A film dares to go...yes...THERE.

Yesterday marked an important 25th anniversary. On April 23rd 1984, U.S. Health Secretary Margaret Heckler announced that Dr. Robert Gallo had discovered the cause for AIDS, a little known retrovirus we now call HIV. The press conferences and interviews that followed presented a confident Gallo - and promised to the nation was a vaccine within a few years. As you know, we have no vaccine, no cure, and oddly, last year the Nobel Prize did not go to Gallo for discovering HIV, but to Luc Montagnier of France.

A new film is making its way through film festivals this spring. House of Numbers dares to investigate the HIV/AIDS phenomenon by including all the important players in AIDS research - but it also includes voices of dissent - scientists, including Nobel Prize winners who question the role of HIV in AIDS. The film is causing quite a stir. Only days ago, at the Boston Indie Film Festival, a near riot broke out between people at a panel discussion. Hot words like "denialist" and "Orwellian" got thrown around. A civilized discussion was not to be had.

The orthodox scientists view HIV dissidents as dangerous to the public. They believe that to question the current medical paradigm is to promote unsafe sex and other reckless behavior - and that to forego pharmaceutical drugs in favor of nutrition and alternative therapies is to allow the virus to keep mutating and thus prevent vaccines and treatments from being effective. In a taped interview, men such as Mark Wainberg, former President of the International AIDS Society, have called for a constitutional amendment in the United States that would criminalize the act of questioning HIV/AIDS theories and imprison people so as to silence their dangerous assertions. And in some states, legislation has been proposed to quarantine HIV+ individuals who refuse HIV retroviral medications.

Dissident scientists believe that after twenty-five years, some new paths should potentially be explored. There are many people who have had HIV for over 20 years, never taken a drug, and never become ill. The CDC has continued to state for twenty years that up to a third of the HIV+ population is unaware of their status, and yet there has been no surge of these unknowing people rushing to the ER with AIDS defining illnesses as was seen in the early 1980s. And now, the leading cause of death for AIDS patients in America is liver and heart failure - from the HIV medications. In addition, there is no international gold standard for HIV testing; it is completely possible to test positive in one country and then negative in another - an odd reality given HIV is said to be a virtual death sentence without treatment. And some scientists make the claim that HIV has never been properly isolated.

I am excited to see this film once it's released on DVD. But the controversy troubles me - not the tension between the opposing views in the film (I love that drama!) - but the fact that director Brent W. Leung is being viciously attacked for having the audacity to allow dissident scientists to speak at all. He is also being accused of tricking orthodox scientists into participating in the documentary - not telling them he was going to present both sides. For his efforts I say, YOU GO, Brent! Freedom. Of. Speech. I applaud this filmmaker for having the journalistic hunger to travel the world for two years and then present what is a very important story.

Because again - yesterday was an important anniversary. Twenty-five years in the world of HIV=AIDS=DEATH. No cure. No vaccine. Lots of fear. Disproportionate numbers in the African American and African communities. The list goes on. Why not at least consider that something may have gone awry? Or somewhat awry? And even if people think that dissident views are ridiculous or silly - isn't it the right of anyone to practice free speech and exercise their curiosity as they see fit?

Here is the link to the website and trailer. Check it out. Weigh in.

House of Numbers

Funky Concoction - Film (first 3)

In an interview, writer William Peter Blatty stated that if done wrong, this film could turn into a laugh riot. I giggled when I saw this, because for many people I know, it did turn out to be a laugh riot. I mean a little girl screaming, "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" is always good for a laugh. And when the film was re-released in 2000, there were notable snickers in the audience. The audacity of the film - and its place in pop culture is just too much for many a viewer to overcome.

Though understanding these responses, I still find the film thrilling. Director William Friedkin executes a completely unapologetic approach to the material. It doesn't play down to its audience like most films in that genre. It is a true horror drama. It also highlights issues that fascinate me. Who are the priests in an ever growing atheistic culture? The doctors. The film looks at atheism and science as a religion that can't cope with the situation at hand. At the same time, it doesn't paint Catholicism as perfect. The exorcism fails, forcing a trade with the devil; one is left to wonder where power truly lies when the credits role.

