NYCweboy

Oh Fer The Love Of God!

I always say (to myself, anyway) you wait long enough... and there will surely be something to blog about. 

Sure enough, I decide to wait until the end of Easter/Passover vacation to get started again... and there you go.

Google's decision to run a graphic for the birthday of Cesar Chavez on Easter should really be no big deal - though I have to admit, I was a little surprised, until I realized they were the same day. Easter was a busy day this year - I'm now on Facebook, and two other FB friends (or as I used to say, friends) also had birthdays on Easter. And it was Easter. And Passover.... and a bunch of other stuff, which was kind of sad.

Anyway, I don't think it's surprising, exactly, that the conservative right went nuts over the linking of Chavez to Easter - or, more hilariously, that they mistook Cesar Chavez for Hugo Chavez, the recently deceased leader of Venezuela, which made them all the angrier. I mean, as they say, we do all look alike, especially when the last names are similar. 

In the wake of Republicans trying to rebuild a relationship with Latin Americans, though, this farce is basically example A of why most of these efforts are doomed. Too often and for too long, the right wing's predictable responses to even the mildest discussions of liberal figures - Cesar's hardly worth the controversy, and let's face it, Hugo's dead - is screaming outrage. And the outrage just seems misplaced - and in the case of Venezuela, awfully late now that the real question is whether Venezuela will simply fall apart in the wakr of his (er, Hugo's) death.

But the enmity for the Chavezes and all they represent - the union building, poverty work and immigration friendly politics of Cesar; or the communistic approach to governing Venezuela more in favor of the downtrodden - is what's really going to keep conservatism, and by extension the GOP, from going wide. There's just got to be something about Hispanic culture and politics that conservatives have to figure out how to support and present positively, or it's just, don't bother. This story is already over.

And it's not as though liberals are going to care deeply about whether Republicans get this right or not - frankly, at this point, the left's view of the right's Hispanic outreach is just that, as farce. The guys who want double edged barbed wire along the Mexican border, whose most extreme elements would actually try to round up "illegals" in every corner of the country and deport them, whose last Presidential candidate attracted about 30% of the Latin vote - these guys are not people we take seriously as any sort of threat. Have at it guys, because at the rate you're going, we'll get Hispanic support for the Democrats up to or near the 90+% numberws we enjoy with African Americans. Not even trying.

Of course, beyond the gloating, all of this is depressing. It's depressing to hear the shrill rhetoric opposed to anything that might make life even sort of slightly better for people on the edges of society, be they migrant farmworkers or the poorest citizens of a third world country. It's disheartening to see people you might otherwise at least respect as thoughtful opponents descend into the absurd anger and shrieking of the fringiest conservative elements, or even at a minimum, simply draw a line, any line, about rhetoric that goes too far. When Don Young of Alaska, a member of House leadership, blithely refers to "wetbacks" with little more than "oh, gee" from other Republicans, that's the kind of thing that shows what the right accepts in its senior leadership. For God's sake, this isn't hard.

But then that's Easter in the land of politics: dressing things up, trying to put a kindly face on the oldest of stories (I've always preferred the Potestant version, which sems to focus on the white light and the post-rising Good News rather than the more Catholic-seeming obsession with the pain and suffering He felt on the cross), candy coating the bad stuff so we won't maybe notice. The same week of all these Hispanic fumbles, the right is practically in seizures as (several) lifetimes of antigay rhetoric don't add up to a hill of beans fighting marriage equality, the battle they can lose now, or lose later. By Sunday, even Catholic priests in America were scrambling to find the right words to try and evince some sort of caring for gay people, even while condeming homosexuality and absolutey trying to rule marriage off limits. The contortions were breathtaking, the mixed messages were head scratchingly confused. We - the angry gay radicals of near limitless power, thank you John Roberts - have apparently managed, if nothing else, to turn "homophobia" into such a dirty word that conservatives almost universally flinch as they try to expalin opposing unions for people they really, really... well, we don't hate them, we just think they should settle for second best... or something. Really... breathtaking.

