Going to Disney World

Matt and I don’t go on very many vacations. We’re just not good at planning things too far in advance. But a couple of months ago we decided it had been long enough, so we planned a trip, and on Sunday we’re leaving for a week at Disney World.

We’re really looking forward to it. Neither of us has been there in years. The last time I went was in 1988, before Disney MGM Studios (now Disney Hollywood Studios) and the Animal Kingdom were even built. I still have a stuffed Uncle Scrooge doll from that trip.

We’re going to stay on-site at the Port Orleans Riverside, which has an Old South architectural theme (minus the slavery, I presume). We’ll be using the Disney World bus system to get everywhere, which hopefully won’t be too bad. We bought seven-day Park Hopper passes, which lets us visit more than one park each day — helpful if we decide to spend the day in one park but have dinner in a different park. I bought them at a discount via Undercover Tourist.

Last month I bought a copy of The Unofficial Guide Walt Disney World 2011, which seems to take a rather Type-A attitude to the place but apparently helps you minimize the amount of time you wait on lines. (The key, apparently, is getting up early, but it also has some suggested touring plans for each park.) Of course, we’re going in October, which is already one of the less crowded times of year, but it should be useful anyway.

I’m looking forward to this trip. It should be a nice opportunity for us to spend time alone together, just the two of us, and enjoy ourselves. We leave Sunday — can’t wait.

Comments on the Jewish Standard

By the way, the comments that numerous readers have left on the page containing the Jewish Standard’s original craven apology are pretty terrific, almost uniformly in condemnation. Most of them are wonderfully heartfelt and well-written.

And some of them are just funny. This one made me laugh.

You people are just a “ray of sunshine” for everyone, aren’t you?

Good luck with your Einstein decision to align yourselves with the haters.

I don’t know how to explain why, but there’s just something so great and Jewish about that comment.

This is my other favorite:

There are not words strong enough to shame you. Not even in Yiddish.

Jewish Standard: Followup

There’s some fascinating follow-up to the story of the Jewish newspaper in New Jersey that decided to discriminate against gay couples.

Yesterday, the newspaper published a new statement saying that it may have acted too quickly in deciding to discriminate:

We ran the wedding announcement because we felt, as a community newspaper, that it was our job to serve the entire community — something we have been doing for 80 years.

We did not expect the heated response we got, and — in truth — we believe now that we may have acted too quickly in issuing the follow-up statement, responding only to one segment of the community.

We are now having meetings with local rabbis and community leaders. We will also be printing, in the paper and online, many of the letters that have been pouring in since our statement was published.

We urge everyone to take a step back and reflect on what this series of events has taught us about the community we care so much about, and about the steps we must take to move forward together.

There’s also word that the editor of the paper, Rebecca Boreson, personally disagreed with the decision to discriminate but was pressured into it by the Orthodox community of Teaneck, NJ, where the newspaper is published.

It’s also possible that the newspaper was essentially blackmailed into this decision by the organization that certifies kosher restaurants, which threatened to decertify any kosher restaurant that continued to advertise in the newspaper if the newspaper continued to run same-sex marriage announcements:

It is my understanding that the Jewish Standard was basically being blackmailed. The RCBC, the Orthodox Rabbinate threatened to take away the hechsher, the certificate of kashrut, from any restaurant that continued to advertise in the Jewish Standard if they did not announce that they would never publish another gay wedding announcement. This would effectively put the Standard out of business, as it is advertising and not subscriptions that keeps their doors open, and it would have put the Kosher restaurants, caterers, and other Kosher food providers in the position of having to find another hechsher, which in Bergen county would be hard to do. It would alienate the Orthodox community from all of the liberal Jews who keep Kosher and it could cause financial havoc in the Jewish community. RCBC should be ashamed.

If true, these are disgusting and thuggish tactics.

On the other hand, this is not an example of courageous journalism, either, and it could have been handled much better. The publishers of the newspaper look like total cowards. As one commenter here says:

I’m not going to say “thanks” for your reconsideration on the subject like some other people. I’m taking a step back and I’m still baffled by the quick kowtowing to these Orthodox Rabbis SO quickly- like they were the Sopranos threatening cement shoes.

Additionally, here’s an interview with the couple who was the subject of the original wedding announcement that started this whole thing. They talk about what they think of all this:

I would hope that people don’t jump to conclusions and blame the newspaper. I think they made a mistake but are a generally good and pluralistic newspaper. The Jewish Standard will stay afloat with support from the greater community. They don’t need to toe the Orthodox line.

Finally, the New York Times might be working on a story about all this. That wouldn’t be surprising.

Jewish Standard Discriminates Against Gays

Two weeks ago, a Jewish newspaper in New Jersey, the Jewish Standard, published a wedding announcement for a totally adorable same-sex Jewish couple.

Now the newspaper is apologizing for it and saying it won’t happen again:

We set off a firestorm last week by publishing a same-sex couple’s announcement of their intent to marry. Given the tenor of the times, we did not expect the volume of comments we have received, many of them against our decision to run the announcement, but many supportive as well.

A group of rabbis has reached out to us and conveyed the deep sensitivities within the traditional/Orthodox community to this issue. Our subsequent discussions with representatives from that community have made us aware that publication of the announcement caused pain and consternation, and we apologize for any pain we may have caused.

The Jewish Standard has always striven to draw the community together, rather than drive its many segments apart. We have decided, therefore, since this is such a divisive issue, not to run such announcements in the future.

In an incredibly heartening turn, tons of fellow Jews have posted comments on that page in response, strongly disagreeing with the decision.

The Jewish Standard claims to be “not affiliated with any program, organization, movement, or point of view, but is dedicated to giving expression to all phases of Jewish life.” It is based in Teaneck, NJ, home to a large number of Orthodox Jews, but it puts itself forth as a newspaper for all Jews, not just for the Orthodox community.

As a gay man, a Jew, and a New Jerseyan by upbringing — heck, as a human being — I find this decision to be disgusting, cowardly, and hurtful. It makes me sick.

It would be one thing if this newspaper marketed itself as an exclusively Orthodox newspaper, catering to that steadily shrinking segment of the Jewish community. But it doesn’t. Its mission, as stated is, in part:

TO PROVIDE the Jewish communities of Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, and Rockland counties with an indispensable newspaper that will present local, national, and world news of Jewish interest….

Not just the Orthodox community. The entire Jewish community: Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, unaffiliated.

According to many of the commenters, the newspaper has no problem advertising restaurants that serve non-Kosher or inadequately Kosher food. It has no problem publicizing events that occur on Friday night or Saturday, when observant Jews would be celebrating Shabbat. But somehow a small portion of its readership has experienced “pain and consternation” at the announcement that two people have fallen in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

What kind of heartless human being would feel “pain and consternation” at the joyful celebration of two people who love each other? What about the pain and consternation caused to gay Jews and their families and friends who now know that their life events are not worthy of being publicly celebrated in a community newspaper? What’s even more callous and disgusting is that this happened several days after a gay New Jersey college student killed himself after his asshole roommate decided to air live video of him “making out with a dude.” It’s because of decisions like the one the Jewish Standard has made — decisions that encourage the idea that gay relationships are never as good as straight relationships — that young gay people decide to kill themselves.

It seems to me that this was a business decision. The Jewish Standard is probably worried that the powerful Orthodox community will cancel its subscriptions and its advertising if the newspaper persists in being inclusive.

Well, a few years from now, the editors of the Jewish Standard are going to look upon themselves and their decision with great regret, embarrassment, shame, and remorse — just like businesses in the 1960s that used to cater to racism out of fear of losing money or rocking the boat.

I don’t see how this is any different from the newspaper in Maine that apologized last month for showing American Muslims celebrating Ramadan on September 11.

I’d never heard of this newspaper — it doesn’t publish in the county where I grew up. I’m more familiar with the New Jersey Jewish News, which I think my parents subscribe to. So, congratulations to the Jewish Standard: your cowardly, hurtful business decision has broadened your public profile.

Mad Men and Color TV

On Mad Men, whenever someone is watching TV, the TV screen the character is watching is in black and white. Lately I’ve been wondering: when are we going to start to see characters watch color TV on the show?

On the show right now, it’s the late summer of 1965, which is around the time that color TV really started to take off.

According to Wikipedia, the 1964-65 TV season was the first full season in which NBC broadcast more than 50% of its schedule in color, but most of the shows on ABC and CBS were still in black and white. The 1965-66 season — which Mad Men is about to enter, since the most recent episode took place in August 1965 — was the first TV season in which a majority of prime time shows were in color. By the start of the 1966-67 season, practically every prime time show was in color. Those of us who first experienced the classic 1960s sitcoms through reruns know that weird feeling when you’d somehow run across an early black-and-white episode of Gilligan’s Island or Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie; each of those shows began in black and white and transitioned to color after its first or second season.

So will we see color TVs on Mad Men soon? Well, even though most programs were in color by the fall of 1965, by 1966 fewer than 10 percent of homes had color TV sets (that chart is located here). It wasn’t until 1972 that a majority of homes had them. But this is Mad Men, where some of the characters are rich corporate types — and Harry Crane is in charge of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce’s TV advertising division, so maybe we’ll see a color TV in his office. That would be neat.

(Update: here’s an in-depth article on “the color revolution of 1965.”)

Constitution Worship

One of my old law professors, Mike Klarman, gave a lecture at Johns Hopkins a couple of weeks ago, “A Skeptical View of Constitution Worship.” Here’s the text.

Klarman’s view is that the Constitution doesn’t matter as much in our political values as we think it does. He makes four points:

(1) The Framers’ constitution, to a large degree, represented values we should abhor or at least reject today.

(2) There are parts of the Constitution with which we are still stuck today even though we would never freely choose them and they are impossible to defend based on contemporary values.

(3) For the most part, the Constitution is irrelevant to the current political design of our nation.

(4) The rights protections we do enjoy today, the importance of which I do not minimize, are mostly a function of political and social mores, which have dramatically evolved over time and owe relatively little to courts using the Constitution to protect them.

Here is Klarman’s thesis in a nutshell:

I wouldn’t say the Court never stands up for unpopular rights and unpopular groups, but it rarely does so, and never in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

The main reason for this is that the Justices are too much a part of contemporary culture and the present historical moment to even imagine taking positions contrary to that of dominant public opinion.

The whole thing is worth reading, if you’re interested.

Same-sex Couple Marries at UVa Chapel

The chapel at the University of Virginia hosted its first same-sex commitment ceremony over the summer. Very cool. Of course, since it was in Virginia, it didn’t have the status of law, but the couple is planning to get married in Washington, D.C. in November, where it will be legal.

I’m pleasantly surprised to hear that this was allowed. It’s always been hard to peg UVa on the political spectrum. When I was there, it was said that compared to the Ivies, UVa was conservative, but compared to the other top college in Virginia, it was liberal. Charlottesville, of course, is a bastion of blue in central Virginia.

How I Remember Which Amendment is Which

There are 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first ten are the Bill of Rights. The Eleventh involved lawsuits against states; the Twelfth revised the procedure for electing presidents and vice-presidents after the original system turned out not to work too well.

The Thirteen through Fifteenth are the post-Civil-War amendments, and they’re generally easy to remember. The Thirteenth abolished slavery; the Fourteenth is a grab bag about citizenship and equal protection; the Fifteenth purported to prohibit the denial of the right to vote based on race.

The amendments since the Fifteenth are hard to keep straight. Here’s how I remember most of them:

SiXteenth Amendment — income taX

SEventeeth Amendment — direct election of SEnators

18th Amendment — Prohibition (many people think the drinking age should be 18)

Nineteenth Amendment — women’s suffrage (not sure how to remember this one: “feminineteenth”? the push for women’s suffrage began in the 19th century?)

20th Amendment — sets Inauguration Day as January 20

21st Amendment – repealed Prohibition — drinking age is 21

22nd Amendment — limits president to two terms (22 has two twos)

23rd Amendment — gives D.C. representation in the Electoral College. Not sure how to remember this one.

24th Amendment — bans poll taxes. Not sure how to remember this one either.

25th Amendment — codifies the process for presidential succession. To be honest, I only remember this one because there’s a “West Wing” episode called “Twenty Five,” where Glen Allen Walken (John Goodman) temporarily becomes president after Zoe Bartlett is kidnapped.

26th Amendment — lowers the voting age to 18. I remember this one by process of elimination, because there’s only one left:

27th Amendment — restricts congressional pay increases; got a lot of publicity when it became law in 1992 because of its unusual story.

We’ll See

Reposting this in full, because I like it a lot.

There is a Chinese Proverb that goes something like this…

A farmer and his son had a beloved stallion who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbors exclaimed, “Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild mares back to the farm as well. The neighbors shouted out, “Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

Later that week, the farmer’s son was trying to break one of the mares and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The villagers cried, “Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all the able-bodied boys for the army. They did not take the farmer’s son, still recovering from his injury. Friends shouted, “Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!” To which the farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”

The moral of this story, is, of course, that no event, in and of itself, can truly be judged as good or bad, lucky or unlucky, fortunate or unfortunate, but that only time will tell the whole story. Additionally, no one really lives long enough to find out the ‘whole story,’ so it could be considered a great waste of time to judge minor inconveniences as misfortunes or to invest tons of energy into things that look outstanding on the surface, but may not pay off in the end.

The wiser thing, then, is to live life in moderation, keeping as even a temperament as possible, taking all things in stride, whether they originally appear to be ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Life is much more comfortable and comforting if we merely accept what we’re given and make the best of our life circumstances. Rather than always having to pass judgement on things and declare them as good or bad, it would be better to just sit back and say, “It will be interesting to see what happens.”

DADT

So, DADT repeal seems to have stalled in the Senate.

Part of me wants to throw things.

Part of me wants to write a long rant about it. A rant about the two Democratic senators from Arkansas who voted against it. A rant asking why the hell DADT repeal and immigration have to be tied together on the same bill.

But what’s the point? What else is there to say? What’s the point of my anger if it’s not going to change anything?

Maybe some Republicans will relent and decide they don’t want to keep voting to defund the U.S. military. Maybe Harry Reid will allow Republicans to add amendments. Maybe after the military completes their review in December, the lame-duck 111th Congress can vote on this again. Because it’s sure not going to happen after January, when both houses have to vote on it all over again and the Republicans control the House.

It’s just a matter of time. Maybe not in this Congress. But it will happen. The bigots are dying out.

“As the World Turns” Says Goodbye

“As the World Turns” went off the air on Friday, ending a run of more than 54 years.

I never really watched “As the World Turns,” but I’m a soap opera fan, so I wanted to see the last episode. To prepare, last month I decided to watch the final three weeks of the show so I’d have some idea of what was going on.

The last episode of a soap opera is a weird thing. Normally, a soap opera is a perpetual motion machine where nothing really ends: stories just continue, or evolve into other stories — just as in life — and cliffhangers abound. But on Friday, various couples found happiness, or contentment, or normalcy, and some people moved away. The venerable Dr. Bob Hughes, played by Don Hastings — who had been with the show since 1960, and who was on the live November 22, 1963, episode that was interrupted by the news of JFK’s assassination — retired as hospital chief of staff and bid his office, and the audience, a simple “Good night.” It was the final line spoken on the show — a nice bookend to the very first line spoken on the very first episode in April 1956 by Bob Hughes’s mother, Nancy Hughes (played by Helen Wagner, who just died in May): “Good morning, dear.”

There are now just six soap operas left on daytime TV:

  • “General Hospital” (began in 1963)
  • “Days of our Lives” (1965)
  • “One Life to Live” (1968)
  • “All My Children” (1970)
  • “The Young and the Restless” (1973)
  • “The Bold and the Beautiful” (1987)

The soap opera era is fading. When I first got into daytime soaps in the 1980s, there were 13 of them. In addition to the above — minus “The Bold and the Beautiful,” which wasn’t yet around — there were “Capitol,” “Guiding Light,” “Loving,” “Ryan’s Hope,” “Search for Tomorrow,” “Another World,” and “Santa Barbara.” Since then, a few others have come and gone: “Port Charles,” “Generations,” “Sunset Beach,” and “Passions” — the latter three on NBC, as the network tried again and again to find something that worked.

Here’s the daytime TV schedule from the spring of 1986, when I first discovered the soaps. And here’s the daytime TV schedule as of this coming week. The soap operas are in green. Look how many fewer there are today.

(Not to mention all the departed game shows!)

There was a time when soap operas were cash cows for the networks: they were cheap to produce and they got stellar ratings. In the ’80s and early ’90s, my soap of choice, “Days of our Lives,” spent lavishly on location shoots in the U.K., Greece, and Mexico. (Bo and Hope’s enormous wedding was in London; Justin and Adrienne Kiriakis got married in Athens.) Those days are long gone: the audience is literally dying off, there aren’t many housewives anymore, and talk shows and reality shows provide more fireworks.

Yes, soap operas move slowly, and they have their stale clichés, and they’re melodramatic and cheesy. But I like what someone on this page says:

I’m mad at the general ignorance that shows when anyone would say something like “soap operas are outdated and need to end” without ever actually watching the damn shows. Ten minutes doesn’t count. One day doesn’t count. One week doesn’t count. Soap operas are made to be long term, so any proper assessment of them can only be made if someone invests as much time into them as it takes to tell whatever story they want to tell. You can’t read one chapter of a book and then assess that the rest is not worth reading. You don’t watch the first ten minutes of a movie and leave the theatre. If you do either, then you don’t (in my opinion) deserve to have an opinion on the entirety of the book/movie/show if you’re only basing it on what little you’ve seen. Likewise, you can’t watch one episode of a soap opera and assess that the next six months is not worth watching, or that the past 54 years were not worth making.

I like the soaps despite their low production values, despite their recycled and slow-moving plots, despite their melodramatic acting style. I like the soaps because they symbolize continuity: they’re on every weekday, five days a week, with no repeats. The same families continue through the years, with new children born into them even as the patriarchs and matriarchs die. The soap I grew up with, “Days our Lives” — which I started watching because of my mom, who has watched it almost since the beginning — still features a slew of Hortons and Bradys.

I hate change. I hate goodbyes. I like security and continuity. That’s why I like the soaps. I like knowing that the soaps are there, every day, even if I rarely watch them. It just makes me feel good knowing that they’re still around.

But we’re now down to six daytime TV soaps. I wonder how much longer they’ll be there. ABC has three, CBS has only two, and NBC has just one, the one I call my own: “Days of our Lives.”

Friday, November 25, 1960, is known as “the day radio drama died.” On that day, the day after Thanksgiving, CBS network radio aired the final episodes of its last four remaining radio serials. It was the end of an era.

The day that the last daytime soap opera airs on network TV will be the end of another era, and it will be just as sad.

Network Evening News Schedules

Every weeknight, Matt and I TiVo “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams.” Just more evidence that we are 36 going on 70. We watch it during dinner or after we get home from whatever we’ve been doing that evening.

For the last two decades, the three network evening news broadcasts have all aired at 6:30 p.m. But when I was a kid, they all aired at 7:00. At least in the New York City area they did — I don’t know about the rest of the country. But even though they aired at 7:00, they still taped at 6:30, so perhaps they aired live at 6:30 in most other parts of the country. Perhaps people ate dinner earlier outside of the New York area.

I remember being surprised when the national news broadcasts first moved to 6:30. Six-thirty seemed too early for a nationwide network broadcast. Network primetime is from 8:00 to 11:00, and to me there seemed to be something more prestigious about airing at 7:00 instead of 6:30.

A couple of years ago I did some research to find out exactly when the three networks moved their news broadcasts — in the New York area, anyway — from 7:00 to 6:30. It turns out they didn’t all do it at the same time.

“ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings” was the first to move from 7:00 to 6:30. It moved on December 15, 1986.

“The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather” was next. It moved on September 5, 1988.

Last was “NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw,” which moved on September 9, 1991.

So for the last 19 years, the three shows have gone head-to-head-to-head at 6:30 instead of 7:00. And instead of Dan, Tom and Peter, it’s Katie, Brian and Diane.

The nightly news is largely irrelevant now. By the time I watch it I already know what’s happened that day. But it’s a nice evening ritual.

(And no, I can’t imagine this post will be interesting to everyone, but hopefully it will help random Googlers out there who are looking for this info.)

Miss Blankenship is Interviewed

Here’s an interview with Mad Men‘s Miss Blankenship. Okay, it’s really with Randee Heller, who plays her. I didn’t find out until a couple of weeks ago that it’s the same actress who played Daniel-san’s mom in the original Karate Kid.

Her she is about her makeup:

It takes three hours. They do incredible things with adhesives and scrunching up your face, and then blowing it dry with powder. All of a sudden you have huge wrinkles, liver spots, veins — and it takes a while to take it off. After the first time, I got in the shower and started scrubbing my arms. I was going, “Oh my God, this is not coming off!” Then I realized they were my own liver spots.

The Quotable Gail Collins

I continue to love Gail Collins:

Unfortunately, [Mississippi governor Haley Barbour] followed up his bow to tolerance by suggesting that the public’s confusion over Barack Obama’s religion is because of the fact that “this is a president that we know less about than any other president in history.” The governor claimed that Americans had been particularly deprived of information on Obama’s youth, while they knew a great deal about the formative years of the other chief executives all the way back to the way the youthful George Washington “chopped down a cherry tree.”

Let us reconsider the above paragraph in light of the fact that while Obama wrote an entire book about his childhood, Washington never chopped down the cherry tree.

Dogs

For a long time I’ve wanted to get a dog (if I can win Matt over to the idea), but I have a few questions about it.

I wonder if any of my readers could answer the following for me:

(1) What do you do about the dog during the day when you’re at work? Particularly those of you who live in cities like New York? Do you hire a dog walker? Is it easy to find a good one?

(2) Where’s the best place to get a shelter dog in New York City?

(3) How do you get the dog to the vet without a car, if it’s larger than carry-size?

I’d appreciate any insight or advice you all might have.

Thanks!

The Restless Soul in the Bathroom Mirror

“The Restless Soul in the Bathroom Mirror.”

I’m a sucker for stories of career reinvention through introspection and journaling, and the dollop of Barbara Sher doesn’t hurt, either.

I don’t write in my journal as much as I used to, but pieces like this one make me want to take it up regularly again. I use cheap spiral notebooks for personal journaling — a tip I got from Natalie Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones, which I read one summer during college and which really taught me how to write creatively. The cheaper your writing medium, the less pressure you feel to fill it with Great Thoughts, which frees you to write whatever comes into your mind and encounter the thoughts and feelings you didn’t know you had.