Week Without News

One of the pleasures of being out of the country for a week was being utterly unaware about anything happening back in the States. I had no desire to use an internet cafe or check my e-mail, and it wasn’t until our last day in London when we were browsing the Apple store that I realized we could check it. (I quickly saw that I had 49 messages and decided they didn’t need to be read just then.) We got a free copy of the Independent at our hotel every morning, which had almost no American news, and our hotel had the BBC but not CNN International, so all our news came with a British focus. It was so refreshing. All I knew was that Hamas had taken over Gaza and that Tony Blair got into a fight with the British press. Also, the Pakistani cricket coach wasn’t actually murdered in Jamaica but died of natural causes.

Today I returned to my daily fix of U.S. political news via blogs and online newspapers, but after a week away from it all, I had a fresh perspective. It’s so obsessive to follow every little twist and turn of the U.S. attorney story, the back-and-forth of presidential candidates, et cetera. Nothing new happens, so why bother? It all seems so… unnecessary. Why not just go to sleep for another year?

I doubt I’m going to change this routine, but at least I was looking at it differently today. That’s one of the nice things about being away.

Oh – also, looking at your computer screen after not doing so for a whole week is really weird. The text looks so small and sharp.

Oh, and also, we finally watched the Tonys last night, which we’d TiVo’d while we were away. Newsflash: Spring Awakening won Best Musical! Oh – you already knew? Sorry.

Back From London

We’re back from London! We got in last night. We had an absolutely wonderful time.

One of our suitcases got lost on the way back and we have no idea where it is. Oh well.

More details on our trip later.

Dowd on Gays in the Military

Maureen Dowd usually writes annoying faux- psychoanalytical columns, but she gets in some good jabs at Republicans who oppose allowing openly gay people in the military.

Be honest. Who would you rather share a foxhole with: a gay soldier or Mitt Romney?

A gay soldier, of course. In a dicey situation like that, you need someone steadfast who knows who he is and what he believes, even if he’s not allowed to say it out loud.

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters — even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.

They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.

But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.

Peter Pace, whose job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff became a casualty of Iraq on Friday, asserted in March that homosexual acts “are immoral.” Yet in May, he wrote a letter to the judge in the Scooter Libby case, pleading for leniency for the Cheney aide. Scooter always looked for “the right way to proceed — both legally and morally,” General Pace wrote of the man who lied to a grand jury about the outing of a spy, after he pumped up the fake case for the war that has claimed the lives of 3,500 young men and women serving under the general.

At the G.O.P. debate in New Hampshire last week, the contenders were more homophobic than the mobsters on “The Sopranos,” unanimously supporting the inane “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Even Rudy Giuliani, who loves to cross-dress and who stayed with old friends, a gay couple, to avoid Gracie Mansion when his second marriage was disintegrating, had an antediluvian answer.

Wolf Blitzer asked him about the Arabic linguists trained by the government who have been ousted from the military after being outed.

Mr. Giuliani, who procured three deferments to avoid Vietnam, replied that, with the war in Iraq raging, “This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this.”

If he’s so concerned with disruptive issues, maybe he should start worrying about this one: Two straight guys who slithered out of going to Vietnam are devising a losing strategy in Iraq year after year. W. and Dick Cheney have fouled things up so badly that Robert Gates and Tony Snow are now pointing to South Korea — where American troops have stayed for over half a century — as a model.

Mitt Romney agreed with Rudy on the issue. Instead of going to Vietnam, Mr. Romney spent two and a half years doing Mormon missionary work in France. Isn’t that like doing Peace Corps work in Monte Carlo?

At the memorial for Mark Bingham, the gay 6-foot-5 rugby player who was on Flight 93 on 9/11, John McCain said he might owe his life to the young man who helped fight the hijackers, bringing down the plane aiming to crash into the Capitol.

But Senator McCain wants gay troops to stay closeted. The policy, he said, is “working.” But it’s not. The Army in Iraq is like that exhausted nag Scarlett O’Hara whipped on to Tara. Yet Republicans surge on, even as they expel gays.

In a Times Op-Ed piece Friday, Stephen Benjamin, a gay Arabic translator eager to go to Iraq, told how he was dismissed when the Navy learned his status. “Consider,” he wrote. “More than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm’s way?”

He noted that 11,000 other service members have been shoved out since 1993 and speculated that if the Army had not been so short of Arabic translators, the cables that went untranslated on Sept. 10, 2001, might have been translated, preventing 9/11.

In 2000, the British military began letting anyone who served say if they were “a poof,” as one squadron leader put it. Sarah Lyall wrote in The Times that the military reports that none of its fears “about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness have come to pass.”

America has been Will-and-Graced since Bill Clinton had his kerfuffle on the issue in 1993. Tolerance has blossomed, especially among younger Americans. According to a Pew poll, 4-in-10 Americans say they have close friends or relatives who are gay.

The Republican field seems stale and out of sync. They should have listened to the inimitable Barry Goldwater, who told it true: You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.

To London

Tomorrow we leave for London!

I can’t wait.

I probably won’t be blogging while we’re away, so my blogging will cease until we return next Sunday.

Cheerio!

War and Remembrance

When I was in high school, I discovered Herman Wouk’s great fictional two-volume saga of World War II, The Winds of War and War and Remembrance. Together, the books are a sweeping history of an American military family and Jewish Europeans during World War II. The first book begins around the time of Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 and ends with Pearl Harbor; the second book begins shortly thereafter and goes until the end of the war. Both were turned into lengthy TV miniseries in the 1980s.

I was vaguely aware of the TV version of “The Winds of War” when I was a kid. Several years later, in the fall of 1988, my family moved to Tokyo. During the three years we lived there, our friends back home would occasionally send us videotapes of American TV shows. These were always a treat, because we never knew what we’d get; we’d just get a VCR tape in the mail containing six whole hours worth of unexpected entertainment. This was before the Web, of course; the only English-language TV we had in Tokyo was CNN International and several-years-old American programming on NHK. So these videotapes were a wonderful taste of home.

Among the shows we received on tape in the fall of 1988 were several installments of the 12-part miniseries “War and Remembrance.” We only got a few of the early episodes, but I’d always been interested in World War II, and I was completely drawn in, even by the graphic Holocaust scenes.

I decided to read the books. I managed to find a copy of “The Winds of War” in our high school library (I went to an American school), and I devoured all 900 pages. Shortly thereafter, I picked up “War and Remembrance” and began reading that one, but I only got about halfway through it; one day I put it down and never managed to pick it up again.

Occasionally I’d re-watch the limited videotapes we had of “War and Remembrance,” but I never saw any of the second half. Because I never read the second half of the book and never saw the second half of the miniseries, I never knew what became of these characters and how it ended. Did Natalie Jastrow, the American Jewish woman trapped in Europe with her Uncle Aaron and her baby, ever get out of Europe? Did they get caught by the Nazis? I never found out.

A couple of months ago, after reading a book about the Third Reich, I thought about “War and Remembrance” again. It turned out to be on DVD, so I made it my mission to finally watch the whole thing. I added all 12 discs to my Netflix queue. When it originally ran on TV, it was 30 hours long. Without commercials, it’s probably about 22 or 23 hours.

I just finished watching it tonight. Finally.

Wow. Just… wow. The last two episodes in particular.

I can’t believe it took me 18 years to get to the end.

It was totally worth it.

Failing

Five days until we go to London.

*********

I wish I were failing at something.

But in order to fail at something, you have to try something, and I haven’t tried lately.

Catching up on my friend Aaron’s blog, Aaron the poet, whose poetry is featured in magazines, who does poetry readings, who has won some poetry fellowships. I’m not interested in being a poet, but I do need to do more writing. I need to try and I’m not trying.

When I was out of work several months ago, I was thisclose to getting a writing job with a gay rights organization. I think I would have been hired. The money would probably have been much less than I’m making now, but maybe it would have led somewhere unpredictable. I told myself not to think about what-ifs, because happiness is all about attitude and outlook, not about your present situation.

I talked with my therapist last week about how my brother, who didn’t go to grad school and therefore has no student debt, is making lots more money than me, who went into debt for a law degree that I got without thinking about it carefully enough.

She asked me why I never went to work for a law firm. I told her that it’s not primarily the hours – although I don’t think I could deal with working until 10 pm at night or later. It’s the person you need to be in order to be a law firm lawyer. You need to like conflict. You need to be able to be a jerk. I don’t like conflict and I don’t like being a jerk. It’s the quality of being a law firm lawyer, not the quantity of the work involved, that really turns me off from it. (Okay, it’s a bit of both.)

She concluded that with my talents, with my qualities, there’s no reason I shouldn’t be making a good amount of money doing something I enjoy.

And it’s true that if I had more confidence in myself, and, moreover, if I were more willing to fail, I could be further along that road than I am right now. On the other hand, my attempt at writing an op-ed piece last summer went nowhere. I wrote it, got it published, blogged about it, and it caused a very minor blog controversy before it disappeared down a black hole. In retrospect, I wasn’t too happy with what I wrote. So after that, I gave up.

I’d love to be an essayist, get my stuff printed in magazines, on op-ed pages, online, and so forth. If only I didn’t, somewhere deep down, think I sucked as a writer.

This is all old hat to longtime readers of the blog, and nobody likes a whiner. I’m really writing these words more to write them than for you to read them.

But in short, I should try to fail.

Chorus Concert

My chorus, which has just changed its name from the Gay Gotham Chorus to the Empire City Men’s Chorus (long story, but we’re still a gay men’s chorus), has its spring concert tomorrow night, featuring works by Duruflé, Rheinberger, Poulenc, Mendelssohn, Casals, Boulanger, and others. It’s at 7:30 pm at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, 51st St. and Park Ave. It’s a gorgeous church with a beautiful acoustic and a very big organ (yuk yuk). Tickets are $25 ($15 for students and seniors). More information at gaygothamchorus.org.

Maybe Buffy’s mom will be there again.

Comment Non-Spam

I just found three legitimate blog comments in my comment spam folder. I’ve un-spammed them. I don’t know why they got marked as spam, but my apologies to the commenters!

Rosie vs. Elisabeth

Matt and I TiVo “The View” every day, so we saw yesterday’s big shouting match between Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck. (Scroll down here for a transcript.) What started as a discussion about the war turned into an unusually angry argument between Rosie and Elisabeth about whether Elisabeth has sufficiently defended Rosie in the face of Fox News commentators, who have claimed that Rosie has implied that American troops are terrorists. Matt cringed and covered his eyes and made noises and finally had to walk away from the TV. (He hates watching people argue.) Me, I was riveted. Rosie and Elisabeth shouted at each other while poor Joy Behar and guest host Sherri Shepherd were caught in the middle. Joy’s desperate plea to go to a commercial (“Is there no commercial on this show?”) was priceless.

I was riveted, but the whole thing annoyed the crap out of me. I only started watching “The View” last fall, and I’ve been impressed at the substantive political discussions the hosts often have. This could have been another one of those enlightening discussions for the audience, a great opportunity to point out the provincialism of Elisabeth and other war supporters, but no, Rosie had to make it all about her and her relationship with her co-host and she solved nothing.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck seems charming, but I’ve been annoyed by her rah-rah support for Bush and this stupid war. From what I can tell, only one thing motivates her: fear. She’s a young mom with a little girl and another baby on the way, and all that matters to her is that we might be attacked again. She’s totally been sucked in by the Bush Administration’s fearmongering. Forget “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” – according to Bush, of course, we should be scared. Fear, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

Hasselbeck and others actually believe that George W. Bush is the only person who can “protect” us from “the terrorists.” But fighting terrorism is like fighting crime. Any president can do it. After all, it’s not the President who fights terrorism at all. It’s the people who work in government agencies who do it – on the federal, state, and local levels. All the president has to do is turn the government’s resources in the right direction, and we don’t need Bush or even a Republican in the White House for that to happen. “Protecting us” is just a massive law enforcement matter.

Terrorists are not boogeymen. They’re people, and they have motivations. Calling them “the enemy” – god, I think I hate that term more than almost any other – lets you off the hook from having to understand what motivates them. It lets you off the hook from having to think of them as individuals, from having to think about why terrorism happens. Calling them “the enemy” glorifies them, makes all this seem macho and fun, like we’re in “Star Wars” or “The Lord of the Rings.”

Living in a black/white, good/evil paradigm keeps you from having to actually think.

Boo on Elisabeth Hasselbeck for being such a sucker.

And boo on Rosie for making it personal instead of furthering the discussion.

Westboro v. Falwell

Yesterday was Jerry Falwell’s funeral. But, um:

The funeral also drew protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., which sent about a dozen members who claimed Mr. Falwell was a friend of gay men and lesbians, The Associated Press reported.

And I didn’t think it was possible for the Westboro folks to get any stupider.

They’re not even trying anymore.

Dentist

Can anyone recommend a good dentist in Manhattan? I need to make an appointment next month for my regular biannual checkup, and now that I have different health insurance I’ve given up my old dentist. If you have a recommendation, please e-mail me. Thanks!

Bush as Worst

Matt and I were talking last night about our capacity to judge whether George W. Bush is the worst president in American history.

Is our judgment clouded because we’re currently living through his presidency? After all, we feel most strongly about things when we’re living through them.

Is our judgment clouded by our revulsion for the man? Concluding that Bush is the worst president in American history would certainly justify my revulsion. Knowing that he’s the worst president ever would give me some satisfaction. I want him to be the worst president ever. For that reason, I’m wary of my judgment. Is my revulsion greater than what Nixon-haters felt during Watergate, or what people felt during Carter’s hostage crisis, or what many gays felt toward Reagan during the AIDS nightmare of the 1980s, or what I, an 18-year-old political newbie, felt toward George H.W. Bush in 1992? The heat of the moment can distort one’s views.

According to Wikipedia, Harding and Buchanan are usually judged the worst presidents. Harding is best known for his corrupt administration, Buchanan for his incompetence. But Harding’s presidency didn’t have any lasting negative effects on the country, and Buchanan, while he didn’t lift a finger to stop the impending civil war, didn’t really make things worse than they already were. Bush, however, will leave the nation worse than he found it through active mismanagement. He has failed spectacularly.

A piece by Sean Wilentz last year, “The Worst President in History?”, claiming that Bush is in fact the worst ever, makes a pretty strong case.

Meanwhile, veteran journalist Jules Witcover has a piece behind the New York Times firewall today: Who’s Worse, Nixon or Bush? Unfortunately, this piece is only available to TimesSelect readers, but here are some excerpts:

Having been in Washington for only 53 years, I cannot from personal exposure espouse the view that the current president is the worst in American history. I have observed only 10 of them since reaching the age of reason, so I can judge only that he is the worst in my adult lifetime.

From World War II to date, there is in my mind and experience only one serious and obvious competitor: Richard Nixon. I say that not simply because he was the first president to resign from office in scandal and disgrace. Well before the Watergate affair that eventually was his undoing, he had compiled a long record of deception, deceit and duplicity. […]

Nixon’s sins basically grew from an unquenchable lust for power. He was determined to hold on to what he had and to get more and more of it, contrived through secrecy and an anything-goes political ethic that in time poisoned much of his five-and-a-half-year presidency.

In the end, the damage done to the nation was arrested by a change in the Oval Office… the Watergate nightmare essentially shook America domestically without more than temporarily impairing her relations with the world. […]

George W. Bush, on the other hand, who ran in 2000 as a unthreatening “compassionate conservative,” soon encountered a crisis and a fateful opportunity that put him on a different mission. He seized on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to segue from domestic affairs and a legitimate self-defense invasion of Afghanistan to a radical foreign policy of supposedly preventive war in Iraq. […]

In a bold display of opportunism, Bush anointed himself as a “war president” who capitalized on a combination of American patriotism and fear to set the nation on its current course. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, has written, Bush’s use of the phrase “war on terror” was “a classic self-inflicted wound” that intentionally created “a culture of fear in America,” enabling him to mobilize the public behind his military actions. […]

While Bush continues to have the power of the veto with which to combat the Democratic challenge, he is staggering toward the finish line of his presidency. Whatever happens in Iraq, there seems little chance that history will accord him any positive legacy for his eight years of over-reaching in foreign policy and abuse of civil liberties at home.

Nixon’s fall from grace in 1974 cast a heavy shadow over some historic achievements, most notably his opening to China. But his sins, deplorable as they were, mostly concerned domestic matters. They did not leave his party in the hole that Bush’s radical adventurism abroad has dug for the Republicans, and for the country he has so catastrophically led, without any compensating accomplishments akin to Nixon’s, domestic or foreign.

For Bush to be the worst president in American history doesn’t mean that he has to be the worst president imaginable. (Hitler, Kim Jong Il or Pol Pot are some who would be worse.) He merely has to be worse than any of the other 41 men who have held the office. Someone’s got to be the worst. Why must it be the effect of a present-day bias to think Bush is the one?

Jonathan Rauch in Reason

“One of my strongest guiding beliefs in life is the moral duty of empiricism, of actively checking, of actively trying to discover where you’re wrong. And then correcting your beliefs and not letting your preconceptions interfere with that to an undue extent. I think history and journalism both try to teach that.”

– from an interview with Jonathan Rauch.

Also from that interview:

“I think Maureen Dowd is very good at what she does. But the problem is that lots of people who aren’t any good at it think this is journalism.”

“Don’t go to law school unless you want to be a lawyer.”

Evening News

Each of the major network nightly news broadcasts – on ABC, CBS and NBC – airs at 6:30 pm. But some might recall a time when they all aired at 7:00 pm. I think there’s something more glamorous, or at least more prime-time-ish, about airing the news at 7:00 instead of at 6:30. Not necessarily better, just different.

I dug into the New York Times archives to find the date that each of the three networks moved its broadcast from 7:00 to 6:30:

ABC – December 15, 1986
CBS – September 5, 1988
NBC – September 9, 1991

In ABC’s case, the above date is just when the flagship station, WABC in New York, moved its broadcast to 6:30 – it wasn’t a network decision. But as a major affiliate, it probably had a big influence. And because the news was already taped at 6:30 for a 7:00 airing, that meant that the ABC station in New York began airing it live.

Two things I hadn’t realized in learning this information. One, I hadn’t realized the schedule shifts had occurred so long ago. I’d thought they had all happened in the early-to-mid 90s. Two, I hadn’t realized that the shifts occurred so far apart. So there was actually a long time when you could, for instance, watch Peter Jennings and then shift over to Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw. Weird.

To London

Matt and I are going to London in June! We’ll be there for six days.

This is a really big deal for us for a few reasons.

I’ve been to London twice before, but it’s been more than 13 years since I last visited. I haven’t been overseas since.

As for Matt, he’s never been to Europe. Except for two trips to Montreal in the past couple of years, he’s never even been out of the United States. A big, big part of the excitement for me will be accompanying Matt on his first trip overseas.

Matt left all the planning to me because I have more travel experience. I was worried, but I am so proud of myself for planning this trip. I know, it really doesn’t take much skill to click on a mouse and type on a keyboard. But I had to get over some psychological barriers – committing to spending the money and choosing where to go.

I’ve written about my travel hang-ups before. Traveling is expensive (and Europe is particularly expensive for Americans these days), and a trip is only for a finite amount of time. But I love London. There are other places in Europe I’d like to see – places I’ve never been to before – but for some reason I feel a need to go back to London first. And I feel like London would be a great first overseas trip for Matt, especially since he’s an Anglophile. I think once we do this trip, we’ll be ready to visit other places.

So we’ll spend almost a week in London. We’ll probably take one or two day trips while we’re there, maybe to Stonehenge and/or someplace else. I’m so excited.

I’m also feeling anxious. I felt anxious as soon as I clicked on the final button and committed us to the trip. What if it’s not money well spent? What if we don’t have enough time? What if the hotel sucks? Should I have booked a trip somewhere else instead, somewhere completely new to both of us? But according to various online reviews, the hotel should be fine, and we’ll have plenty of time to do plenty of things, and I have money for a trip, and there are plenty of things I haven’t seen in London, I mean it’s LONDON, after all, and we can take a trip somewhere else next time.

Part of my anxiety, to be totally pessimistic and bizarre, arises from knowing that I’ll feel sad once we return. Rather than going on a great trip and feeling a big letdown upon returning home and having to go back to work, part of me wants to avoid that emotional rollercoaster in the first place. Why go away when, in the end, you’ll just have to come back? Better not to go at all than experience the sadness of a trip ending.

Weird, no? I think that’s really the key to my travel anxiety. But I’ve nipped it, and we’ve planned a trip, and it will be great.

I can’t wait.

Nixon Books

I’ve been reading a new book about Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger; it’s called (appropriately enough) Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power by Robert Dallek.

There seem to be a bunch of new Nixon books out lately. In addition to Nixon and Kissinger, there’s Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World, by Margaret MacMillan, and Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon & Spiro Agnew, by Jules Witcover. And in a week and a half, a brand new full-length Nixon biography comes out, puzzlingly titled The Invincible Quest: The Life of Richard Milhous Nixon (how can a quest be invincible?) by Conrad Black, the financier and former newspaper magnate who is currently on trial for criminal fraud. I’m really looking forward to that last one, because Black, despite the criminal charges, is apparently a terrific author – his biography of FDR is highly praised. But his Nixon bio isn’t being published in the U.S. until the fall. I might have to order it from Canada.

I have a fascination with Richard Nixon and I’m not totally sure why. Part of it is Watergate – it just seems like a great story, filled with suspense, as things get worse and worse for Nixon, finally snowballing and ending in his resignation under threat of impeachment. There’s also the dramatic arc of his life story – rise (Congress, Senate and the vice presidency), fall (two electoral defeats in a row – for president in 1960, and for California governor in 1962), rise (twice elected president), fall (Watergate), and then his attempted vindication as an elder statesman until his death.

And Nixon himself is such an engrossing, flawed character – the paranoia; the paradox of a man raised as a Quaker who, in private, curses like a sailor and gets sloshed, and who rose to the presidency even though he was temperamentally unsuited to being a politician – shy and awkward in public.

I don’t know exactly what it is about him. But he fascinates me.