Broadmoor Reflections: What Gay Acceptance Feels Like Over Time

-

The Hotel Bar Broadmoor Steve Clemons.JPGI’m sure if I was born into an African-American family in 1962 in Salina, Kansas — where I was actually born, my personal sense of civil rights advancements would feel very different than I feel looking at the question through a gay portal. But I still feel great progress has been made and history is tilting in good directions for the most part when it comes to tolerance and acceptance in the country.
I’m sitting now in the “Hotel Bar” (formerly the “Lake Terrace Lounge”) at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs — one of the greatest resort hotels in the United States and one of the few I know of that seems to have actually improved and become grander and better since its very grand beginnings in the early 20th century.
When I arrived at the airport, I was in a line with hundreds of folks at the Broadmoor Hotel booth near baggage claim getting our tickets for the “shuttle” which on this occasion were a line of mega-buses. The onslaught of folks heading by bus rather than taxi or town car to this fabulous resort were here for a huge conference dealing with Christian Bible Study. Nice folks — but not my thing.
But reminded me of when I was here in 1993 with my partner with whom I’ve been since. At that time I didn’t quite have the knack of knowing what exotic social stuff a same sex couple might do out of town. There was no Atlantis Cruise option at that time (or I didn’t know about it). So on New Year’s Eve 1993, Andrew and I decided to take a holiday package at the Broadmoor and get out of Southern California.
We got here and were excited to be going to a big formal, razzy New Year’s thing, about 1500 people we were told. When we got there, all of the folks looked mostly the same — elder white male and female couples. Each couple got a top hat to wear, and a tiara — we did too. It took us about 30 minutes to turn in the tiara for a top hat — and I actually just gave up.
The only coolish couple we saw was an elderly woman having the time of her life, must have been 70 or so — a great dancer. She had a pretty studly dancing partner, about 24 and blonde who we figured had to be an escort. The rest was as densely conservative as one could imagine a room with 1500 people to be — and at least in my imagination, everyone either frowing at us — or smiling at us, pointing second, and then frowning discreetly when they hoped we weren’t looking.
We left the dinner — the lobster, the tiara, and the top hat, left it all there — gasped for air when we got out of the room. We exclaimed, “What were we thinking??!!”
And then we walked through the hotel to get back to our rooms and heard the voice of an amazing jazz singer, a magnificent, burly, African-American woman whose name I can’t recall, and I am ticked at myself for not remembering, or filing her name away. We walked in to the Lake View Terrrace Bar, and I aggressively maneuvered my way to one of the front good tables. I was desperate. My partner thought I overdid the aggression — but I’m results driven and felt the entire state of Colorado owed us after that scary dinner.
We were glad to be somewhere where the social pressure had given way to acceptance. The jazz diva, just stunning, just said “and who do we have here?” My partner looks like someone who could be a character actor on some hybrid show of the Love Boat, True Blood — think Jason, and Melrose Place. He always draws attention.
MackMclarty.jpgAnd then behind us I heard, “Steven, is this your partner?” And it was someone I had met only once — at an event I hosted with him at the Economic Strategy Institute — “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. He and his wife, at least then, made a habit of spending their holidays at the Broadmoor.
The McLarty’s were dancing up a storm to the great jazz — and they made us get up and dance too. My partner and I danced in this Broadmoor bar together on December 31, 1993. It was like something out of Six Degrees of Separation when Will Smith danced with his new male friend in the Rainbow Room. That jazz singer and “Mack” saved our New Year’s that year in 1993 — they were warm and accepting, but they were anomalies here. . .then.
I’m back now, not with Andrew (who would love to be here but is teaching) but here nonetheless and have seen quite a number of same sex couples here. Colorado Springs hasn’t lost its conservative edge — and down the hill are the mega-churches and Focus on the Family operations that spend a lot of time harassing the gay community. But this place has changed, for the better — here at The Broadmoor.
And today, after a talk I gave for the World Affairs Council of Colorado Springs and stood out on my Broadmoor balcony looking at the beautiful frozen ponds and plentiful geese honking all about, I had the privilege of taking a call from former Senator Chuck Hagel, a man I would have worked hard for if he had run for President
mullen m.jpgI told Hagel about my exchange last Friday evening with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell at the reception after Richard Holbrooke’s memorial service. That couldn’t have happened in 1993. I told the Senator that Mullen shared with Ambassador Susan Rice and me that for him, it was an absolutely, life-topping, unforgettable experience to stand on stage with President Obama and Vice President Biden and be one of those at the DADT repeal signing ceremony to receive an explosive standing ovation. I was there — and it was over the top in all the right ways.
But what I realized today is that what Mike Mullen and Chuck Hagel and I chatted about off-hand is much more regular today than what “Mack” McLarty mustered in 1993. And that’s a good thing.
This is a more personal post than I normally share here — but the memories and benchmarks of change, while nuanced, are important to me.
I highly recommend the Broadmoor now, even with a lot of Christian Bible types running around, and check out the Hotel Bar and order the Raymond Vineyard Merlot, one of the best I’ve ever had.
And in case he reads this, “Mack” McLarty is a permanent friend for what he did that year in what was then a highly conservative establishment in a much more conservative, less accepting time.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