All that aside, the movie taught me to go for it. When you see the top - go over it and see if it can work. My artistic endeavors have always been on that line between heightened drama and absurd histrionics. And one must only watch Regan masturbating with a crucifix, forcing her mother's head between her legs, spinning her head to face backwards and saying, "You know what she did? Your cunting daughter?" to see that the "top" was set pretty high for me. HA!


This was and escape for my 22 year old mother and her 4 year old son. We saw the film 17 times in the theatres in 1977 and 1978. I could not get enough. Like so many other young kids, it was the explosion of imagination. And its simple themes pulled from the fairy tales I already loved. It taught me that the definition of "win" is not always what it seems. I was horrified when Obi-Wan raised his saber and allowed Vader to kill him - but it shed light on how there's always a different option...one that is truly noble.

What's very important to mention is that the first time I saw Star Wars, we entered the theater in the middle of the trash compactor scene. In 1977, you paid to go in and could sit through the reel as many times as you wanted provided there were enough seats. So we walked in right in the middle and I was immediately thrilled by this cliffhanger moment. There could not have been a better teacher of rising action and mini-climax. My heart was racing - and I loved it. Ironically, I now suffer from major anxiety issues - maybe it's the walls of a trash compactor about to squish me. In my work, I love that sort of rapid acceleration - and I also love epic notions of light and dark.


This comedy of the underdogs still makes me laugh. It combines truly hilarious performances with some sharp writing and a theme that anyone can relate to. Well...that I could relate to in 1980. Though not fully understanding my sexuality - I was not the typical boy by any means. And I found most men utterly distasteful - the way they treated women, the way they strutted about, they way they spoke in righteous cadences out their fat asses, all the while pretending to wear crowns - or in my region, Texas cowboy hats. I felt smarter than all of these idiots - and their sons who loved to make fun of me for not being athletic, for using my hands too much, for having a little sugar in my step. And I found ways to conquer them - through my academics and creative achievements. But what I really wanted to do was tie them up and make them look like the buffoons they were. So seeing Dabney Coleman's Franklin Hart in S&M Garage Opener Drag was very satisfying to the sissy in me. And I aligned myself with Lily Tomlin's Violet - strong but helpless in this world of dick swinging morons.

I find myself attracted to themes of the underdog - the disenfranchised - the abused - the forgotten. I also find my comedic taste to border on the silly and absurd. There's a moment when Franklin Hart comes into the office after everyone thinks he's dead and Violet has a sort of comic spasm which involves her trying to catch a piece of paper that has flown out of her hands. I love that stuff - silly and absurd mixed with sharp wit.

The next 3 coming soon...

Funky Concoction - Intro

Self-examination often seems an absurd enterprise. The idea that one can possess any level of objectivity regarding one's own puzzle pieces is an idea bound to fail in experimentation. But alas, on this day I find myself curious about influences over the years. And though I'd like to assign them as primarily influential in my career endeavors, I have become increasingly doubtful that a separation between my daily life trek and that of my artistic pursuits exists at all. The things that inform my daily life are always the things that inform my artistic life. Oh, hell, let's stop with the dichotomic differentiation...it's just my LIFE.

In terms of the actual influences, however, I will employ a method for creating the list. And of course, they will all come from art. (I could go on and on about the influences of my family - but good god, why?) So...I have looked at film, theatre, music, and visual art. And within these four I have looked at extremes in style - for I've come to notice that I see myself as a funky concoction - the result of some recipe made by a poor working mother forced to throw the remnants of the pantry into a pot and call it supper. It makes for a funky meal. And I am a funky set of maddening contradictions...to myself...and to so many others.

I will compose a post for each one. The first will be up soon....

My Published Concern

Following on my previous post...

I had emailed a letter of concern to the editors of The Dallas Voice. To their credit, they not only published my concern in the paper, but posted a link to the commentary on the front page of this week's online edition. It has sparked some intense comments that serve as the perfect example of how this racial divide in HIV/AIDS must be addressed - not through gross generalizations - but through continued scientific study.

To explain the statistical gap by calling African Americans more "closeted" and "promiscuous" is beyond offensive. HIV is reported to be a non-discriminating pathogenic virus. It does not see skin color.

So what's up?

