Two young gay men hide their sexuality in order to keep their government jobs and their reputations. Thomas Mallon set such a premise in 1950s D.C., but virtually nothing has changed since then.
Take this news bit worthy of celebration, for example: "…the Department of Defense no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder." You'd think this action would've been taken back in the '70s when mental health professionals came to this conclusion. Sadly, this was reported less than a year ago.

In Mallon's novel, the earnest young government employees (gay and straight) believe in fighting the evils of communism. But there's still time to weed out the lavender along with the red. Just as now, while the entire world recognizes the growing danger of Al-Qaeda, our top officials will even torture innocent civilians all over the world to stop the enemy. But a gay co-worker? Our government just can't tolerate that. In fact (and this also happened just last year), the Pentagon fired seven Arabic translators for being gay. MSN reports, "Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers." Brilliant move in the fight on terror.

Mallon's novel focuses only on government employees leading double lives. Our government isn't happy with just targeting their own. From 2005: "Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a 'credible threat' of terrorism." Even outside of D.C. and the military, Uncle Sam equates gays with actual terrorists who fly planes into sky scrapers.

Historical novels typically move me to think, "imagine living through this or that back then." Sadly, pathetically, unnecessarily, gay people are still living this. And for what?

Jennifer Leblanc

I came across the latest atrocity in systematic violence against women on CNN’s Headline News today and investigated further to get a clearer picture through the Ms. Magazine feminist wire.

I’m not sure how this kind of thing happens today. I’m not sure how anyone can view it as entertainment and tape the footage on their cell phones and sell it to a major American news network or other location. Furthermore, I don’t understand how anyone can watch someone’s life being taken without helping.

The news wire article estimates that up to 1,000 men could have participated in ending this 17-year-old woman’s life. That means that there were up to 2,000 hands that could have helped her up instead of pushing her down or that could have blocked her from the countless stones that smashed her body, ultimately and publicly murdering her. News reports say that this is culturally called an “honor killing,” but where is the honor in ending a woman’s life while she is unable to defend herself? I’m nothing less than disgusted.

Cultural norms or otherwise, there are some things that I will never understand, and killing because of love is one of those things. I suppose I’m lucky. No, not lucky. Fortunate. I am fortunate because, in America, it is a crime to murder someone for choosing to love outside of his or her religion. Even twenty minutes later, this story still leaves a terrible taste in my mouth. It is evident that this story is too close to home for me to stomach. I’m in a relationship that spans religious diversity, and daily I do not hide my head or fear for some kind of repercussion. There are people who, of course, find my situation distasteful — and each person is allowed his or her opinion. But I’ve never had to fear for my life like this woman must have. So, as I reflect on my own life and the life of this woman, only one year younger than me, I realize that, no, I am not lucky. She was deprived of the life she should have been allowed to have and love she should have been allowed to express.

It is hard enough to find love, and those who are able to find it are fortunate and should be able to celebrate it rather than wondering if the next day is the day that they will lose their lives because of it. I can only hope that there will come a day when love of all kinds is embraced.

Juana Maria Summers

Before the start of the shoot, Terrence Malick and Emmanuel Lubezki devised a series of photography rules or dogma that are to be used in film. They are:

• 1) No artificial lights. All is shot in natural light.
• 2) No crane or dolly shots, just handheld or Steadicam shots.
• 3) Everything is shot in the subjective view.
• 4) All shots must be "deep-focus shots," that is, everything (foreground and background) is visible and focused.
• 5) You (the camera crew) are encouraged to go and shoot unexpected things that might happen in accident or if your instinct tells you so.
• 6) Selective shots: any shot that does not have visual strength is not used. (From IMDB).

If only every film could be shot according to these rules. Some may marvel at the digital everything in blockbusters like 300. Give me scenery so pure and naturally colorful that I can almost touch it any day.

Give me simple touches — her hand to his, his hand running down her back — rather than the violent, gratuitous grinding that now passes for love scenes.

Give me simple statements — the words for eyes, lips in a new language — instead of cliches, over-blown speeches, and last-minute happy endings.

Show me a young actress — still a child at 14 — who can carry history and raw emotions, who can stand at the crossroads of love and death on screen. 

Show me a pure world that was once new but is not lost.

Show me a film so beautiful it haunts me.

Jennifer Leblanc

Yahoo headline: "U.S. divorce rate lowest since 1970." So could you please spare me all the talk about how the American family is in trouble, how gay marriage undermines the blessed union, etc.? Can we concentrate on some real problems? Aren't there people dying somewhere in the world?