21 comments on “Broadmoor Reflections: What Gay Acceptance Feels Like Over Time

  1. (Mr.) Whitney Galbraith.Colorado Springs.CO.719-633-2740 says:

    Steven: In the course of my writing up your talk at the Colorado Springs World Affairs Council on the 20th, I looked up your blog to learn more about your professional life. You can find the synopsis at http://www.csworldaffairs.org/pastspeakers.
    Having spent most of my 72 years living within walking distance of the elegant Broadmoor Hotel, I was quickly drawn to your headline mentioning same and, of course read your treatise on how

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    correction: but it would NOT explain alliance with certain regimes on one side, combined with endless moralizing against certain other regimes on the other side.

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    No, questions, pragmatic calculation does not explain Steve Clemon’s thinking. Pure calculation in the realpolitik mode might lead to alliances with unsavory regimes, but it would explain alliance with certain regimes on one side, combined with endless moralizing against certain other regimes on the other side.

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    “Just a couple of questions: How did these right wing groups in
    Europe and America, many of them with dark, bigoted and
    reactionary roots, manage to hijack significant parts of the
    enlightenment project?” (Paul Norheim)
    Classical liberalism, the heir of the enlightenment project, moved to the right in the US when the left was hijacked by the groups-rights socialists, and stopped talking about individual rights or responsibilities.
    The right and left in the US no longer resemble what they were 50 years ago. I am not kidding when I say that John F Kennedy would be a Republican today.

    Reply

  5. Chris OBrien says:

    Bill, I know Steven and his husband Andrew through my significant
    other, Michele Volansky, who teaches with Andrew at Washington
    College in Maryland. Steven and Andrew have graciously hosted me
    at their Chestertown home and their DC home as well.

    Reply

  6. Mark says:

    Steve,
    I did not dismiss you or your initial post or attempt to belittle its importance to you. Clearly the central issue means a great deal to you, and I support the repeal of DADT. I never liked the institution of DADT in the first place.
    I never read your blog as Steve The Homosexual. Just like I never read your blog as Steve The Blond-Haired Guy. Or Steve The Male. Or Steve With The Fancy Education.
    Instead, I read your blog as Steve The Foreign Policy Expert. I read your blog for its quality and, sometimes, for – and this is my opinion and a matter we have previously discussed – its and your seeming willingness to ignore certain issues, especially as these issues involve Israel’s domestic policy and how said policy impacts on the nation’s foreign policy relations with the Muslim, Arab, and, yes, the Gentile worlds.
    But as you have noted, and as I agree, it is your blog. You can write, or not write, about whatever you wish. And it is easy for me, or any other person offering comment on this blog, to criticize you.
    What I respect most about you is your willingness to engage respondents with a fair amount of logic and more than a fair amount of professionalism and simple, common decency – even when some of us, myself included a time or two – have failed to treat you with said decency. You have class, Steve, and I respect you for showing your class not merely in a prior discussion with me, but also in this very thread with Mr. Pearlman.
    More than anything else, I seek accurate facts, reasonable policy, and respectful, intelligent debate. All three characteristics are, in my opinion, is frighteningly short supply in an Internet and a larger world filled with sophistry, polemic, paid hacks, excess punditry, an abandonment of the facts in far too many instances, limited first-source reporting, excess anonymous-source reporting, general laziness, vanity, and lucrative financial rewards for some who employ these (lack of) ideas and tactics.
    Your website, while not perfect, provides more accurate facts, reasonable policy, and respectful, intelligent debate than most – and I don’t give a rat’s backside what Wiggy, nadine, and Pearlman are feverishly typing from their copies of Caroline Glick’s “How to Infuriate Friends and Tick Off People” manifesto. (Yeah, I don’t like Glick. I also don’t like Joe Buck or Ed Schultz. Sue me.)
    I read people for their ideas and the facts underpinning those ideas. I don’t read them for their looks, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, sexuality, sexual orientation, or ability to hit the 12-to-6 curve ball.
    Homosexuality is important to you. I recognize and acknowledge this fact. I just never considered it when reading your work. It’s what I read, not who someone loves, that matters to me.
    Make sense?

