Wednesday, August 22, 2007
When Do I Get to Meet Prunella Scales?
Nature is committing a crime against nature when you have to wear a sweater and a jacket in August unless it's a high altitude in the southern hemisphere. All the same, it's goddamn delightful to be in London. Now that Tony Blair and his jetpack have given way to a new gouvernment, a couple of backbenchers welcoumed me at Heathrouw with a lei made of doner kebabs, but I was so jet lagged I waved them off, which was stupid because all other foodstuffs in this country are slathered in my bete-noire, mayonnaise. It's the British National Substance.
Anyway, I met up with my friend Rachel, whose family lives in Queen's Park, in West London. Together we tore through the West End, which is where NYU's housing and academic building were when I was here in 2001. I wanted to get the nostalgia done with first. We walked by where I stayed six years ago and I didn't recognize the building. The first thing I noticed is that way more Londoners dress like me than do New Yorkers. There's this thing called "New Rave" where obnoxious bright colors are totes mainstream (kind of like the Scissor Sisters, who aren't just for L train homosexuals after all). Even the cops get behind it.
Even though Paramus, NJ is pretty good, being home to "Leather!" and other such emporia of middle-class catastrophes, I found a store in Queen's Park that's got a mirrored dresser with some flowered patterns cut into the glass in a frosted fashion. The store's called "Ooh!"
I've almost been run over a few times. I'm kind of an aggressive pedestrian, Elliott has plucked me out of harm's way on at least three or four occasions and it's just my instinct to look left first when crossing a two-way street. So I'll most likely be dead within days, mowed down by a Lilliputian car that gets 20 deciliters to the furlong. A cab almost hit me and I noticed Dawn French was in the back seat with Ruby Wax. I ran into a pub while walking back to Rachel's because it had started raining, and wound up peeing in a trough next to Terry Gilliam. V. S. Naipaul elbowed me in the jaw while boarding the tube at Marble Arch and I saw Margaret Thatcher humming as she filled a shopping trolley with inorganic, cage-entombed eggs at Tesco. I'm really disappointed that no one has bothered to introduce me to Prunella Scales. I'm like, "Hello? American! Bring her to me."
You run into ambient celebs a lot because London is kind of like NYC, LA and smushed altogether. Sometimes they come to you. Bob Geldof came to the door soliciting a few quid for coalminers who have been striking since 1984. I said, "You looked better with your eyebrows shaved and throwing a TV at that groupie. Here's 50p." That's about the equivalent of a dollar. The exchange rate was $2.05/pound last week but today it's $1.98 because the chavs who had been able to swing a second home in Scottsdale are starting to get foreclosed upon as we enter "the last throes, if you will" of transnational capitalism.
Tomorrow I'm going to walk to some canal for an obligatory hour before saying fuck it and blowing a paycheck on jeans and shoes exactly as I swore I wouldn't do. I should have taken more pictures, but it's been raining so much that all I can offer is an aerial shot of Jones Beach.
Anyway, I met up with my friend Rachel, whose family lives in Queen's Park, in West London. Together we tore through the West End, which is where NYU's housing and academic building were when I was here in 2001. I wanted to get the nostalgia done with first. We walked by where I stayed six years ago and I didn't recognize the building. The first thing I noticed is that way more Londoners dress like me than do New Yorkers. There's this thing called "New Rave" where obnoxious bright colors are totes mainstream (kind of like the Scissor Sisters, who aren't just for L train homosexuals after all). Even the cops get behind it.
Even though Paramus, NJ is pretty good, being home to "Leather!" and other such emporia of middle-class catastrophes, I found a store in Queen's Park that's got a mirrored dresser with some flowered patterns cut into the glass in a frosted fashion. The store's called "Ooh!"
I've almost been run over a few times. I'm kind of an aggressive pedestrian, Elliott has plucked me out of harm's way on at least three or four occasions and it's just my instinct to look left first when crossing a two-way street. So I'll most likely be dead within days, mowed down by a Lilliputian car that gets 20 deciliters to the furlong. A cab almost hit me and I noticed Dawn French was in the back seat with Ruby Wax. I ran into a pub while walking back to Rachel's because it had started raining, and wound up peeing in a trough next to Terry Gilliam. V. S. Naipaul elbowed me in the jaw while boarding the tube at Marble Arch and I saw Margaret Thatcher humming as she filled a shopping trolley with inorganic, cage-entombed eggs at Tesco. I'm really disappointed that no one has bothered to introduce me to Prunella Scales. I'm like, "Hello? American! Bring her to me."
