The Dooryard

A friend taken away much too young

I have lots to talk about after our week in Roatan. But first I need to talk about something that happened at "home" while I was gone.

Phone reception was spotty on the island. But, last Tuesday, a message came through from my friend Jim: One of our gold-medal-winning teammates at the Gay Games was dead. Anthony Castro, all of 19, had died in a car crash (He is second from the left in the team picture below). He was a remarkable kid - an openly gay high school quarterback, wrestler and swimmer at less-than-enlightened Banning (Calif.) High School - and Jim and I had meant to feature him on Outsports.com for the last year. Unfortunately, it was this terrible circumstance that finally drove us to do so.

My strongest interactions with Anthony were at the Gay Games. I had played pick-up with him in L.A. a couple times and had seen him at the Gay Super Bowl. But it was playing with him that I got to experience who he was. Our first game in that tournament, he kind of stunk it up. Dropped passes, blown coverage. But by the end, he was the MVP of the championship game. When it counted the most, when he had to lay the most on the line, he did so with maturity beyond his age. It's the mark of a great champion. And hearing from people who knew Anthony better than I, their experiences of him - shy, humble, and an incredible force in competition - were the same.

It's been comforting to see some major media outlets pick up the story of Anthony's life. My friend LZ Granderson at ESPN wrote about it today, the day of the funeral. The Advocate and Gay.com and Andrew Sullivan all wrote about him. The comfort comes from knowing that, despite the tragic loss of such a wonderful life, others may now hear of Anthony's story and be affected by it.

I got this news on day three of my vacation, and I'm glad I did. It gave me the next four days to reflect on my own life, the direction of it, and what people might say about me if I was the one perishing in that accident. His death has certainly given me some things to think about.

My best picture picks

I spent much of the last four weeks seeing most of the award-caliber movies released in 2006, in anticipation of the Oscar nominations coming on Tuesday.

All-told, I saw 30 movies this year. And I have to say, it wasn't a total loss of a year for films. I think this will be remembered as the year movies broke out of the cookie-cutter, with some fine films that were incredibly inventive: IWO JIMA, LITTLE CHILDREN, BABEL, PAN'S LABYRINTH and THE QUEEN.

My top two films - UNITED 93 and APOCALYPTO - were both incredible stories well-told that also both broke convention in their own ways.

I've ranked the 30 movies I saw this year below. Babel was by far the toughest to rank because it had three distinct forces pulling it different ways: 1) It is emotionally engaging; 2) With all the handheld shots, it made me seasick; 3) It was the most anti-American movie I saw this year; 4) There was one of the best performances of the year (Rinko Kikuchi deserves an Oscar for her performance as a deaf-mute).

Discuss.

MY BEST PICTURE NOMINEES:
1) United 93
2) Apocalypto
3) The Devil Wears Prada
4) The Children of Men
5) The Queen

RUNNERS-UP:

6) Flags of our Fathers
7) Notes on a Scandal
8) Pan's Labyrinth
9) Bobby
10) Dreamgirls

WORTH SEEING:

11) The Departed
12) Thank You For Smoking
13) Babel
14) Letters from Iwo Jima
15) Little Children
16) The DaVinci Code
17) Inside Man
18) Glory Road
19) The Prestige
20) Invincible
21) An Inconvenient Truth

ONLY IF YOU'VE GOT TWO HOURS YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT:

22) Casino Royale
23) Pirates: Dead Man's Chest
24) Akeelah and the Bee
25) The Descent

NOT EVEN WORTH MY TWO HOURS:

26) Little Miss Sunshine
27) X-Men: The Last Stand
28) World Trade Center
29) Borat
30) Superman Returns
31) Charlotte's Web

Free speech when it suits them

Some "artist," Michael Petry, is making a bit of a name for himself with his art exhibit, America the Beatiful, that looks at our great country's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. One of the pieces is an American flag with pearls (left) sewn into the flag in the design of a cumshot by an actual gay man. It is by far the most crude, disgusting, shameful way to use the American flag I have ever seen.