    Reply

  7. Charles Francis says:

    Thank you for the “View from the Broadmoor” ! I loved it
    because it brings to us your story of personal integration, where
    an individual becomes “whole” with the world, the public and the
    private interacting seamlessly, and without obloquy or
    punishment . This is something straight Americans in the public
    square can hardly imagine. The view in the rear mirror on this
    subject is staggering. I have been doing some research on the
    two most important people in LBJ’s public life, Lady Bird and
    Walter Jenkins. It broke both LBJ and Lady Bird’s hearts to see
    Johnson’s chief-of-staff Walter Jenkins ruined and hospitalized
    for his arrest on a moral’s charge. But LBJ, instead of acting with
    public compassion and responsibility, turned to the dark J. Edgar
    Hoover to increase the Federal investigations, firings and bans–
    -destorying thousands more lives in the process. The repeal of
    DADT lies on this arc of history. Great piece, Steve!
    Charles Francis

    Reply

  8. DonS says:

    “Just as you don’t what Rush Limbaugh to take the blame for Loughner’s behavior, perhaps don’t blame the two or three surviving multiculti-ists of the most pure variety for US international policy or for Steve’s view that we need to deal more even-handedly with the Arab world.” (questions)
    Even more to the point, as Norheim notes, Steve’s primary concern is the effect of events and actions on US policy. He is not obliged to address every wrong in the world or, for that matter, any wrong in the world simply because some tendentious propagandist throws it in his face to continually attempt to discredit and knock him off guard.
    On the other hand, these propagandists have no other purpose commenting here but to take pot shots at Steve and commenters who seems reasonalby united in desiring a rational policy in the Mideast. That rationality precludes the extreme positions of the zionist right.
    These propagandists, also, don’t seem to be able to accept the notion that Israel is a bad actor, among other bad actors in the world. Attempting to wear Steve down by questioning his credibility with an argument of anti-Israel bias isn’t really an argument at all. Since when do the bad actors and their rabid supporters, the Israel Firsters who claim to be Americans, get to exonerate themselves of bad behavior just by declaring the other unfair? Even with the force of AIPAC behind their campaign, they can’t make out a serious case.
    And, of course, it’s not just Steve Clemons, the vast majority of the world isn’t buying the charade either. As US power and the patina moral authority in the world degrades, so does the hypocrisy of Americas propping up the charade become less important. As for the christianist crazies that feed the frenzy, not much you can do with that bunch; if the Israel Firsters want to lay down with that bunch, not much you can do about that either.

    Reply

  9. questions says:

    nadine,
    Once again, it’s not about the “right” to do more to to do less than nudge.
    It’s about calculation.
    If you push to hard on a negotiating partner, the partner might just dump you. So you don’t push, you hope for gradual change.
    At other times, the calculation runs something like, well, this negotiating partner does less for our interests, so we can be a little more moralistic for the home crowd.
    Worrying about moralism is, then, a calculation. If we push Arab nations, we’ll lose our ability to negotiate. Besides, it’s not like they tend to consider themselves liberal democracies with open elections! Israel is crossing borders to be nasty and the international community is trying to find a way to stuff Israel back into its boundaries where it can then declare itself whatever it wants.
    Now I’m not really quite where the international community is on all of this. I’m not a late comer to security issues, I’m not for “even handedness” in fact because I’m in a different place on what I consider “American interests”, a phrase I will forever put in scare quotes as completely undefinable.
    And yet, I, too, wish fervently that Israel would find a way to stuff itself back into its borders, lose the racism crap, and lose the hardened edge I’ve detected in conversation. It’s bad for one’s soul to be so hardened about the value of another people.
    If I ever figure out a way to soften the edges, keep the security, and promote Fayyad’s career (LA Times has a piece up on him this morning, I think it is), I will win my very own Nobel Prize. Woohoo! For now, I fumble about, hope for some great tv shows, a realization of moral equivalence of all sentient beings through those great tv shows, and a change in the winds.
    The Obama admin sees the problems quite clearly, has tried to push, has indeed failed thus far. If they underestimated anything, it’s the hardness of the Israeli electorate and the domestic structures in Israel they have to work with. Perhaps this is a place where, ummm, MORE MULTI-CULTIness would have been nice!!!!
    The Israelis do things differently, and we Americans need to recognize this fact!