You run into ambient celebs a lot because London is kind of like NYC, LA and smushed altogether. Sometimes they come to you. Bob Geldof came to the door soliciting a few quid for coalminers who have been striking since 1984. I said, "You looked better with your eyebrows shaved and throwing a TV at that groupie. Here's 50p." That's about the equivalent of a dollar. The exchange rate was $2.05/pound last week but today it's $1.98 because the chavs who had been able to swing a second home in Scottsdale are starting to get foreclosed upon as we enter "the last throes, if you will" of transnational capitalism.
Tomorrow I'm going to walk to some canal for an obligatory hour before saying fuck it and blowing a paycheck on jeans and shoes exactly as I swore I wouldn't do. I should have taken more pictures, but it's been raining so much that all I can offer is an aerial shot of Jones Beach.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Bill Richardson's "Self-Immolation"
The more I read about the LOGO pseudebate, it seems the consensus is that Gov. Bill Richardson is dead in the water with the "visible vote." His comment that homosexuality is a choice, followed by a rambling "I'm not a scientist" disavowal of the softball question he was handed, is supposed to reveal the dinosaur behind the candidate's progressive facade.
Here's the exchange, taken from Pam of Pam's House Blend, who is of the opinion that Richardson certainly "self-immolated on live TV:"
MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
You could be charitable and say Richardson lamely attempted to articulate a sort of rejection of the very question, when posed by conservatives, of the etiology of homosexuality. In other words, if asked the same question by Fox News, a more polished Richardson might have said, "I don't see how it matters. Gay people are citizens who deserve equality and fair treatment under law. I'll leave matters of homosexuality's causality to scientists." Instead, the blogosphere decided to take the angry sophomore approach, complete with shrieking talons and gasp collectively at what a paleocon the governor really is--someone completely unfit to have been our UN ambassador, etc.
Admittedly, when confronted with the question "If the New Mexico legislature sent you a bill allowing gay marriage, would you sign it?" his position that gay marriage isn't a "realistic option" crumbled. But there is another dynamic at work here. It is apparently the position of the pre-eminent gay-oriented media outlet that homosexuality is an innate, genetic characteristic (with the only other alternative being "it's a choice"). In their desire to win mainstream acceptance, they have floated a demonstrably false idea with its own built-in risks.
First, if gayness is genetic, that would mean identical twins, who share the same genes, would both have to be gay, which isn't the case. Then there's the oft-stated theory that sexuality is a continuum, not a binary, even if most people group themselves into one or the other (and mostly the one). Moreover, since persons attracted to their own gender most often do not reproduce, a fairly stable rate of fags in the general population would be difficult to sustain--especially these days, when fewer gays and lesbians marry people of the opposite gender out of desperation or a desire to be normal. Unless you're willing to believe that there's an undiscovered sexuality gene that goes gay frequently enough to create unrelated gays and lesbians all over the world, making it an anomaly among anomalies, I just don't buy the genetic model of explanation.
But LOGO does! HRC does! They do it because of the statistical overlap between people who believe homosexuality is "not a choice" with acceptance of gay people. Fair enough. But it's appalling to me to see the self-appointed vanguard of politically sentient gay America recoiling in horror when someone implies that gayness is anything but an inborn trait. They think they're fighting conservatism, with its insistence that gayness is a(n) (im)moral decision, that kids can be converted, etc. So the mainstream homos deny it. But all that does is reinforce the underlying premise that it is undesirable to produce more gay persons. The gay establishment's hysterical overreaction implicitly reveals their agreement with the hateful wingers on this point, and their desperate desire to pre-empt the recruitment criticism lays bare the mild self-hatred and illiberalism at the core of their orthodoxy.
Accepting that the "cause" of gayness is a complicated psychic dynamic requires lengthy explanations that are anathema to sound-byte culture, so it's almost forgivable. But this lockstep shriek that Bill Richardson is a clumsy homophobe for not believing something that isn't actually true is a different story.
Here's the exchange, taken from Pam of Pam's House Blend, who is of the opinion that Richardson certainly "self-immolated on live TV:"
MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
You could be charitable and say Richardson lamely attempted to articulate a sort of rejection of the very question, when posed by conservatives, of the etiology of homosexuality. In other words, if asked the same question by Fox News, a more polished Richardson might have said, "I don't see how it matters. Gay people are citizens who deserve equality and fair treatment under law. I'll leave matters of homosexuality's causality to scientists." Instead, the blogosphere decided to take the angry sophomore approach, complete with shrieking talons and gasp collectively at what a paleocon the governor really is--someone completely unfit to have been our UN ambassador, etc.
Admittedly, when confronted with the question "If the New Mexico legislature sent you a bill allowing gay marriage, would you sign it?" his position that gay marriage isn't a "realistic option" crumbled. But there is another dynamic at work here. It is apparently the position of the pre-eminent gay-oriented media outlet that homosexuality is an innate, genetic characteristic (with the only other alternative being "it's a choice"). In their desire to win mainstream acceptance, they have floated a demonstrably false idea with its own built-in risks.
First, if gayness is genetic, that would mean identical twins, who share the same genes, would both have to be gay, which isn't the case. Then there's the oft-stated theory that sexuality is a continuum, not a binary, even if most people group themselves into one or the other (and mostly the one). Moreover, since persons attracted to their own gender most often do not reproduce, a fairly stable rate of fags in the general population would be difficult to sustain--especially these days, when fewer gays and lesbians marry people of the opposite gender out of desperation or a desire to be normal. Unless you're willing to believe that there's an undiscovered sexuality gene that goes gay frequently enough to create unrelated gays and lesbians all over the world, making it an anomaly among anomalies, I just don't buy the genetic model of explanation.
But LOGO does! HRC does! They do it because of the statistical overlap between people who believe homosexuality is "not a choice" with acceptance of gay people. Fair enough. But it's appalling to me to see the self-appointed vanguard of politically sentient gay America recoiling in horror when someone implies that gayness is anything but an inborn trait. They think they're fighting conservatism, with its insistence that gayness is a(n) (im)moral decision, that kids can be converted, etc. So the mainstream homos deny it. But all that does is reinforce the underlying premise that it is undesirable to produce more gay persons. The gay establishment's hysterical overreaction implicitly reveals their agreement with the hateful wingers on this point, and their desperate desire to pre-empt the recruitment criticism lays bare the mild self-hatred and illiberalism at the core of their orthodoxy.
Accepting that the "cause" of gayness is a complicated psychic dynamic requires lengthy explanations that are anathema to sound-byte culture, so it's almost forgivable. But this lockstep shriek that Bill Richardson is a clumsy homophobe for not believing something that isn't actually true is a different story.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Logo's Democratic Non-Debate
The homochannel isn't established enough to host a proper debate. Owned by MTV, the network essentially created a different category, a fairly undemanding forum, to lure Democratic candidates (and, though none, not even the "socially liberal" Giuliani, rsvp'd with a yes, Republicans too). If debates are like marriage, this event was a civil union; one is supposed to marvel at the political clout wielded by the LGBT community in its ability to rise to the second-class occasion by having a one-on-three chat that glancingly engages the different candidates' positions. (It's okay that the results did not mirror perfectly the current hierarchy, but it is somewhat strange when preening for acceptance produces Dennis Kucinich as the winner.)
It was therefore foreordained that this forum would be about marriage, marriage, marriage. The narrative last evening shaped is essentially that "since everyone opposes 'don't ask, don't tell,' their position on same-sex marriage is the only item that differentiates one candidate from another, with respect to the LGBT community and its interests." Well, with an audience stacked with well-dressed, mainstream people, some of them veterans (plus a few C-listers like Neil Patrick Harris), that's basically what one would expect.
John Edwards, anguishing at a literal hair's breadth from openly supporting gay marriage, finagled in vain to connect his uphill-fight campaign theme of eradicating poverty to the equal signs splashed across the stage. Obama and Clinton, bookending the six attendees, won the most applause for their honesty, but still fell short of marching in lockstep with our community's apparently monolithic demand to enshrine our incomes in the bosom of the State. That Hillary Clinton attracts such enormous support from gay men is strange. Perhaps it's a groundswell desire for someone, anyone, who looks like a front-runner to acquire runaway momentum and sweep away the nonsense after the colossal failure to eject Bush in '04. But the woman displays almost no leadership qualities on this or, frankly, any issue. She'll eventually oar her way over to the right side, but for now, a group still mired in quasi-outsider status really shouldn't flock to the ultimate insider candidate in such droves. It's just unseemly, considering the alternatives. I don't think 1970s activists would be gaga for Scoop Jackson.
But there weren't gay activists here. The event was moderated by a Washington Post correspondent, a media executive, and a Mom-rock musician. Kind of top-down when, again, the purpose of the event is to highlight what the supposedly liberal candidates will do to ameliorate the legal situation of a widely reviled segment of the country. It would not have killed the gravity of the forum to invite someone who works in AIDS advocacy or research, or with any number of the largely invisible LGBT populations (the elderly, the homeless, the gender non-conforming, or people of color). Welcoming the wealthy doesn't make you a vanguard.