See the online edition article and comments:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10964.php

AIDS and Racism

As many are aware, new numbers came out in the Washington Post, revealing that Washington, D.C. now has a 3% HIV+ rate - and that the disease is spreading rampantly throughout the African American community. Only two days ago The Dallas Voice/Pegasus News published new numbers for Dallas, TX - which indicates 50% of all new HIV/AIDS cases in Dallas County are in the African American community. This matches nationwide numbers as reported by Anthony Fauci of NIAID - where he points out that African Americans make up 12% of the population but account for 50% of all new HIV/AIDS cases.

Since the turn of the century, the "on the down low" phenomenon has continually been cited as a leading reason for this trend in the African American community. Whether you're watching Oprah Winfrey, Tyra Banks, Law and Order - or reading countless blogs and news stories - you will get told that many, many black men hide their true sexuality - and thus have sex with other men, catch HIV, then turn around and give it to their wives and girlfriends. You will be told that these men do not wear condoms when having sex with men, because to plan for sex by bringing a condom would mean to admit their intent to have homosexual sex - and that somehow by not wearing a condom, they psychologically avoid their own sexual identity. You may also read reports that indicate there are larger numbers of bisexual black men than in other races.

The Dallas Voice article article continues to perpetuate the notion that the transmission of HIV from black men to black women is largely due to "on the down low" behavior.

Nobles also noted that HIV/AIDS has increased dramatically in recent years among black women, many of whom contract the disease from men who have gay sex on “the down low.” In 2007, for example, 81 percent of all new HIV/AIDS cases were in males, but 32 percent of new cases among blacks were in females.

“They have a gay lifestyle but in the public they have a wife or a girlfriend, and so the disease is crossing over rather rapidly in this particular population,” Nobles said.

It is extremely important to note that in scientific literature, this has been discounted - or at least viewed as highly suspect. And what floors me is that a very important study reported in the Annals of Epidemiology in 2006, addressed the issue head on. Here are a few excerpts from Reuters reporting in 2007:

This assumption was mistaken in many ways, they explain. First of all, the practice of straight men secretly having sex with men is seen across all ethnic groups.

Also, Ford notes, while black men and women have higher rates of HIV infection than other ethnic groups, they also report fewer risk behaviors, suggesting researchers should look elsewhere to understand the disparity.

and

Research has refuted the claim that black men living the down low lifestyle are driving the spread of HIV, Ford said, but the perception that this is the case remains, even in the epidemiology community. She points to a dean at a colleague's school who urged researchers to study "the down low" after seeing a TV segment on it.

The view of black sexuality as deviant and diseased has deep roots, Ford noted, pointing to the way the public and the medical community viewed syphilis in the early 20th century as a disease of the black community.

The careless use of such claims to explain the disproportionate infection rate among black women is based on anecdotal evidence and is not scientific in the least. It serves to demoralize the black community and may even hurt - as the Reuters article suggests - research efforts to discover the true reasons behind the trends.

And what about these trends? The recent "3%" number of infected Washington residents has been all over the news and has been the subject of myriad press conferences by health officials - but in January of 2008, American Medical News reported that 5% (or 1 in 20) of D.C. Residents were HIV+. Not 3% - but 5%.

This is a 40% drop. So is there actually reason to celebrate in D.C.? A 40% drop in HIV infections in a single year is significant, yes? Sarcasm aside, the better question is: how is this data being gathered? And the biggest question is: why are journalists so quick to report numbers and never check previous statistics and studies?

I have been looking at comments on many blogs where the D.C. numbers - and now Dallas numbers - have been reported. There's this general acceptance that African Americans are simply "different", "more promiscuous", "more homophobic" - etc., etc. - and when I'm teaching inner city at-risk youth and they are shown posters for Black HIV Testing Day - and they say things like: "Why is our community too stupid to not get AIDS" - my heart sinks. This is a dangerous sort of racism. The reasons given by the media are oversimplified in an attempt to explain disproportionate numbers that make no epidemiological sense.

I ask all journalists and bloggers to consider these issues and make sure that great care is given when hurling accusations at minority communities. Ironically, in an effort to "help" - I fear health care practitioners may be missing the actual causation of this trend among African Americans - and in the process, are promoting racial stereotypes. Does it truly add up - just using common sense - that "black homophobia" can account for 50% of all HIV cases in the US - but African Americans only make up 12% of the population? That's an absolutely staggering number - and I think harder questions and better research must be conducted to truly understand what is going on.

As I have said in previous posts...don't be so quick to accept what they say - because who are they and how did they get their information? When dealing with issues as important as infectious disease...when using words like "epidemic"...when using phrases like "national health crisis"...when using tax payer money to fund research and understand trends...a critical mind must be employed. It is far too easy to simply accept and go along with statistics and gross generalizations - especially if it isn't affecting 88% of the population that is YOU.

Portland is :(

Unhappy Portland

As I said on Facebook to a friend who asked about this:

As we are also often ranked the #1 most enlightened city - in terms of arts, literature, environmental awareness, etc - it makes sense that 8 years of Bush/Cheney would have created a pit of despair. I know many people - including myself - who have been extremely worried about the country and where people of our "Portland mindset" belong. That's really over simplified, but maybe there is something to it.

What do you think, readers?

Thanks, Diablo!

Okay - so I am not the biggest fan of Diablo Cody. I love the characters she creates. But the "look at me I'm a clever writer!" thing she has going on is like sideways rain hitting you square in the eye.

That being said, I must thank both her and Steven Spielberg for The United States of Tara. The show has received mixed reviews. Amongst my friends and colleagues there is little consensus - which may actually indicate genuine artistic innovation - though few can doubt the genius of the multi-talented Ms. Toni Collette. I am a junkie for the show, but it is not for my general enjoyment that I offer thanks.

(Spoiler alert!)

The homosexual story line in this show has unfolded in a truly unique way - one that gives me great hope for how gays get television treatment in the future. As we discover that fourteen year-old Marshall (the adorably dorky Keir Gilchrist) has a crush on fellow thespian Jason (Andrew Lawrence - yeah, Joey's younger hunky brother) - it appears the show will predictably adopt the "coming out" subplot. I figured it was prefect as a way to exacerbate Tara's Dissociative Identity Disorder - and it has certainly provided interesting moments for Tara's "alter", Buck, who is homophobic. But as I waited to see Marshall being forced to grapple with his dark homosexual secret - turns out his whole family already knows. And it's never really addressed. Not in terms of it being an issue. It's presented as a non-issue. They learn he has a crush. His older sister makes deliberate - and yet oddly affectionate - homophobic stabs at him in the nature of sibling ribbing. His mother says things like, "If he likes you, he won't care about the stings" - (referring to a bee incident). And then this latest episode - #9 - it happened.

Jason, you see, is a preacher's kid. Marshall is crushing hard on him - enough to even participate in the church's Hell House (the moral haunted houses of the South where they show homosexuals burning in hell, etc.) - and in recent episodes, Marshall tries to figure things out by saying things to Jason like, "I hate labels. If there were no labels on the food in the store, many people would try things and find out they like it." Poor Marshall - I tried all that when I was in high school. Can I get him in bed if I talk philosophically? HA!

So - Episode 9. Marshall and Jason are doing a project. Marshall and Jason drink from the parents' liquor cabinet. Jason falls asleep beside him. Marshall is in heaven. And Marshall takes the plunge. He kisses the sleeping Jason - who wakes up and...kisses him back.

It was one of the sweetest things I've seen since Beautiful Thing. And who knows if Jason will turn out to be actually gay (will the liquor be his excuse?) but the moment was captured with such purity and innocence - it was simply truthful. But better was what happened after. We see Marshall's Dad come home - he runs into an awkward and guilty looking Jason who is leaving. He's very nice to Jason - knowing it's his son's love interest. Dad discovers Marshall inside drinking tea and looking dazed. And eventually Dad says, "Shit. You got it bad don't you?" Marshall nods - between crying and laughing with the joy of his first kiss - and Dad says so lovingly, "There's nothing like love."

And of course, my face is streaming with tears. Could the show exploit my issues any further? I mean seriously? Gay issues. The much unrequited love of high school. And of course - DAD ISSUES. All rolled into one. It left me a mess. But past my own personal connection to the material...how refreshing to see this family not give a shit about their son's sexuality. They want him to be happy. They honor him with no fuss.

Thanks Diablo. Thanks Steven.

--from a sappy thirty-six year old 'mo who is happy younger 'mos will have better television to watch than he did at their age.