It's a weird Easter this year - it came too early, the weather's too weird for it, all of these crazy controversies and a new Pope who seems, genuinely, to believe that "poverty" and "humility" are not just nice words but a better, more honest way, to approach one's duties as a Priest. No cars, furs, or penthouse papal apartments? Good lord, now what?

It's a weird Easter, in some weird zone between secular and religious, where liberal theology and social justice apparently won the war while no one was looking. A moment when the Christian, decent things we can all pretty much sign on to - treating each other decently, caring for those less fortunate, helping those in actual need - seem to trump the less pleasing notions of doing for ourselves, getting what's mine, and judging others with a critical eye. It's an Easter big enough for the death of Christ, the birthday of the man who stood for farm workers, and even my friend the married gay minister. And that's pretty good... for the love of God.

Related articles

It's Cesar Chavez, You Idiots! Not Hugo!

Google angers Christian right by honouring socialist at Easter - Hamilton Spectator

Live, And More

I don't really care whether or not Beyonce lip-synched the National Antrhem, so much as I am fascinated by why a fairly modest, unsurprising decision redounded so badly for her. And I think the problem is twofold, and intertwined: a failure to be frank and up front, and a desire to preserve an unrealistic illusion.

Beyonce Knowles is a curious kind of star, at least for me; though she's obviously quite talented, her success has a lot to do with a long term, carefully managed strategy dating back to her childhood. Very little, ever, was left to chance. Destiny's Child (which is, literally, a description of her) went through several iterations before the carefully managed combination of Beyonce, Michelle Williams and Kelly Rowland became the  standard bearers. And even then, this was never a fantasy of Supremes like equality before Diana Ross got pulled forward. The ultimate goal, always, was solo stardom for the lead.

The notion of carefully controlled image, of carefully managed impressions, tends to dog Beyonce constantly. The internet rumors that her pregnancy was faked or stage managed, the presentation of her marriage, the ups and downs of her acting and singing careers... always there's this dissonant sense of what's real and what's "faked", and how to square the public presentation with overheard, "private" impressions.

The first thing that flashed in my head when suggestions of Beyonce's lip-synch surfaced was of Whitney Houston, naturally, and the 1992 Super Bowl, when she, as they said, "performed to a safety track" she'd recorded in advance of her appearance. It was lip synching, and essentially, no one cared. No one cared, I think, for those same couple of reasons: Arista (her label) was pretty up front about what happened, and no one, really, thought Houston couldn't handle live singing. Ever.

Impressions of Beyonce as a live performer tend to be somewhat more precarious. And more pointedly, her public persona is more carefully managed, for better and worse, than Houston's ever quite was.  Houston probably needed more protection, less overexposure. But it'e telling that, even now, neither Beyonce nor her spokespeople have particularly addressed the performance at the Inauguration, even after a week. Even a simple, "yes, she performed to tape" statement would kill a lot of the speculation and surmises that follow from the gossip.

Two things about the performance probably stick: the first is that faking a performance at the Inauguration is not a huge deal, but it's an odd choice, especially when, in the Obama years, Aretha Franklin, James Taylor, and Kelly Clarkson all managed live singing in similar, or identical circumstances (it's worth pointing out, too, that all three of those names are extremely seasoned live performers; and, too, that Franklin's performance wasn't her best... but no one cares). These are the days when, warts and all, the public has come to expect live event singing at particular venues and events. The other point is that Beyonce probably didn't help herself by recording a small, fairly intimate version of the National Anthem that didn't necessarily play well in the expanse of the National Mall. Big events tend to call for a "big" reading of the Anthem; we're full on Americans in our moments of natiuonal patriotism. Beyonce's version was small and quiet in the early going, and it felt small, and kind of tentative. It doesn't mean her performance choices were bad... but I tend to think she's still learning, as a singer, to be the kind of performer her fame suggests she already is - bigger than the room, up there with the legends. Her stardom is huge; her performing abilities are not, always. And again, that tends to be a reflection of her place in her generation, not necessarily a knock on her potential. A lot of these younger stars - whose fame seems outsized, and who have been carefully stage managed - seem overwhelmed when stepping into the shoes of these giant moments.