On the other side, we have the continue battle raging over a single confederate flag flying on state grounds in the state of South Carolina. Black and other liberal groups have tried for years to get all confederate flags removed, but this one lone flag stands, and the state legislature refuses to remove it, saying that it represents an important part of state history (which is, of course, true). Now, some black coaches have gotten the NCAA to take aim at South Carolina's university, and the NCAA may strengthen its existing ban on postseason tournaments and games held in the state.

Various people would defend the sperm-covered flag; many others would defend the confederate flag. Unfortunately, few would defend both because political agenda, not individual rights, are what is most important to so many Americans today.

Though I personally find the former absolutely disgusting and I would like to see it gone, while I find the latter to be one group's fight for self-expression (the supports of the flag) against the ever-growing P.C. police (in this case the black coaches), I defend the right of both to exist.

• Kentucky hoops team refuses to play South Carolina team

Toby

Dan and I just didn't know what to get each other for Christmas. Anything we want we have or just get ourselves. We had been talking since before I moved here three years ago about how neat it would be to have a cat. But we both (mostly Dan) had reservations about having a cat: Our apartment is too small, his litter box would stink, he'd shed too much, we might not like him. Blah blah blah.

We decided to throw all that out and set out together on Dec. 9 in search of a cat. We decided the night before that we wouldn't' settle on a cat; We'd only get one if he or she really felt right. We stopped at a couple places before spending an hour at the ASPCA in Spanish Harlem. We looked at a bunch of little kittens and had decided that none of them felt right. As we were leaving, we passed by the cage of a black-and-white cat that had a cold. When we walked past his cage, he lit up, getting up from his nap, meowing and pawing at us through the cage glass.

"I haven't seen him react like that to anyone," the woman escorting us around said. He had a cold, so it gave us some pause. But he really did seem to like us. And as the woman told us, "You don't pick your pet; Your pet picks you." His name was James Blake, named after the part black, part white pro tennis player. He went home with us 20 minutes later.

When we got him home, it was like he'd been there for three years. Sure, he skulked around the apartment for about 15 minutes, checking everything out, finding his favorite hiding spot and batting at some low-hanging ornaments on the tree. But he was as friendly and cuddly in that first hour as any cat I've known for years.

It was watching TV that night that we came across the perfect name for him: Toby. I have this thing where I start calling my pets other names, so we've already added Scooby, Squeaky, Squawky, Tobster, Runty and several others. More will come with this cat with a great personality.

This past Wednesday was his one-month anniversary with us. I'm sure I'll be adding more about this crazy, wonderful addition to our family in the coming weeks and months. Bear with me.

A civil war not our own

I was surprised to hear that President Bush is pushing to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Surprised because I figured that, with the opinion polls on the war where they are, and with the country clearly rejecting the war's direction at the polls in November, and with the Baker report pushing for a reduction in troops, Bush would adjust his strategy.

This war is a very tricky thing because it's not really a war. President Clinton began a new era of the military as peace-keepers. I thought then, and I think now, that that is a just use of our military. As the lone superpower, and with a United Nations that is virtually useless, it falls in part on American shoulders to protect people around the world. This war in Iraq is, essentially, a peace-keeping mission, it is not a war. The war ended with the fall of the Hussein regime and Bush declaring the war is over. Since then, American troops have been busy trying to limit civil unrest.

So why would Bush want to increase the number of troops in Iraq (and with a number that is half or a third of what most experts think is needed to have an impact)? One thing I can think of is Iran. With Hussein gone, it is Iran who should most be in our crosshairs, and I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this was to keep Iran in check, or as preparation for an attack of Iran.

The other rationale is what he said five years ago that a vast majority of Americans agreed with: We would take the fight to them. The Middle East is the home of so many who have caused horror and destruction in our world. By taking the fight to them, they would be less willing and able to take the fight to us. For whatever reason, since we did take the fight to them, they haven't attacked American soil again.

American sentiment, as it always does, has turned against this military action. When I saw FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS (review coming soon) last week, I was surprised to hear that support for World War II had waned in the U.S. at one point. Unfortunately, Americans forget quickly and have little long-term will as a people. Plus, they are fed one-sided information by the liberal media constantly, so it's somewhat understandable that they may start to side with them after too long.

For my money, I think it is time to start withdrawing some of our troops from Iraq. We won the war. Saddam Hussein was removed from power and he is now dead. We are now fighting someone else's war, a civil war. And while we have a stake in that war and we should have a small part in it, it is the right of citizens of a nation to fight one another. It's an ugly business, but there is a long history of civil wars. And unfortunately, much of the Middle East is not civilized enough to get along with people they disagree with, so they fight.

I'll be interested to hear President Bush's arguments tomorrow night for increasing the number of troops. I'll keep an open, yet skeptical, mind.

GOP and Dems are anti-gay when it helps them

What a shame it has been to see the Democrats do exactly what they've been accusing Republicans of doing for three years: Use gay marriage for their own political purposes.

To be sure, the Republican Party as a whole is against same-sex marriage. I don't like it, but I can respect it when a group or an individual say they stand for something and back it up with action. The Democrats say they support "equal marriage rights" but they don't do anything about it.

In New Jersey, the Democrat-controlled state legislature pushed through a same-sex civil unions bill with little debate so they could sweep the issue under the carpet. The Democrat governor, John Corzine, signed the bill. To be clear: The Democrats had the opportunity to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey and they opted to not do so.

In Massachusetts, Democrats when back on what they said they were going to do and allowed a vote to push through a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Again, the Dems had the opportunity to squash the initiative but allowed a vote to take place.

Then you have Howard Dean saying to the National Stonewall Democrats this past June: "In 2004, the President put gay marriage on the ballot in 13 states where gay marriage is alredy illegal." That is just factually incorrect. The President did not put a single state Constitutional Amendment up for vote; Conservative and religious activists in various states have done so. I also can't stand when the Dems call the national referendum "Bush's Gay Marriage Amendment." Um, the President cannot Consitutionally propose an amendment. He vocally support it, to be sure. But, it's not "Bush's" amendment. But, this is just semantics to the Democrats who, like the Republicans, use gay marraige to attack their political foe (in this case Bush).

Unfortunately, the Democrats use same-sex marriage to confuse the public: They tell gay people and social liberals that they are for "marriage equality," but when they have the chance to back it up, they repeatedly lie about how the Republicans are handling the issue and vote to keep same-sex marriage off the books.

On Logo a couple months ago, Dean said: "The Republicans always do that. They are anti-gay when it suits them."

Let's be clear: Politicians are politicians, and they are, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, anti-gay when it suits them. Which is exactly why so many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, are turning their backs on gay people's desire to marry whom they love.

Duke rape case indicts racist, sexist groups

In case you haven't heard, the rape case against the men accused in what is commonly referred to as the "Duke lacrosse rape case" has been dropped. The reason? The accuser now can't "remember" if her alleged attackers actually had vaginal sex with her. The D.A. says he's still pursuing sexual assault and kidnapping charges.

There are so many reasons to be disgusted with the prosecution in this case. First, the accuser from day one has had trouble getting her story straight. Second, the men have been exonerated by DNA tests. Third, the D.A. withheld those DNA tests for months. Fourth, while he doesn't have a shred of evidence, he's pushing forward with other charges. Luckily, many of his former supporters, including some black people whom he successfully tried to manipulate, are backing down.

But the worst of the worst is the evil done in the court of public opinion by so many on the left who, in typical fashion, wanted these young men hung in the court of public opinion before they were tried in a court of law. When the accusations came out, women's groups and black groups descended on Durham, claiming that this was another case of women and blacks being attacked by white men. But it's the racists and sexists like Jesse Jackson who are the evil perpetrators in this case. Racist (some call them "minority") groups and women's groups should send personal apologiest to the young men accused in this case, and they should send checks - lots of them - for the unjust way they attacked the characters of these young men and got them suspended from Duke (they were reinstated this week).

