BuggBlog

Lowering the punditry limbo bar

When some bloggers began criticizing a Commentary column that criticized Barack Obama for choosing orange juice (a "childish" drink) over coffee ("bitter and bracing"), I kind of assumed that too many people were reading a joking column as a serious rant. Then I went to read it for myself.

And it really is about the stupidest thing I've read this campaign. It may even be stupider than Fox News talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Scary thing? There's plenty of room to go even lower between now and November.

Howard Kurtz and Brian Williams have dirty, dirty minds

Howard Kurtz tosses one off at the end of his Post media column today, noting NBC anchor Brian Williams consternation at all the sexy, sexy stuff in recent issues of the New York Times.

Finally, Brian Williams turns media critic on his NBC blog, questioning (without quite saying so) whether the New York Times is out of touch with mainstream America:

"It's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking. Consider this: the Sunday Styles section lead story on April 13th was 'Scavengers on the Urban Savannah' (people buy things at flea markets!), and promoted on Page One was 'A Sex Chair Becomes A Battlefield.' Alrighty then.

"This Sunday's lead story was 'Through Sickness, Health, Sex Change . . . ' in a section that included the essay, 'Was I On A Date Or Baby-Sitting?,' and 'Let's Say You Want To Date A Hog Farmer' (and who among us hasn't?).

"The magazine cover story this week was 'The Newlywed Gays!' (happy gay men in Massachusetts who are married outdoor grilling enthusiasts!) . . .The lead story in the Travel Section? The rise of vacation resorts catering to nudists."

All the sex that's fit to print.

You know those stories about young gay men getting married and, in many cases, committing to monogamy -- nothing but sex, sex, sex!

Really, given that it looks like neither one of them bothered to read the Newlywed Gays story  -- I did, by the way, and it's pretty good overall -- it makes me wonder what pictures go through Williams's and Kurtz's heads when they hear the word "gay." And if they did read the story, well, ingrained bias is an ugly thing.

An unexamined life

A minor tempest over at Queerty as touchy Madonna fans take the gayer-than-thou site to task for daring to criticize She Who Must Be Worshipped. From the comments:

I wouldn’t be a proud gay man without Madonna.

And that, my friends, is the saddest thing I've ever read.

Bitter, better...but her?: Liveblogging the PA debate

Reasons to be bitter

Though I'm a little late to the game after this weekend's latest "gaffe," I'm up to play. Because if after eight years of Bush you're not bitter, then you're not paying attention.

My reasons to be bitter:

• The repeal of habeas corpus.
• The war in Iraq.
• The neglected war in Afghanistan.
• Unrestrained government spending that would make LBJ blush.
• The use of my life and the lives of my friends as political footballs to drum up votes.
• Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.
• The abridgment of our civil rights in the name of the so-called Drug War.
• Hillary Clinton's nebulous relationship with the truth.
• Only one more season of Battlestar Galactica.

And the list goes on and on.

Full court press

Following up on its attention-grabbing antics of last week when it ran a blank stretch of space on its front page to emphasize the Obama campaign's decision not to do an interview with the paper, the Philadelphia Gay News continues its campaign this week with the front page with the complaint that it's been "1,529 days" since Obama interviewed with the "local gay press."

The complaint last week in a PGN editorial was  that "It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community." Now that the Advocate has snagged an interview with him, the PGN complaint has shifted, essentially, to kvetching that Barack Obama won't interview with me!

PGN publisher Mark Segal, in a press release this morning highlighted four "questions of importance to the LGBT community of Pennsylvania":

1. Why has he not spoken with local gay media in 1529 days?

2. Why has he accepted only two interviews with gay media since 2004?

3. Why interview only with gay media when in damage control now that the national LGBT press is urging you to talk to us, not at us?

4.  Finally, with all due respect Senator, you've now avoided answering the single most important question which PGN readers must ask. The LGBT community of Pennsylvania wants to know your stand on the anti gay marriage state constitutional legislation currently before the Pennsylvania Senate.

You know, when three of your four "important" questions are essentially re-phrased versions of Barack Obama won't interview with me! then there's a bit of a substance problem to the complaint. The idea that we don't know anything about Obama's positions on GLBT issues -- or, conversely, that we now have some special insight into the mind of Hillary Clinton because she interviewed with PGN or Kevin Naff at the Blade -- is a non-starter because the positions have been spelled out, they've been discussed in public events, and they've been covered in press both mainstream and niche. And if you're a reporter who wants to know a candidate's position on a particular issue -- say, a Pennsylvania anti-marriage amendment -- you call the campaign office, ask them, and report the response (or non-response).

Tempest? Meet the teapot.

Naked self interest, democracy, it's all the same thing

If Hillary Clinton had cared so passionately about the democratic voting rights of Michiganders and Floridians, she would have done something about it long before those states ran their front-loaded, illegal primaries in defiance of party rules. Instead, she chose to have her campaign issue press statements supporting the DNC decision, lauding the special position of Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary process, and pledging not to campaign in those states. Now, naturally, she's so very concerned with Michigan and Florida as she attempts to conjure some scenario by which she nabs the nomination.

I'm not even going to get into the nonsense that's been spewing from her on this issue over the past few weeks -- well, other than to say that if you consider the ability to tell big, whopping lies with a straight face and steady voice to be a prerequisite for occupying the White House, then Clinton is your candidate -- but it's important to remember that while citizens should have the right to vote in a democracy, a democracy doesn't mean you get do-overs.

Clinton's push for a mulligan distracts from the fact that there are many people responsible for this clusterfuck:

First, the candidates -- all of them, but Clinton, Barack Obama and other top-tier candidates in particular -- should have been vocal and active in opposing the draconian punishment the DNC imposed on the states for violating primary schedule rules, and supported some alternate plan that would allow a vote, campaigning and some measure of representation in the process.

Second, the DNC and the Florida and Michigan parties for all the obvious reasons. Should've been this, should've been that. Politicians in those states wanted to play as big boys in the process and they got burned for it. They should have thought twice about playing a game of chicken with their constituents' votes.

Which leads to the third and, I think, most important cog in this blame machine: the people of Michigan and Florida. You sat back and let your legislatures, elected representatives and party elders get you into this mess. Democracy means that you get a vote. Democracy also means you should be paying attention to what your government does, particularly on such a high-profile and well-covered issue as this one. You didn't do that, so you don't get to go twice because you realize you screwed up. That leaves you with one very democratic option -- in the next election use your vote against the people who got you into this mess in the first place.

Past imperfect

To steal from my favorite movie, we might be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.

That's what I was thinking as I edited this week's Metro Weekly cover story on Butch Merritt, a self-described spy on the D.C. gay community back in the early '70s days of the Gay Liberation Front and Gay Activists Alliance. It's tempting to read these historical pieces and think only of how much worse it was for gays and lesbians just a few short decades ago, and how much better we have it today. Back then people had to worry about the government spying on them, tapping their phones, turning friends and acquaintances into government informants....

And then we're full circle back to these heady days of the Bush/Cheney surveillance nation and the hydra-headed war on drugs.

Not to worry, I'm not about to spend 1,000 words on another libertarianish rant -- yet -- but I do think it's important to read a story like this with an eye on the present. It's too easy to decry the past transgressions of government as paranoid and overreaching while dismissing the current transgressions as necessary evils.

Political truths and consequences

So I decided to take the weekend off from jotting down any thoughts or rants about the ongoing Clinton and Obama contretemps because, frankly, I needed to take a bit of a breather. The last time I found myself both politically and emotionally involved in a campaign was way back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was making his first run. And although he had the fortune of being president during a period when the good times went rolling, by the time 1996 came 'round, the luster had worn off -- and soon after had progressed into deep, deep tarnish.

In 2000, I reluctantly voted for Gore -- an odd feeling given how much I'd liked him since back during his 1998 run. But post-Clinton, Gore seemed unable to tease the good from the bad in his own administration, so instead washed his hands of the whole damn thing to run a Shrum-tastic populist campaign that in defeat set us down the path we're on today. I voted for him because he was not George W. Bush, a good enough practical reason, but not one that elevated my soul or anything.

Then in 2004 we got John Kerry who, basically, was a jerk. How big of a jerk? He was able to make Mary Cheney likable by giving one of the most bumbling attack lines of the campaign-- "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian... ." But, again, he wasn't George W. Bush and that was enough.

Now we're back to the start of the circle, with Hillary Clinton running a jaw-dropping campaign in which she smears her opponent with the label "Ken Starr tactics," attempts to cheat by changing pre-determined rules in her favor,  naming herself and McCain as the only candidates qualified to be commander-in-chief (as if), and offering the vice-president slot to her competitor who inconveniently happens to be in the lead.  Not to mention proving her executive leadership skills with a campaign staff riven by infighting, unable to plan for a full election cycle and displaying the fiscal wisdom and restraint of an 11-year-old in a video game store.

 

I'm a martini superdelegate!

Yes, it's only Monday morning, but you're already thinking about what you want to do tonight, right? God knows I usually am. But in this case I have something pretty cool lined up -- I'm a judge for tonight's "Best Martini in D.C. Contest" at Beacon Bar & Grill (17th St. and Rhode Island Ave., NW), alongside luminaries such as our own D.C. Council Member David Catania. I hope he doesn't threaten to drink me under the table, or else I'll have to pwn his ass.

Just joking David! I promise I'll let you win!

So, when you get off work from downtown, sneak out early from the Human Rights Campaign office, skip your trip to the gym or drive in from the 'burbs, come out to Beacon and help us choose the best -- your vote is guaranteed to count more here than in the Democratic primary.

UPDATE: I suppose it helps to mention what time, just in case you don't click through the link -- it's from 6 to 8 p.m. See y'all there.