That said, in the end I came away with the sense that any one of this people, in the Oval Office, would be a vast improvement over any Republican. A Hillary-Obama ticket (which, honestly, seems likelier than any other combination I can think of) would not only sweep to victory. Bill Richardson, the best candidate on paper, suffered a near-total collapse when after deploying the infuriatingly condescending and cowardly term "realistic" to describe his preference for civil unions over marriage, he was asked what he would do if the New Mexico legislature produced a marriage bill for him to sign. Busted, bitch! He also looked busted, being a fat man in a wrinkly suit who speaks in a monotone voice while palavering on an on about what's realistic, when in fact what he really means is, "my aides didn't prep me well," because he apparently thinks transgender people frequently want to marry one another and that homosexuality is a choice--although to be fair the heteronormative crowd offered only genes or birth as an alternate etiology. He's also "not a scientist," which is not what a former Secretary of Energy ought to be crowing. You fucked it up, sir.
One positive thing, which I almost don't believe, is this statistic: over 90% of gay people vote. In 2004, 9 million out of 122 million votes cast were "gay" votes. That makes fags and dykes 7% of the electorate, or twice their proportion of the general population. Even weirder is that slightly more gay men than lesbians vote. I thought all lesbians voted. I mean, I just did.
It was therefore foreordained that this forum would be about marriage, marriage, marriage. The narrative last evening shaped is essentially that "since everyone opposes 'don't ask, don't tell,' their position on same-sex marriage is the only item that differentiates one candidate from another, with respect to the LGBT community and its interests." Well, with an audience stacked with well-dressed, mainstream people, some of them veterans (plus a few C-listers like Neil Patrick Harris), that's basically what one would expect.
John Edwards, anguishing at a literal hair's breadth from openly supporting gay marriage, finagled in vain to connect his uphill-fight campaign theme of eradicating poverty to the equal signs splashed across the stage. Obama and Clinton, bookending the six attendees, won the most applause for their honesty, but still fell short of marching in lockstep with our community's apparently monolithic demand to enshrine our incomes in the bosom of the State. That Hillary Clinton attracts such enormous support from gay men is strange. Perhaps it's a groundswell desire for someone, anyone, who looks like a front-runner to acquire runaway momentum and sweep away the nonsense after the colossal failure to eject Bush in '04. But the woman displays almost no leadership qualities on this or, frankly, any issue. She'll eventually oar her way over to the right side, but for now, a group still mired in quasi-outsider status really shouldn't flock to the ultimate insider candidate in such droves. It's just unseemly, considering the alternatives. I don't think 1970s activists would be gaga for Scoop Jackson.
But there weren't gay activists here. The event was moderated by a Washington Post correspondent, a media executive, and a Mom-rock musician. Kind of top-down when, again, the purpose of the event is to highlight what the supposedly liberal candidates will do to ameliorate the legal situation of a widely reviled segment of the country. It would not have killed the gravity of the forum to invite someone who works in AIDS advocacy or research, or with any number of the largely invisible LGBT populations (the elderly, the homeless, the gender non-conforming, or people of color). Welcoming the wealthy doesn't make you a vanguard.
That said, in the end I came away with the sense that any one of this people, in the Oval Office, would be a vast improvement over any Republican. A Hillary-Obama ticket (which, honestly, seems likelier than any other combination I can think of) would not only sweep to victory. Bill Richardson, the best candidate on paper, suffered a near-total collapse when after deploying the infuriatingly condescending and cowardly term "realistic" to describe his preference for civil unions over marriage, he was asked what he would do if the New Mexico legislature produced a marriage bill for him to sign. Busted, bitch! He also looked busted, being a fat man in a wrinkly suit who speaks in a monotone voice while palavering on an on about what's realistic, when in fact what he really means is, "my aides didn't prep me well," because he apparently thinks transgender people frequently want to marry one another and that homosexuality is a choice--although to be fair the heteronormative crowd offered only genes or birth as an alternate etiology. He's also "not a scientist," which is not what a former Secretary of Energy ought to be crowing. You fucked it up, sir.
One positive thing, which I almost don't believe, is this statistic: over 90% of gay people vote. In 2004, 9 million out of 122 million votes cast were "gay" votes. That makes fags and dykes 7% of the electorate, or twice their proportion of the general population. Even weirder is that slightly more gay men than lesbians vote. I thought all lesbians voted. I mean, I just did.