Hopefully we as a culture can learn to not jump to conclusions, and to stay away from whipping out accusations of sexism, racism and homophobia where they don't exist. But as long as there are politicians who can use these to get ahead, unfortunately we'll continue to here them.

Children of Men

It has seemed so rare in the last couple of years to find truly unique movies - films that revolve around a unique idea or present a unique way of filmmaking. I had the pleasure of seeing one of those rare unique films Friday night in CHILDREN OF MEN.

Set about 20 years in the future, it features a world in chaos because there have been no human pregnancies in the world in 18 years. It is an incredible commentary on society and how the absence of a future so strikingly can affect the present. For some reason, only England remains standing without too much chaos or a toppled government; I'd love to hear thoughts as to why that creative decision was made (maybe it's as simple as that's where the production company was).

What I find most wonderful about the movie is how honest it is. The characters make decisions with little fanfare, and their choices are very real. The entire movie is always from the perspective of one man; While there are many opportunities for the filmmakers to go off on more interesting tangents following other characters, they stick to the vision and perspective of one man as human life passes before him. It's riveting.

Dan commented with about 30 minutes left in the movie that it was incredible stressful. And it is. But that is the result of the beauty of the film. You really become engaged in the characters and come to feel that the future of humanity truly rests on the shoulders of the several characters trying desperately to get to a ship called Tomorrow. Along with UNITED 93 and APOCALYPTO, it's easily one of the most gripping movies of the year.

I'll be curious to see where it ends up come Oscar time. It presently sits in my top five; But I don't know as it's the kind of film that could find favor with the Academy set.

FINAL ANALYSIS: A very well-made film featuring strong direction and performances from Clive Owen, Julianne Moore and Michael Caine. 9 out of 10

Patricia Nell Warren for City Council

The Front Runner author Patricia Nell Warren has declared her candidacy for a seat on the West Hollywood City Council, and I encourage all of you to support her with a donation.

I have known Patricia for at least five years. In that time I have found her to be caring, funny, intelligent, incredibly well-read and an independent thinker. If you lined up my political beliefs and hers, they would probably be at polar opposites from top to bottom. But, if you measured our core values - a love of individual freedom, a passion to help people, a yearning to do good work in this world - then we would be very similar.

I am fiercely supporting her not for her political beliefs but for who she is. She has so much integrity and so much determination. Plus, in The Front Runner and so many other writings and appearances, she has given gay people all around the world so much. The opportunity to have her as an elected official of the world's largest "gay city" would be an incredible gift.

I urge you to support her with your donations and your word of mouth. You can find a statement by Patricia and information on donating to her after the jump.>>

Now they want bipartisanship

To be sure, politicians who are more focused on advancing their party than the principles for which they stand are not good for the country. So, it's great to hear that the new Democrat leadership in Congress wants bipartisanship. But where was it when the Republicans were in control? New House Speaker Nazi Nancy Pelosi had no problem pointing fingers at every Republican she could get ahold of when she wasn't in power.

This passage from an AP article made me chuckle:

"[Senate majority leader Harry] Reid said he was eager for cooperation, and he arranged for a rare closed-door meeting of all senators before the Senate convened to help set a more cordial tone.

"Leader of a slender majority, the Nevadan said, 'Some may look at this composition as a recipe for gridlock, but I see it as a unique opportunity. ... We must turn the page on partisanship and usher in a new era of bipartisan progress.'"

Unique opportunity? Nothing has changed in the Senate except that the Democrats have taken control. Of course, the self-aggrandizing Senator doesn't see it that way. Reid has been one of the most partisan people in the entire Senate over the last few years!! Both parties have their fair share of partisanship. Of course, I think the Democrats are much worse with it because they carry this idea that anyone who opposes them (Joe Lieberman, any Republican other than Lincoln Chafee) is an idiot and a traitor and they should be hanged.

It would be nice to see more politicians drop their partisan ways. Even a little. But I certainly couldn't blame any Republican, after 12 years of the Democrats throwing fits, if they threw a couple spitballs in the coming months. Hopefully, though, they'll behave with a little more respect and dignity than has the minority party for the last few years.