Does Homophobia As A Word Still Serve, Ambitious American Climate Change Bill Passes House, Robert Hilburn Remembers Michael Jackson, Mrs. Sanford

Is homophobia a word no longer able to hold meaning? In the aftermath of the self-hating self-proclaimed Perez Hilton hateful hurl of not one, but two gay slurs, is homophobe or any variation of the word useful, or is the word misused, burdened by the weight of implied meanings?

According to this article from Saturday’s Toronto Star, the answer is that the word means less than nothing, burdened by the weight of multiple uses, impossible to define, the piece pointing out that homophobe was introduced into the popular vernacular as a shorted version of the phrase homosexual panic (a much better, more effective parlance I think) and that to assume it can stand for political policies that discriminate against gays – think DADT – and function to describe self-loathing homosexuals – think Perez – and a multitude of other instances, seems slightly less than realistic.

I agree that the word homophobia itself has been asked to take on too many meanings, thereby lessoning the understanding the word maintains. Homosexual panic, for example, although cumbersome, is obvious and rich in its definition. But the article’s suggestion that the “new gay liberation movement” need a new vocabulary to match seems, well, a tad beside the point. And, unfortunately, the idea, as it is presented, is more fodder for fools and miscreants who think that using the word “fag” or the phrase “that’s so gay” fall under their inalienable right to free speech.

The Washington Post reports on a story that flying far below the radar, the United State House passed a climate change bill Friday, by a vote of 219-212, that is as ambitious as it is involved, the legislation creates a complex system of greenhouse gas emission trading regulations, while aiming to offer a number of private and public incentives meant to curtail and change the way energy is used. The bill now goes to the Senate.

Robert Hilburn, the great music critic for the Los Angeles Times, a writer whose words and insights, when I was growing up, I devoured, offers an assessment of Michael Jackson, that might state the obvious – fame, and its game, is one no should play carelessly – but because Hilburn had over many years developed a personal relationship with Jackson, the piece is rewarding to read in ways that may surprise, serving a reminder, for example, of Michael’s rocky relationship with Jackie Onassis.

The New York Times has a fascinating profile on Mrs. Jenny Sanford, wife of embattled South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. While neither Jenny nor those closest to her chose to cooperate with the article, the Times manages to create a portrait of someone whose strength and wherewithal is at odds with the more popular assessment of Sanford as woman betrayed, hurt in a way that seems impossible to recover from, fragile and weak. In fact asked by reporters as she, four children in tow, set to literally sail, if she were okay, Mrs. Sanford replied “you know what? Not only will I survive, I’ll thrive.”