully believe we never said, because we weren't paying attention.

Pay attention.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

A Year of Rioting Ended, and A Ringing in of 2011!

It's the end of quite a few things today. The end of a year. The end of Mercury Retrograde. Ok...that end came a couple of days ago, but who's counting? And, in many ways, 2010 marked the end of a lot of important things in my life.

I realized that the end had come on my career in the court system. It just wasn't going to happen, and the more I tried to make a go at it, the more miserable I became. The gods let me have my try, but they knew better. I am now, though I wasn't then, quite grateful for that. I just kind of realized that the gods were playing the role of parent to me in that aspect. They have many faces and are quite mysterious, but they are so like parents in that aspect.

Parents have many secrets that children do not know. Where do they go during the day? (Where are they when we can't see them?) Why do they make the decisions they do? Why do they punish us? Why, oh why, must they insist on showing up at the most inopportune times, especially when we think we are looking really cool?

But that is their mystery. We are their children, and though their ways are a mystery to us...that's the point. We aren't meant to know, yet. We have growing to do.

This year was also the end to a great sense of loneliness I felt since the move from Texas to Illinois. Sure, you are all pretty far away from me, but the podcaster/blogger friends that I have made this year are utterly invaluable. Velma, you, especially, are an immense blessing to my life. You have shown me that there are fantastically normal, fiercely magical people out there. You've also shown me why I should never bring up the subject of fake flowers in mixed company. (By they way, Episode 7 of Inciting A BrewHaHa is out now! Go download it.)

By extension, each one of you podkin - especially those at Supermoot this year - has been a great influence on the way I think, the way I act, and the way I approach my relationship with the divine. You challenge me, disagree with me, build me up, tear me down, and help me find the Crazy Glue when I need put back together. And, I love you all for it.

2010 saw the end of me being low man on the totem pole in my professional life. Well, except for that wrongful firing from the county, but that's a back post and a dead issue. :-) Thankfully, the gods saw fit for me to rise fairly quickly into a position where I now have - at least some - control over my surroundings. Partner and I have been able to become a bit more comfortable than we were before, and I am hoping that 2011 sees us reaping the fruits of what was planted in 2010.

This last year saw the Riot rising on the internet to become a mainstay of the pagan blogosphere and podioverse. It was the source of Project Pagan Enough, a second podcast with Velma Nightshade, a place for news and stories and a place to challenge convention. It was a source of community, for me anyway. I was able to feel like I mattered a bit more than I did before. The amount of feedback and love that was shown is immense, and I thank you.

2011 is here. I hope that there is just as much excitement, just as much promise, and just as much Riot in the month's to come. I take everything good from 2010 with me, and leave the rest behind. Tonight, before I go to bed, I'll be burning sweetgrass and sage to make way for new beginnings. I'll also be burning a candle for you, Dear Rioter. I'll be burning a candle for the Rioters, collectively, hoping that you all may receive every blessing the new year has to offer.

As I get used to my new job, and my work life settles down after the holiday season, I hope to be right back in the podcasting saddle, bringing the Riot straight to your headphones, computer speakers, and car system. You bless me endlessly with your devotion, friendship, and intellectual acuity. If the audience was not there, I would not do this.

Thank you, and may you be blessed with all the wonderful things the Universe can give.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte