Plagiaristic Alt Weekly

Slate.com investigates a Texas alternative weekly rag that seems to consist almost entirely of plagiarism — including some of Slate’s articles.

At times over the last month, I’ve doubted that the Bulletin actually exists. A tiny newspaper from the Houston suburbs, filled week after week with bowdlerized Joe Conason columns and record reviews airlifted from the pages of Slate? It seemed preposterous, and the longer I spent squinting into the mustard-and-magenta glow of the Bulletin’s Web 0.0-quality Internet site, the more I began to suspect that I was the dupe of a conceptual art prank, a cheeky Borgesian commentary on the slipperiness of language and authorship. Or something.

Obamangst

I haven’t been happy with the Obama campaign lately. The McCain campaign is doing all the defining and driving most of the news coverage. Yes, McCain’s ads have been asinine, but they’ve got the media talking, and that’s where many voters get their information.

Regular readers of my blog will know that I am no doe-eyed Obama supporter. I went back and forth between Clinton and Obama over the course of the primary race. First I was undecided; then I chose Obama, voted for him in my primary in February, and posted an Obama icon on my blog. Then, as the race went on and Clinton began to define the debate, I started to think she might be a more impressive general election candidate, even if I loathed some of what she was doing. (Gas tax holiday? Please.)

Lately I still think she might have been a better nominee.

On June 3, the day Obama effectively clinched the nomination, Electoral-vote.com published its last set of competing matchups: Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain. Clinton was doing much better against McCain than Obama was. That was two months ago, and things have moved in Obama’s direction since then. But I can’t help wonder whether Clinton would have a stronger lead right now.

Several months ago, the Republicans were relishing the idea of running against Clinton; they had a whole attack plan ready. And if she were the nominee they’d be using it right now.

But Clinton would be out-Roving McCain. She’d be running commercials that everyone would be talking about, defining the debate, defining McCain, going on the offensive against him, while casting herself as an issues-oriented champion of the working class. That’s what she started doing against Obama once she got her act together in March. The only reason Obama won is because he had a superior organization and racked up state after state in February. There’s nothing illegitimate to that; he knew the rules and took advantage of them. But he got blindsided once the Ohio/Texas campaign got under way and never really recovered. If not for February, Clinton would be the nominee. She ultimately lost, but she won the rhetorical debate.

The polls right now should not be as close as they are. Granted, according to the state-by-state polls, Obama still has a healthy lead. But the election is exactly three months from today, and so much can happen in that time. I want to smack Obama upside the head for not being more aggressive these last couple of weeks. Of course, if he winds up winning, everyone will say he chose his strategy wisely. But if he loses, Democrats will once again be banging their heads against the wall.

He’s still the favorite right now. But is anyone talking about his commercials? Is he doing anything but play defense? I’m sick of Democratic nominees who overestimate the intelligence of the American people. We need a nominee who kicks people’s asses. Clinton would have been that nominee.

Would her cynicism piss me off? Yes. Would I call her craven? Yes.

But would she have a better chance of winning?

Yes.

Uncle Bobby’s Wedding

A parent complained to a public library about a children’s book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which is about a same-sex marriage. Here’s the librarian’s mind-blowingly awesome response. I don’t even know which part to quote. Here’s one excerpt:

You say that the book is inappropriate, and I infer that your reason is the topic itself: gay marriage. I think a lot of adults imagine that what defines a children’s book is the subject. But that’s not the case. Children’s books deal with anything and everything. There are children’s books about death (even suicide), adult alcoholism, family violence, and more. Even the most common fairy tales have their grim side: the father and stepmother of Hansel and Gretel, facing hunger and poverty, take the children into the woods, and abandon them to die! Little Red Riding Hood (in the original version, anyhow) was eaten by the wolf along with granny. There’s a fascinating book about this, by the bye, called “The Uses of Enchantment: the Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales,” by psychologist Bruno Bettelheim. His thesis is that both the purpose and power of children’s literature is to help young people begin to make sense of the world. There is a lot out there that is confusing, or faintly threatening, and even dangerous in the world. Stories help children name their fears, understand them, work out strategies for dealing with life. In Hansel and Gretel, children learn that cleverness and mutual support might help you to escape bad situations. In Little Red Riding Hood, they learn not to talk to big bad strangers. Of course, not all children’s books deal with “difficult issues,” maybe not even most of them. But it’s not unusual.

[via kottke]

Jackie O White House Tour

The season premiere of Mad Men, which aired this past Sunday on AMC, is set on the day and night of Valentine’s Day, 1962. In a neat bit of historical accuracy, several of the characters wind up watching parts of Jackie Kennedy’s televised tour of the White House, which really did air that night, February 14, 1962. (It got 56 million viewers! Can you imagine anything getting that kind of viewership today?)

Well, AMC is now hosting the entire television special on its website. (More background here.)

Here’s how the New York Times covered it, and here are the TV listings for that day. (Unfortunately, I think you need to be NYT subscribers to see the pre-1980 archives.)

Office Hallways

It’s awkward when you work in an office with really long hallways, and you’re walking down one of the long hallways, and then you notice someone else walking toward you from the opposite end of the long hallway.

I’m never sure at what distance you should start to make eye contact, and what to do until that point.

There’s also the awkardness of whether or not to acknowledge the person in the first place, which depends on how well you know the person and on whether you even know the person. Sometimes I don’t even know whether or not to make eye contact, particularly if it’s a person who seems intent on not acknowledging you. But of course you’ve already acknowledged the person and made eye contact from a distance, because you’re both walking down the hallway and you can’t help but notice each other.

These are some of the things I think about.

Maybe it’s best to work from home.

Homosexuality and Disgust

There’s an interesting piece in the most recent issue of the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, by Prof. Richard E. Redding of Villanova University School of Law, about how “the psychology of disgust” plays a role in the opposition to same-sex marriage. This section particularly zeroes in on the topic.

Redding’s thesis is that moral opposition to homosexuality is really a subconscious mask for intuitive feelings of disgust or revulsion. Not everything society considers immoral is treated with revulsion. Killing, stealing, lying, and adultery are all considered immoral, but they don’t make people feel an intuitive sense of physiological disgust or fear of contamination the way homosexuality does.

Redding writes:

Disgust arises from the sense of bodily contamination… It evolved to prevent contact with biological vectors of disease transmission and to maintain the boundaries between our human and animal natures. “Disgust appears to function as a guardian of the body in all cultures, responding to elicitors that are biologically or culturally linked to disease transmission… In many cultures, disgust goes beyond such contaminant-related issues and supports a set of virtues and vices linked to bodily activities in general.”

Over time, disgust evolved into a moral emotion — we perceive conduct that disgusts us as being immoral conduct. … In addition to religious beliefs (which themselves may have evolved from the “moral emotion” of disgust), the “moral emotion” of disgust may explain why public sentiments about homosexuality are so strong, negative, and pervasive.

Morality grew out of everyday life. Human beings had to learn to survive in a dirty world filled with dangerous germs. Many early religious rites grew out of the concept of cleanliness; cleanliness is what separates us from the animals. Consequently, the notion of purity versus impurity looms large as a religious metaphor. Think of the ancient purification rituals required before entering temples. And Yom Kippur, the most important Jewish holiday, involves purifying oneself from sin.

Cleanliness is also a way to stratify society: the “clean” versus the “unclean.” Many traditional social systems, particularly in the East, had a class of people called “untouchables”; they were usually the people who worked in dirty occupations, such as those involving the butchering of animals or the handling and removal of feces. Fear of contagion led the “higher” people to protect themselves from these “lower” people through separation. The impure had to be cast out of society, lest they contaminate those who were pure. (See also: scapegoat.) Impurity was naturally contagious.

Over time, these ideas and fears about uncleanliness, contamination and contagion merged with concepts that had other origins, coalescing into religion and religious morality. Although they’re associated with religion, these particular concepts grew out of physical fears.

Since sexual behavior is a prime vector for “contaminating” oneself with another person’s bodily fluids — sweat, saliva, semen, vaginal fluids — it’s often associated with disgust. Throw in anal sex — and, today, the fear of AIDS — and gay men become a particularly strong object of disgust. (There’s also the male fear of being de-masculinized and the way homosexuality upsets traditional gender roles, which Redding doesn’t really discuss.)

What’s really fascinating is a study Redding cites in which subjects were hynotized to think of certain ordinary words with disgust, such as “take.” When the subjects then read sentences containing that word, they saw the otherwise neutral actions described therein as disgusting. When the sentences described transgressive actions, the subjects saw those actions as more morally wrong when the sentence contained the special word than when it didn’t.

Redding states that this and other experiments “make[] a very compelling case that many moral judgments, including those relating to sexuality, are not the product of a deliberate, rational thought process that involves weighing and evaluating competing arguments. Rather, such judgments are made intuitively, emotionally, rapidly, and largely outside of conscious awareness. These intuitive reactions, which arise from conditioned emotional responses to situations and stimuli, are provided with post-hoc rationalizations. Moral reasoning is ’employed only to seek confirmation of preordained conclusions.’ ”

That last sentence to me is the kicker. Moral reasoning is often employed only to seek confirmation of preordained conclusions.

Redding includes two quotes toward the end of his piece that I think are great. From Dan Jones:

Disgust didn’t evolve to track things that we would normally consider morally important, unlike empathy, which is triggered by the real pain or suffering of others.

From Martha Nussbaum:

[T]he moral progress of society can be measured by the degree to with it separates disgust from danger and indignation, basing laws and social rules on substantive harm, rather than on the symbolic relationship an object bears to anxieties about animality and mortality.

Fascinating stuff.

(By the way, I found this article while looking through the most recent Lesbian/Gay Law Notes, compiled by Professor Art Leonard of New York Law School.)

Mass House Votes to Repeal

The Massachusetts House of Representatives voted yesterday to repeal the 1913 law that prevents out-of-state couples from getting married in Massachusetts if their home state would bar the marriage. The state senate passed the law a couple of weeks ago, and the governor plans to sign it. Under existing law, same-sex couples can get married in Massachusetts only if same-sex marriage is legal in their home state. Many people think the law was originally passed to prevent interracial marriages. The repeal will allow many more same-sex couples to come to Massachusetts and get married.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said that this House vote is “eroding the people’s right to define marriage.”

It’s funny:

When a court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the court is apparently infringing on the legislature’s job — even though the court is doing its job under the constitution.

When a legislature votes to allow same-sex marriage, this somehow infringes on the right of the people — even though legislators are the people’s duly-elected representatives.

When the actual people vote down a marriage amendment, as happened in Arizona two years ago, somehow that’s not legitimate and there needs to be a revote.

These people don’t care about “the people’s right” at all. All they care about is getting rid of icky homosexuals. And somehow they think banning same-sex marriage is going to do that.

Because, you know, homosexuals didn’t exist until same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2004.

Weekends

Sometimes at the end of the weekend, or on Monday morning, I think back to Friday night and wish I could just freeze a moment from it. On Friday after work, Matt and I rode a New Jersey Transit train out to the suburbs to have dinner with my parents and some old friends of theirs. The train was bright and sunny and filled with relaxed commuters. When we got off the train in the ‘burbs, we walked to a nearby wine store and brought my parents some wine. Then we walked to the house, had wine, went out to the deck and sat at a table underneath an umbrella surrounded by trees and ate delicious food.

When I was a kid, I often liked to just sit at the table and listen to the adults have interesting conversations. Now I can actually be part of the conversation.

Just as the best part of a vacation is often the very beginning, when you’ve come home from work (or, way back when, from school) and realized that you have a wonderful stretch of time ahead to look forward to, sometimes the best part of the weekend is the very beginning. At the end of a vacation I wish I could go back to that moment at the beginning, when I was anticipating everything to come, and just hold the moment.

The rest of the weekend was unexciting. We spent most of it indoors, watching TV. Yesterday I made a recipe from a cookbook: curried chicken salad. It’s tasty and I brought some for lunch today.

The problem with doing nothing but sitting around watching TV is that it doesn’t create any memories. One hour runs into another and you’ve just stared at a screen the whole time. You haven’t experienced anything new or hung out with interesting people. One thing I’ve realized in the last few years is that I’m more of an extrovert than I used to think. I’m still an introvert in lots of ways, and sometimes I’m nervous about meeting new people — but I do need people in my life. I don’t have very many friends whom I see regularly. It’s my own fault for not taking the initiative. And since Matt is more of an introvert, it’s pretty much all on me.

Watching TV wasn’t all bad. We downloaded and watched the crazy season finale of “Doctor Who.” We re-watched the last few episodes of “Mad Men” and then watched the season premiere. I watched parts of “The Wizard of Oz,” which happened to be on TV. That movie never ceases to be special.

But sometimes I worry that I’ll look back on my life and see that I haven’t done enough fun things. I’ll see a succession of empty weekends. A few thousand of them.

Oh, well. Another weekend is just four days away.

Idiots Against Gay Soldiers

I’d never heard of Elaine Donnelly, but apparently she caused quite a ruckus at yesterday’s congressional hearing about “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of “transgenders in the military.” She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading “HIV positivity” through the ranks.

“We’re talking about real consequences for real people,” Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about “inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community,” the prospects of “forcible sodomy” and “exotic forms of sexual expression,” and the case of “a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault” a fellow soldier. …

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement “just bonkers” and “dumb,” and he called her claims about an HIV menace “inappropriate.” Said Snyder: “By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country.” …

Donnelly returned to the case of “Cynthia Yost . . . assaulted by a group of lesbians.” She neglected to mention that the incident was alleged to have occurred in 1974.

Fun reading.

Newark Starbucks Closing

The Starbucks in downtown Newark, which is right next to my office building, is among the 600 stores the company is closing. And people are not happy, including the city’s leadership.

I’m not really a coffee drinker, and I don’t think I’ve ever set foot inside the store, but I’m annoyed that it’s closing. It’s usually crowded and it makes downtown Newark feel like a real place. Already the FedEx/Kinko’s has closed. More importantly, the Duane Reade closed last year, so there’s no place to buy sundries during the day. (Duane Reade is like CVS but worse.)

Oh, and I would give my left arm for a big chain bookstore nearby. There are practically no bookstores in Newark.

Ten Years of Gay

This is an important anniversary for me.

Ten years ago this week, I finally accepted that I was gay.

I had struggled with my sexuality for years — doing mental gymnastics, filling page after page in my diaries and journals, arguing with myself, talking with therapists. I didn’t know whether I was gay or straight or in between or whether I should be gay or straight or in between. I spent year after year analyzing myself, trying to think my way to the answer. It was like trying to argue a symphony.

In July 1998, I was 24 years old, living in the Glee Club house while working as a research assistant to a law professor for the summer. It was the summer after my second year of law school at UVa. Most law students did such jobs after their first year of law school; after the second year, you were supposed to work as a summer associate at a law firm somewhere. But my interviews hadn’t gone well, and I didn’t know what I wanted to do with my degree, and at the last minute I’d found this mind-numbing research job. Stuck in Charlottesville for the summer — again. I hated the job and I wondered what the hell I was doing with my life.

I was living in the house with several other guys, including my gay friend Jim, with whom I’d privately shared my confusion a few months earlier, after I’d fallen hard for a straight guy — harder than I’d ever fallen for anyone before, so hard that I’d had to tell someone. It had been five years since I’d had a gay friend that I could talk to about these things.

Now, one summer night several months later, Jim was sitting in the living room, talking with another guy who lived in the house, a straight guy, about what it was like to be gay. I sat there and listened. I couldn’t say anything, because the other guy didn’t know about me. It roiled me inside; I was living in the same house with a gay friend of mine and I was feeling all these things so intensely about my life and I didn’t know what to do about any of it.

A couple of nights later I was doing a writing exercise from The Artist’s Way. I was working my way through the book that summer, trying to get in touch with my inner creative self. In this exercise, I was supposed to write about my ideal day. As I wrote, I found myself dreaming up a boyfriend and including him in my fantasy.

It hit me.

In my ideal life, I had a boyfriend.

It was an epiphany. This was what I wanted. This was what would make me happy. After all the years of confusion, all the pages and pages of tortured logic, the answer turned out to be comically, painfully simple.

This is what I want. And it’s okay.

That day or the next, an image came into my head: I was standing on a flat rocky plain, watching the enormous sun rising in the distance as it turned the sky a mixture of deep purple and orange and red. I would be going toward that sunrise. I would have a happy future after all.

That night, I went out and bought a book by Michelangelo Signorile, Outing Yourself. It was time. I was ready.

While I occasionally had doubts over the following weeks, nothing could shake that initial epiphany. I’d forever changed. I knew who I was and where I was going.

Last week I pulled out my journal from that time, because I wanted to make sure I had the right date.

Saturday, July 18, 1998

9:30 pm

This evening I bought Michelangelo Signorile’s Outing Yourself. I think I am realizing that I am gay. That seems strange, to just be realizing that, because I am no stranger to my sexuality. For at least seven years I have known myself. Over the last seven plus years I’ve had various experiences, not necessarily sexual. August 1991: I wrote it in my diary. April 1992: I came out to Kirk. [etc. etc. etc.]

Over the past seven years, and more, I have gleaned information from books, newspaper and magazine articles, TV segments, TV programs and TV movies. Furtive glances, shows watched in solitude, things read alone. Therapy. Talking with people. I’ve identified myself as “not straight,” “non-straight,” even “queer.” Possibly “bisexual.” But I have had the hardest time really figuring out what I am.

I haven’t wanted to deal with the responsibility…

I wrote on for a couple more pages and ended by saying I was gay.

I wrote again the next day.

And then the next.

And then that week I discovered gaycollegeboys.com, which led me to IRC, or Internet Relay Chat. Gay chat rooms.

I didn’t write in my notebook for six days.

After that, I didn’t write in my notebook for a whole month.

I was too busy living.

So it’s been 10 years. In 10 years I’ve had lots of gay sex and lots of gay dating and lots of gay heartbreak. And I’ve fallen in love.

If anybody had told me 10 years ago that in 2008 I’d be living fully out as a gay man, living in Manhattan with a man I love, my partner of four and a half years, a man whom my family embraced as one of their own — well, my head would have exploded.

Happy Gayversary.

Tony Bennett II

I saw Tony Bennett last night. I was coming out of my therapist’s office in the Village and started walking down the street, and across the street I saw Tony Bennett standing on the front stoop of a brownstone. He was just standing there, wearing a suit, facing forward and smiling, looking totally at ease, talking with a couple of people who were standing on the lower steps. He seemed to be holding court.

I don’t know what he was doing there. I’ve seen functions going on in the living room of that brownstone before. I think it’s owned by an organization.

This was actually the second time I’ve seen Tony Bennett. The first time was in 1996. I was walking into the men’s room at the Art Institute of Chicago and he was walking out.

If this temporal and geographic pattern holds true, I will next see Tony Bennett in November 2020 in the middle of the Atlantic.

Boolah

A writing coach I’ve met with a few times, Nancy Rawlinson, has just started a blog about “books, literature, publishing and the creative process.” Some good stuff up there so far. She links to a piece by writer Anne Enright, who says:

Over the years, you learn to keep your emotions in the place where you write. With practice you can wrestle them down to something roughly the size of the page.