Now, once you've tied the knot and had a child, take some advice from a Watery Tart: "A University of Washington study reports that 40% of 3-month-olds now watch television…They just don't need television, and we have only begun to understand how harmful it is for them: obesity, ADD and ADHD, decreased interest in math, science and reading have all been connected to over-consumption of passive forms of entertainment. And the people who produce and market these "baby-friendly" and "educational" programs will have you believe that you're doing your baby a benefit by beginning them on a steady diet of video entertainment as early as possible. Don't believe them. Listen to the doctors, the scientists, the ones who stand to gain nothing monetarily."

If you are lucky enough to have a daughter (aren't we precious?), she will grow up eventually, no matter how much you pray to God otherwise, so what's a parent to do? Nowadays, what with virginity pledge this and parental consent that, parents and government officials favor the idea of complete female control — your body and life belong to them, not you, silly girl. But I'm a firm believer in this: if you raise your daughter with self-esteem and common sense, you won't need to enact laws that restrict her freedoms and decision making. You may want her to stay daddy's little girl forever, but she won't. Relying on church and state officials to keep her in line once you're gone won't work either.

What is so baffling about raising a female to be an autonomous individual, to believe she is capable of properly living her own life? Why do we feel the need to make a suggestion like this: "It is time to raise the age of consent from 18-21 –'consent,' in this case, referring not to sexual relations but to providing erotic content on film." This from Wall Street Journal Opinion Columnist Garance Franke-Ruta, who, while musing on Joe Francis and Girls Gone Wild, writes, "Is there anything to be done?" According to Ruta, the only thing to be done is control the girl. After all, how can a girl make a sound decision for herself, right? When we discuss laws restricting pornography in general and so-called filmmakers like Joe Francis, the First Amendment is always invoked, silencing all. We wouldn't want to be able to charge Francis and his ilk with something other than contempt of court or tax evasion. And why teach your sons to respect the other half of humanity when you can simply wag your finger at the female?

In general, I am not anti-porn. I also don't believe that raising the age of consent will have any effect on the GGW phenom. Think of how the age limit for drinking was raised and what good that did. Also, if you are legally of age to sacrifice your life for your country or vote for the leader of the free world, you're old enough to flash a camera man, whether you regret it or not.

Jennifer Leblanc

A few nights ago I was staying at my girlfriend’s apartment and we were having a bit of a fight. It was late, we were tired, and things were a little weird from an evening at the bars. Nothing too extraordinary, but at 2 a.m. we were each annoyed with the other.

In the middle of this, one of her neighbors returned home with a gaggle of older women laughing and talking in the same volume they would have used at the bar. More annoyance. Could these cretins not tell we were having a fight? Some people.

One in the group announced that she couldn’t find her key. Also, her husband is not opening the door, which is pissing her off a whole bunch. This is one of the neighbors: “Helen.” Her husband is a guy we’ll call “Dave.”

Soon everyone is bored of waiting for the door to open and decided that the party actually was over. Most of the gaggle left and we were left with a small murmur of conversation between two people — some guy and Helen. It wasn’t a very interesting talk for two drunks locked out of an apartment, so the girlfriend and I got back to our own argument.

At some point a bit later Helen and the guy start having a very nice conversation — I mean that in the “Borat” sense of the term “very nice.” They’re giggling and making groaning noises. Suddenly I was no longer concerned with our argument and, like a nosey jerk, I dove out of bed to wedge my face as close to a crack between the floor and the door (she lives in a studio). I can’t see anything, but I can hear everything better.

“We could go down that hall and no one would see us,” the guy said.

“No. No, we can’t,” responded Helen. All I could do was wave my hand to beckon the girlfriend to join me on the floor. She got there just in time to hear Helen say this: “Put that away. I’m not going to put that in my mouth here.”

This made my day. Here’s a married woman, outside of the apartment she shares with her husband, and she’s telling some guy she refuses to perform oral in the hallway. Screw Desperate Housewives; reality is so much better.

The back and forth — no pun — between Helen and the random guy continues for a few minutes with him offering and her denying. Then Dave arrived on the scene as the disgruntled lover.

He opened the apartment door and announced, “I think it’s time you leave.” The guy agreed, but Dave continued. “Seriously,” he said, “I own this f—ing apartment. Get out of here.”

“Yeah, whatever. You have fun f—ing that slut,” said the guy.

At this point, having been insulted by her would-be lover and caught by her husband, Helen entered the conversation with this: “It was nice to meet you tonight Waylon.”

Crouched on the floor trying to see someone, we could barely hold our laughter at what was a sad, but ultimately hilarious, event. And we learned something that night: no matter how crap things are going in your relationship, someone always has it worse. So really, your problems aren’t that bad. The girlfriend and I said some apologies to each other and went back to bed, our problem solved by Helen’s disregard for her mate.

Oh, but the best part is this: Dave and Helen are born-again Christians.

Guess those “Commandment” things are grayer than I remember…

Patrick Duganz