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    “questions, Jan 21 2011, 6:06AM”
    ———————————
    Questions, thanks again for the clarity of your comment!
    I think you were spot on regarding Steve as well. In my
    view, Steve Clemons is a political animal who uses his blog
    to influence US foreign policies, based on broad priorities
    (and, admittedly, some hobby horses); but I think he
    would hate the idea of making empty moral gestures
    towards the east, west, north and south – just to prove his
    moral impeccability or lack of bias when some domestic
    faction attacks him.
    As for priorities, of course he’s not anti-Israel, but he’s
    first and foremost pro-American. For many reasons
    (among them, obviously, my nationality), I don’t share his
    patriotic pro-American position; but I have no problem
    seeing how the bill to repeal DADT is so important to him
    personally in this context.
    No, Steve: what intrigues me is not some alleged multi-
    culti contradictions and hypocrisy; but how you manage to
    reconcile your admiration for Chalmer Johnson with being
    “Washington’s Gay Machiavelli”!

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    “Does concern for gay rights stop dead at some border marked “Us
    vs. them”?”
    For Bill Pearlman, it certainly does. His obnoxious homophobic
    remarks were reserved for Americans like Steve Clemons and
    Andrew Sullivan; while his deep concern for gay rights was strictly
    confined to Muslim countries.
    May I add that I’m deeply moved watching how concerned people
    on the extreme right have become recently for the well being of
    “minority races and creeds” abroad, especially in Muslim countries;
    races and creeds and sexual orientations they don’t give a rats ass
    for on the domestic scene. Or even worse: Defending Christian
    minorities in Muslim countries while harassing Muslim minorities at
    home.
    If Nadine was willing to admit that there are actually certain striking
    similarities between the respective hypocrisies on the left and on
    the right, we could make an attempt to transcend the partisan
    divide for a moment.
    Judging from past experiences, however, she is not capable of
    transcending or admitting anything whatsover. So please regard
    this comment as a strict monologue, and not a generous invitation
    to deliver more partisan arguments ad nauseam.
    The paradox is that on a general level, many on the left are very
    concerned about domestic human right abuses, while often
    airbrushing, denying, or excusing much worse abuses abroad
    (regarding religion, gender, sexual orientation, race issues,
    minorities etc).
    On the other hand, the extreme right in the last decade has shown
    more and more concern for minority groups abroad, groups that
    they usually ignore, or even dislike on the domestic scene.
    Steve argues well for his well thought out position. As for many
    others, however, both on the left and on the right, these positions
    seem to be mere ideological reflexes – and more often than not
    shaped by the gut reactions of their opponents. They mirror each
    other. I could probably write a whole essay about this, but I’ll stop
    here for now.
    P.S.
    Just a couple of questions: How did these right wing groups in
    Europe and America, many of them with dark, bigoted and
    reactionary roots, manage to hijack significant parts of the
    enlightenment project?
    And why this new love affair between the Israeli right, and so many
    of these European rightwing groups with a dubious (often anti-
    Semitic) past?
    (for the last question, see Ian Buruma’s recent article:)
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/buruma46/English

    Reply

  12. nadine says:

    The question is why some nations get to violate inalienable human rights by killing gays, women, Christians with nary a protest, just the occasional “nudge”; while another country is ordered continually and in the most prepremptory fashion to arrange their borders, their capital city, their human rights laws, their governing coalition, and just about everything else to Steve’s liking. And all the while he says “we don’t have the…right” to do more than “nudge” other nations on their human rights record yet insists his view is “coherent”.
    I say his view is coherent only if “some animals are more equal than other animals”. I look around for the system which is declaring which animals are more equal than other animals, and the one I find, which happens to fit the bill exactly, is multi-culturalism. If Steve thinks that’s not right he’ll have to explain why not.