As I started, I don't care whether she lip synched; and, like RuPaul, I think she probably lip synched it better than most; she made it look so genuine, it was hard to believe the stories, at first. But I think the point is, lip synching wouldn't be a big deal if Beyonce and her people were honest about it, and if they challenged the occasionally absurd expectation that "live" singing should be an expectation or an ideal. But both, really, would be challenging and asking people to let go of their illusions. And that faith in illusions, I think, is still the problem Beyonce Knowles has most. Be fake if you must... but really, you might as well be honest about it. That's how to get to the place where no one cares.

I Wish Every Day Could Be Like Christmas (I Really Do)

The Swedish traditions for the holidays are to leave the tree up well into January, a way to preserve some of the spirit of the season into the new year. And, really, doesn't that alone recommend Swedish culture? Who else gives you Christmas that lasts almost an entire month?

(I got that from a book I gave to a friend to help her grow accustomed to the ways of the American Swede she married. Welcome to the family!)

Today the tinsel came down, the baubles came off, and I carefully repacked the lights. I remember how, as a child, my father explained that one day I would be the Man of the House. Most men can recall some version of that conversation, I find, and for years I dismissed those talks, as we do, or considered them cheerfully anachronistic (also, they usually involve a discussion of lawn mowing). As with many things (including lawn mowing), I can admit in middle age that my father was, in at least some sense, right. Even gay men will, at some point, have to learn what it is to be a man. And that being a man is okay. And as I carefully put away the Christmas lights, I feel the reality of being that man.

Taking down the Christmas tree this year feels, like so many things, somewhat bittersweet. Christmas is definitely over; it's time to move on. Onward and upward... that's my approach to the year so far. The presents I got were fine - a nice new pair of Puma sneaks for work, a couple of lovely cookbooks (with elaborate recipes I'm not sure I can attempt), the DVD collection of a British series featuring psychopathic killers - these are my simple pleasures.

And yet... there's a sadness, a sense of the things that are missing, time passing too fast. I can't explain it all that well, and I worry that this is what life is these days, something not quite good enough, quietly disappointing. That's not the Christmas spirit I was raised on, and I feel a little lost without it. 

All of which is why, more than most years, I feel like putting away Christmas, while necessary, can't really be an improvement. January just looks darker, and all the more grim, with the candles snuffed out, and the twinkling lights stored away in the basement. More than most years... I wish every day could be like Christmas, this year. I really do.

The Serious Post About Marriage Equality And The Supreme Court

The week of dithering by the Supreme Court was, to me, way more fascinating than the ultimate decision to take the cases on marriage equality. For a minute there, it really looked as if they were going to avoid the whole thing, which in itself would have been a pretty resounding win for the forces for marriage equality.

I also used to say, years ago, that DOMA was doomed once gays had the right to marry, for one of two reasons, divorces or taxes. The public may not like gays or disapprove of our life choices... but taxes and divorce are legal matters that need clear standards. And here we are, where the Supreme Court is hearing a tax case that will likely eviscerate DOMA.

That case is about a couple who got married in Canada where the surviving partner faced a huge tax bill (er, "death tax"? anyone?) where spouses are normally exempt. That case, as I long suspected, is probably a slam dunk on the merits, but like the Prop 8 case, the complication here is that the Supreme Court may never have to decide the underlying issue, because the appeal is being brought by Republicans in Congress. The Obama Administration, if we'll recall, already announced that based on other decisions where DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, the Solicitor General does not defend DOMA anymore. That, in itself, is an interesting question without a lot of settled law - if the Executive Branch refuses to defend a law it doesn't like, does Congress have the ability to do that instead? And again, that decision, even one in favor of Congress, wouldn't necessarily help DOMA - it's easy to see a split verdict that says, oh 7-2 (Breyer, Sotomayor) or 6-3 (plus Ginsburg) that Congress can appeal a decision of a law they passed, but then says 5-4 (the liberals, plus Kennedy) or 6-3 (plus Roberts) that DOMA violates the 14th Amendment.

The Prop 8 case is even messier, since the State of California "lost" the original case. In fact California (under Jerry Brown) never wanted to defend Prop 8, but sent a team of the Proposition's supporters as their stand-ins, who promptly lost. The appeal of the case comes from those proponents of the originial proposition, and it is indeed unclear whether they have any right to appeal a decision that is actually aimed at the state. This is where the Supreme Court could rule that the appeal should never have happened... meaning the original ruling against Prop 8 would stand; or they could give the proponents standing, and overrule the 9th Circuit and the District Court.... or they could uphold all the decisions.

This, too, leads to intersting questions about standing... but I have a hunch that  the Court would be happy not to rule on Prop 8 and try to fight what does indeed seem to be a turning tide of supprt for gay people. What seems even clearer, as I joked before, is that the "one man, one woman" nonsense will most likely be relegated to some spirited dissenting opinion from Scalia or Alito. 

And though many Court watchers brought up less than salient examples of Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe vs. Wade, the real bellweather on this will be Loving vs. Virginia, the 1967 case that ended state bans on interracial marriages, and (my guess) Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States. Loving, of course, says that states can't just refuse couples the right to marry... but Heart of Atlanta is a big case on interstate commerce, that people can cross state lines and expect similar treatment. My guess is that the combination of the two is where gay marriage will, one day if not this day, wind up being upheld.

But of course, gay people could lose all of this. The right wing might prevail, and at least claim a narrow victory that would extend this fight for a few years more. As much as I think some people are deeply invested in winning, I don't know that a lot of gay people - certainly around my age or older - harbor a lot of illusions here. This could all go very badly, and if it does, we'll just have to start our work from wherever we end up. But the reason we can live with the bad outcome, as we have all along, is because marriage equality is simply common sense. And it may take the law a while to catch up to common sense... but I don't think it will be much longer.

Related articles

Weddings and Women and Washington... and some thing about the Supreme Court that starts with W...

Supreme Court to Hear Prop 8, DOMA Cases

Supreme Court Grants Prop 8, DOMA Cases

Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis

Weddings and Women and Washington... and some thing about the Supreme Court that starts with W...

I was hesitating to continue in this vein, but this week was so full of gay marriage news: the people registering to marry in Washington state (insert joke here about using now legal pot, too), and the Supreme Court dithering for days about whether to take any gay marriage cases, and then at the final minute taking the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case... well, I think we can keep joking about who is going to marry whose boyfriends or girlfriends, now, can't we?

Because it's funny... until Antonin Scalia says marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it's not... although I think if he does that in an opinion, it will basically be hilarious.

Anyway, here are the responses from women, straight and gay. Links to the originals below.

 

 

 

 

 

Men On The Net(Works)

I am truly embarrassed to admit this, but I used to keep this (especially exhaustive) list of men I found attractive in a little notebook I kept hidden in my room. After I came out, the point of this lst was much more clear; but at first, you know, it was just an interesting diversion.

Apparently... I'm not alone in this: Via World of Wonder, James St. James directs us to Matthew Rettemund's exhaustive list of the 50 hottest men on television. This makes perfect sense since James, Matthew, me, and the rest of my gay generation kind of all kept this list, with many of the same men on it. I'm not sure it's the same for the kids these days, but that moment of recognition, that "you thought he was sexy too?" conversation was like a feminist click of "I'm not crazy" and "I finally fit in with the others."  It was not just, simply, the leering and lust... but goodness, aren't they talented?

Rettemund (who has the "nice work if you can get it" of being Professionally Gay) covers pretty much all the bases, and does a nice job of filtering in some of the more recent examples to a list that he's clearly been caring about for years. I don't make a physical list anymore (or even an Excel soreadsheet)... but one does, you know, keep track. And these days, when every TV show has that "hot guy who drips sexy" role, that isn't always easy.  Thank Goddess for IMDB.

A lot of this fascination can be traced back to the late seventies, when increasing gay visibility made frank depiction and interest in male beauty less of a social taboo (and the seventies were pretty sex-mad, anyway). Rettemund covers most of the bases - though he misses, most egregiously, Parker Stevenson and Shaun Cassidy of The Hardy Boys - with a little heavy emphasis on youth, even for my tastes. I'm not sure Blair Underwood is am especially brave choice, either. But Rettemund does capture, in pictures, that glorious moment when Tony Danza and John Schneider were as hot as street trade (and don't think they didn't know it).

One can nitpick this sort of thing to death (shortlist: Ian Somerhalder, Paul Wesley, Cam Gigandet, No Dawson's Creek?, Patrick Dempsey, Jensen Ackles, Jared Padalecki... I mean, jeez), and that's without diving deeply into daytime soaps (he does namecheck Brian Bloom!), but this list will serve as a fine, fresh start. And Rettemund rescues the show that nearly every gay man can remember even if the show was barely watched: the CW's Summerland, where the male beauty was simply freaking ridonkulous. If nothing else... thank you for Ryan Kwanten!

Oh, and yes, this is just TV. Film is a different story altogether. And yes, this is really gay, too. But Betty, how could I resist? And hey.... Merry Christmas!

Related articles

Jared Padalecki & Jensen Ackles: Serious for 'Supernatural'!

Jared Padalecki And Jensen Ackles Looking Intense On 'Supernatural' Set [PHOTOS]

The Straight Guy Response

Via Towleroad, the answer I was seeking:

 

Personally, as with the "gay guys will marry your girlfriends", I find the hilarity kinds of overcomes the dopey, underlying sexism of the argument. And I find, as a gay man of a certain age, that both sides of this "debate" kind of jibe with the way life is now - funny gay guys who don't see every straight man as a potential boyfriend, and straight men who aren't nearly as uptight about gays (or gay seeming stuff like a fashion sense) as we were led to believe. I remember the straight friend at my last company who said, with heartfelt assurance, that he'd "totally be my wingman" in a gay bar... and the layers of assumptions and prejudices I had to put away as a result. I don't think "we'll marry your girlfriends" is a good or realistic plan... but heck, even threats like that can start a dialogue. And isn't that a good thing?

Related articles

We Will Marry The Crap Out Of Them

Straight Guys Respond to Gay Guys Marrying Their Girls Video

Straight guys respond to gay guys' threat to marry their girlfriends: Marry them, please (humor)

Articles We Never Finished Reading: You're Indispensable...Or Priceless. Or Something.

Many observers have criticized the approach of using litigation to achieve social change ever since a Hawaii court ruled in 1993 that the denial of marriage benefits to same-sex couples was unconstitutional—criticism that only accelerated after Massachusetts's landmark Goodridge decision in 2003 ruling that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Much of this criticism takes the form of what I call the "countermobilization myth"—that is, the idea that victories won through the courts produce a unique amount of political backlash that make them counterproductive. The remarkable wave of success for LGBT rights on Election Day, combined with a steady increase in support for same-sex marriage, makes the countermobilization myth even more untenable. Michael Klarman's invaluable new book, From the Closet to the Altar, remains ambivalent about the use of litigation to advance same-sex marriage. But ultimately, it provides a powerful case that in the right circumstances, litigation can be an effective tool for social reform.

- Scott Lemieux, "Don't Fear The Backlash", The American Prospect, Nov. 15 2012

I make a very poor Grammar Nazi, and I'm only a so-so Usage Slut... but "invaluable" just annoys me. It's that thing about "disingenuous" where people usually mean the thing without "dis" but want to sound classy. I had to look up "invaluable" because I was just so annoyed (and I do find, in this insta-phone age, that my usage querulousness is faster and more easily confirmed - and yes, you can look that up, too), and a quick look for definitions made me both right and wrong. It's fair to say "invaluable" to mean the book has a value that can't be calculated... but I think Lemieux was going for more of the other words associated with invaluable - like "indispensable" or "priceless". 

My point is that, in context, Lemieux basically suggests the book does, indeed, have value. It's a very important book, clearly, and useful and informative... but is the value of it indeed beyond all measure? "Valuable" seems just as worthwhile a word choice, or even "extremely valuable" - but "invaluable"?  Really?

The other reason "invaluable" annoys me, and why I didn't bother finishing the article, is that the pint Lemieux's making is one of those "not so deep" points that strikes me as obvious: yes, people were initially reluctant to support gay marriage lawsuits (and, as I recall, many of us felt that we were being steamrolled into backing an issue, like gays in the military, that brought up larger issues we didn't entirely like), but what I found then, and still find is that most gays were willing to at least let the lawsuits run their course because, like gays in the military, the underlying point was obviously correct. Thus, "fear of backlash" was never quite the issue one wants to make it out to be: some gays may worry about adverse reactions to us standing up for our rights, but historically, most of us gays will prefer to see the positive result. Gay Pride, gay equality... we weren't all heroes who stood up right when Stonewall happened... but "they may not like us and be mean to us for speaking out" is a lousy approach to life. And mostly... we already knew that. And such an insight hardly seems... invaluable. 

Ew, It's Gross. I'm Not Doing It (Plus Some Thoughts On Taylor Swift)

 

"We are never ever ever getting into leather" is much fun (via one of my regular must reads, the World of Wonder blog), but then so is the Taylor Swift original which kicked off her album Red.

 

 

Swift has gotten a lot of grief because the song, apparently, is a thinly veiled diss of Jake Gyllenhaal. This is in line with previous songs, her subtextual critics suggest, with a string of songs aimed at exes and occasionally their new girlfriends. For her part, Swift doesn't entirely deny that her songs come out of her experiences, or that some of them are indeed, about a specific person or event.

That is usally how one writes a song.

I'm sort of struck by the obvious sexism at play in this, and by the blindness of otherwise sensitive types (like Jezebel) to the double standard at work. It's as if all that material written by high profile male rockstars to their (often equally high profile) girlfriends and exes never happened. Did nobody hear the backstory of "My Sharona"?  Or how Dylan aimed a string of (actually rather bitchy) singles at his girlfriends from the sixties (including, just as a for instance, Edie Sedgwick)? How about something more recent - did no one listen to the words to "Gives You Hell" by All American Rejects? (Yeah, I don't love it either... but still).

Apparently, it's wrong for a woman to complain about bad boyfriends... or something. Or perhaps it's just that Swift's kiss-offs are aimed at young, handsome, popular celebrity men whose puppy dog reps (even a dog like John Mayer) preclude thinking badly of them in the public sphere. Perhaps it's simply the charmed nature of Swift's career and her own super-sweet public persona. I know I resisted at first, but Swift's chops as a musician and songwriter have become simply impossible to dismiss or ignore. And that, really, is why a song like "We are never ever getting back together" has sting. 

Whatever the case for resistance and ugly backlash, I can't help the feeling that if Swift were a man and the disses in question were aimed at ex-girlfriends we wouldn't be having this backlash and the star would be a hero, not a bitch. And that's just like... ew.

We Will Marry The Crap Out Of Them

CollegeHumor's Favorite Funny Videos

 There's some issues of sexism attached (it's only boys, and a certain type of gay boy at that)... but I just find the underlying politics of it - gay boys taking back their power - somehow liberating. I do wish they someone would add lesbians to this... because that would make the mind-spinning complete.