    Reply

  13. questions says:

    nadine,
    You need a new screen through which to view the world. Lefty multi-culti doesn’t really make Steve Clemons tick, near as I can tell.
    There are multiple concerns that layer, and though we might very well want truth justice and the American way all over the world, the fact is that the rest of the world has its own views on things and we can’t make them do what we want at the point of a gun.
    International relations deals with s wide range of issues and forces people to prioritize and put up with some seemingly ugly behavior in order to keep alliances functioning.
    Rational calculation, strategic thinking, and a hold your nose and embrace the stink attitude are paramount. Steve Clemons isn’t an Arabist because of multi-culti tolerance and inability to judge issues. He’s an Arabist because he’s done a set of calculations and he thinks that’s the right direction to go.
    He’s not anti-Israel. He, like many people, would wish for Israel to shift significantly in its treatment of the Palestinians. He’s right to wish this. There is cruelty, inhumanity, indecency, racism, and fairly vile behavior on the part of many Israelis and Israeli policy in general.
    Israelis justify their policies on the basis of a real threat, but like all real threats, this one gets broadened past the “real” part to allow for a range of highly self-interested and nasty policies. And further, as the “real” part of the threat gets broadened by position-taking and jockeying politicians, the people escalate teh crazee and then the politicians escalate it ever more. The feedback loop is deeply unfortunate for all. It makes it very difficult to negotiate and compromise and see where there’s room for shifts in positions.
    None of this has anything at all to do with leftyness, multicultiness, the inability to see what’s ugly in another people or culture or set of practices.
    It’d be nice if you could find, I don’t know, a new essay by someone on the right whom you respect. Someone who changes the terms of the debate, updates them, notes that multiculti-ism is really not the dominant theme of the universe of policy makers. And if there’s anyone who really holds to the idea that we can’t condemn torture, mass murder, rape and pillage, summary executions of political prisoners, land grabs or whatever because the practitioner is “oppressed”, then please note that the person who holds that view really is a fringe figure.
    Just as you don’t what Rush Limbaugh to take the blame for Loughner’s behavior, perhaps don’t blame the two or three surviving multiculti-ists of the most pure variety for US international policy or for Steve’s view that we need to deal more even-handedly with the Arab world.
    It’s not a love of gay bashing, it’s a realization that the Arab world, or more broadly, the Muslim world is made up of a lot of people we shouldn’t be ignoring. Even despite some deeply unpleasant and unjust policies.
    All of this not to put words in Steve’s mouth….. It seems this way to me, at any rate.

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    “Bill — I have commented on the executions of gay boys in Iran.
    I have commented on the outrageous incarceration of gay men at a boat party in Egypt.” (Steve Clemons)
    Really? I have been reading you for a while, and don’t recall seeing such comments. They cannot be frequent, at any rate. What is more to the point, is that they never seem to influence your blog’s foreign policy recommendations, which persistently bash Israel, a country with gay pride parades, in favor of forming a grand alliance with Iran, a country whose president assures us contains no gays at all, presumably because they have been so busy executing them.
    Surely there is some happy mean between abandoning the rights of gays and women in Iran and Egypt and demanding Borg-like assimilation? Does concern for gay rights stop dead at some border marked “Us vs. them”? Unfortunately, I notice that for today’s Left, multi-culturalism (the impulse that conflates demands for human rights with demands for Borg-like assimilation) trumps all else when it comes to the Muslim world: the rights of women, of gays, and the rights of minority races and creeds.

    Reply

  15. Steve Clemons says:

    Bill — I have commented on the executions of gay boys in Iran.
    I have commented on the outrageous incarceration of gay men
    at a boat party in Egypt. I believe that intolerance abroad on this
    front, and towards women as well as to various internal
    minorities, is disgusting and wrong. But I don’t believe that is
    the only portal through which to look at these states and
    societies — and don’t believe in the Borg-like (Star Trek
    allusion) solution of either making other societies look just like
    us – or if that fails, annihilating them. I have gay friends in all of
    the states you regularly rail about and I hope that they make
    progress in their countries — but in my own country, where I am
    a legitimate political participant, I believe my voice and views
    really matter and are much more focused. I don’t believe that I
    have the same right to do this with other nations – though I do
    believe that we should try to nudge, encourage, and on occasion
    shove nations towards respect for human rights — but only
    when we have the playbook and stock of power to do so.
    I recognize you may disagree — and that’s fine. But do your
    best to respect the fact that I have a coherent view on this, one
    different from your own — but have now answered your
    question and hope you can become a more constructive and
    respectful (of others) participant here.

    Reply

  16. Ben Rosengart says:

    Thanks for your reflections, Steve, I enjoyed reading them.
    Interesting post, Chris. How do you and Steve know each other?

    Reply

  17. Chris O'Brien says:

    Steve,
    As years have progressed, and I have had time to be in the presence of yourself, Andrew, and a slew of other gay friends, I have become more aware and, hopefully, more accepting, of people who are not like me. I have indeed engaged in behavior that I now find reprehensible and I now, of course, repudiate–if not direct “gay-bashing” t…han at best judgementalism and intolerance–and find myself in a fuller world, a world where I am growing as a man, where I am accepting of the differences–sexual, social, religious–between myself and others.
    Whether you know it or not, you and Andrew have been a part of my personal growth. For that I thank you and support you in your personal journey as I admire your professionalism on this blog, on Rachel and Keith’s shows, and in our personal interactions, from which I learn so much about the world around me and about so much more.

    Reply

  18. Steve Clemons says:

    Mark — thanks for your thoughts, sort of — can’t tell whether you are dismissing my remarks or sort of embracing them.
    But the issue is important to me — and it’s my blog (yay!), so I get to reflect on what is important to me without a lot of regard to the readers in this case.
    Regarding Bill Pearlman’s views — which I’ll leave up on this occasion (all others have been removed because of a serious violation of my posted rules and incredible bigoted characterizations) — he may be right — but he needs to get his own blog.
    I believe that gay acceptance is the civil rights struggle of the day, and you are wrong in my view to dismiss its significance. But I think I understand some of your broader points.
    Onward and upward. Thanks for participating constructively.
    Steve

    Reply

  19. Mark says:

    Steve,
    Hate to break the news to you, but I just don’t care if you’re homosexual.
    Or heterosexual. Or bisexual. Or asexual.
    I read this blog for your policies first and your politics second. Your sexual orientation simply does not matter to this reader.
    If I agree with something you wrote, I acknowledge you in kind. Conversely, if I think you’re full of compost, I slap you upside the head with an unrelenting volley of words, ideas, and facts counter to your own. (Think “slap” along the lines of Deion Sanders upon learning that he ranked only 34th among the NFL’s Top 100 Players. Google it. Watch the piece on YouTube. Then chuckle. It’s good satire.)
    Your sexual orientation remains irrelevant to the person typing these words. A pity, I guess, that some chose to read you through such a fouled prism.
    To those, like Mr. Pearlman above, who suggest that you and/or your (male, I presume?) partner could never write such a piece in Damascus or Teheran, I disagree. You could write the piece. Posting and/or publishing it, of course, may be a different story.
    ALTHOUGH, and this should also be noted, the very same result could, sadly, befall you among certain members of the Orthodox population in Judea and Samaria. (We shall not even discuss the response of one Glick, Caroline. That girl has some serious issues.)
    Why your sexual orientation, race, and, yes, your religion matters to some readers simply saddens me. Such reasoning, or lack thereof in this writer’s opinion, on the part of those readers seems like little more than a cheap defense for ideas that don’t adhere to their view of the world. (Reminds me a bit of Dershowitz, Alan or Lake, Eli and, yes, a fair number of liberals, Haaretz readers, and others quick to respond and slow to common sense.)
    Until, I respectfully submit, we judge people on the value of their ideas, their policies, and the underlying facts behind and beneath said ideas and policies, humanity will do little more than divide itself along religious, ethnic, racial, moral, immoral, and geopolitical lines. Makes for little more than lame copy, cheap arguments, and offshore tax havens for the select few.

    Reply

  20. Inspired says:

    Steve,
    You have this way that when you wind up, set your aim, and let it rip on something that sears through all the bullshit in our world — you bring tears to my eyes and stir emotions I didn’t know I had. You have such a gift for helping us all be better than we may think we can. I love your writing and work. I am sending this to everyone, absolutely everyone, I know.
    You have fans everywhere — but particularly here.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *