BuggBlog

Right here!, right now?

So, between sudden bouts of allergies, the standard crushing deadlines and increasingly frantic attempts to procure an outdoor wedding tent on eBay, I'm totally behind the curve on the the here!TV hissy fit over not being included for consideration for GLAAD's annual media awards. Apparently, tons of people are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that this large, corporately financed communications company that targets gay folks with such intellectually illuminating programs as Dante's Cove now finds itself bereft of opportunity at being recognized with a piece of attractively shaped acrylic.

Of course, this has been going on for years, long before the gay mediascape became a stomping ground for  the Leviathan known as Viacom. What dinners are to the Human Rights Campaign, awards ceremonies are to GLAAD. GLAAD raises money by hosting awards ceremonies in large, media-centric cities, handing out honors to television shows and movies that are brave and forward-thinking enough to talk about gay issues that the rest of the country moved beyond five years prior. Oh, fine, I'm exaggerating. Three years prior. Back in those long-ago days when the gay media world was made up of a lot of weekly and biweekly newspapers and magazines -- when Out was still a relatively new thing and "the Internet" still meant fighting to get in the queue for AOL's "dcm4m" chat room -- no one seemed to care much that GLAAD focused on recognizing Mr. Man instead of the community itself.

Fair enough. Just don't expect me to get exercised now on behalf of some suits who are surprised they won't be getting some dubious trophies for their corporate display shelves.

Time flies

A commenter sees arrogance in the fact that I've had only one face-to-face social interaction with my former competitor:

In the last five years, you couldn't find one afternoon to get a drink? 

Even Rupert Murdoch and Mort Zuckerman made peace where it mattered most to them.

Hey, I have a good friends I haven't seen in eight months or more because we can't find the time to get together. When we finally do get together, I'm sure they'll see me and think, "Good god, he's aged badly!" But I guarantee if I were as rich as Rupert Murdoch and had people doing my shopping, laundry, cooking, cleaning, organizing, management and such, I'd probably spend every afternoon having a drink.

Since you asked

Chris Crain asks me about a couple of gratuitous and flip comments I made about him while writing about the HRC v. Sullivan et al contretemps:

You take a couple of bitchy shots at me without any explanation, and you and I have never even had a one-on-one conversation. As far as I can remember, we've only even met once. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact I edited a competing publication for five years. :)

As generations of foul-mouthed schoolboys have said before me, "No shit, Sherlock."

Seriously, I'm more than willing to cop to a level of bias against Chris over the fact that he headed up the Washington Blade, while I've been editing Metro Weekly. The Blade has been more than competition over the years since it was bought by Window Media (or Unite or Avalon or whatever corporation is charge of things over there) -- as much as Crain may otherwise aver, the eagerness of the publication under that ownership to put us out of business was fairly common knowledge (it's worth noting that I have plenty of his former employees working or writing for me, and word gets out in plenty of other ways, as well). But I'm a libertarian-ish capitalist, so I don't have some sort of moral problem with that. The competition's been good, for me. I've always been proud of Metro Weekly, and I'm particularly proud of how we've responded and grown over the past few years. Honestly, I'm not sure that level of growth and change would have happened had the previous Blade ownership continued.

But the bitchy shots I took don't have anything to do with that. Chris is right that we've only ever directly met once -- we've been in the same physical proximity a number of times, but neither of us went running across the room to have a chat -- and even that was on a local NLGJA panel about four or five years ago. My knowledge of Chris as a person is sort of like Caddy in The Sound and the Fury -- my picture of him really comes through the experience of others. (Hey, I claimed to be a Southerner, so I can break out a little Faulkner, can't I?) And, I'm sure he'll be glad to hear, even people who detest Chris -- and he cut quite a swath as Blade editor, I must say -- admit how charming he is, and I have no reason to doubt that.

420 on 14th Street

Unfortunately, I don't have a camera easily available, else I'd send in a pic of the two bike messengers trading hits off a bowl in the alley outside my office for Andrew Sullivan's "View from your Window" feature thing. It'd be, like, a two-fer for him.

I'm sure it's medical, like job-related stress. If that's the case, maybe they'd share?

Nature of the Beast, Part Two

Given the increasing levels of vitriol surrounding the confrontation between Andrew Sullivan et al and the Human Rights Campaign, I realize that to say anything remotely positive about the giganto gay political group runs the risk of getting me labeled a water-carrier for HRC. I'm actually rather agnostic on the whole thing -- as I've already said, the political problems of HRC are in many ways emblematic of the political problems of the entire system.

But it's kind of funny to note the complaints of Andrew, along with Chris Crain and others, that HRC is supporting Democrats only, even to the point of actively working against pro-gay incumbent Republicans. Why's that funny? Well, back in 1998, HRC (then helmed by Elizabeth Birch) set off a firestorm among its donors by endorsing incumbent Republican Sen. Al D'Amato over Democratic challenger (and eventual victor) Charles Schumer, and I've talked to enough people over the years to know that that endorsement can still raise the hackles of some big-dollar, gay, Democratic donors to the organization. To refresh everyone's memory, some of the tenor of the time can be found here, here, and here.

So, here we are 10 years later, and HRC is still caught in the same damned if they do, damned if they don't situation (enlivened by such rich moments as Crain, of all people, labeling HRC head Joe Solmonese a "joey-come-lately to the struggle"). I have no doubt that much of the big money behind HRC won't stand for a lot of true bipartisanship, but I share the belief that HRC -- or some actually bipartisan gay policital group -- should be working to support and elect supportive politicians from both parties. But the problem is the money's coming from the former group, so there's not a lot of incentive to risk the ire of the donor base to reach out across those partisan lines.

Again, I'm not really playing defense for HRC here. I think they've handled the current situation badly. In particular, HRC spokesman David Smith's comment that by engaging in fierce criticism Sullivan is furthering the agenda of the James Dobson and the anti-gay right is gob-stopping in its audacity. Whether or not you agree with Sullivan or Michael Petrelis or anyone else who's joined the chorus of criticism, no gay political organization should view itself as somehow immune from criticism, and to attempt casting valid argumentation as aiding and abetting the enemy comes across as haughty and desperate. Here's hoping that in the coming days and weeks HRC will find a better tone to deal with its critics.

Perhaps it's a sign that I've been in Washington too long, but I know both Solmonese and Sullivan, and while I wouldn't describe either as close friends, I can say that I like them both (Crain, not so much). I'm sure it's just the vestiges of the genteel Southerner in me, but I hope the DEFCON level begins to drop a bit soon, on both sides. All that smoke can still choke out the fire.

I could've used a babelfish

It was Vietnamese wedding weekend at the Le-Bugg household. Not our own -- that's still a few weeks away, close enough to have me worried but far enough away that I'm not yet in panic mode. This one was actually one of Cavin's cousins, and it did give me a refresher course in what to expect come May 5. Though mine and Cavin's wedding ceremony won't be quite as elaborate. Also, I'm guessing ours will have a little more English so my family members and I can both understand what's going on.

Actually, my continued inability to pick up even the most basic Vietnamese continues to be a frustration for me and, probably, everyone else. I have trouble getting the Vietnamese names of Cavin's family to stay in my head -- partly because I already know their American names, partly because I have such awful trouble pronouncing them. I know Cavin's birth name, My, and I can simulate the pronunciation because it sounds a bit like saying "maybe," but leaving out the "b."

So anyway, I spent a lot of Saturday's wedding and reception doing the grandpa nod -- just nod and listen and smile politely when everyone laughs at some joke  you don't understand and hope you're not the butt of ("Two white Caucasians walk into a bar..."). I also realized why the world needs gay uncles and cousins at wedding receptions -- we have a lot of fun dancing with our elementary school nieces.

But the better moments, as always, were just being included as part of the groom's family. I've had a lot friends ask me how Cavin's family is dealing with our getting married. I think there are some assumptions that there would be tension, given that immigrant families are often fairly conservative when it comes to some of America's more permissive culture. But they've been nothing but great -- it was Cavin's mother who ended up insisting to him that we have the traditional roast pig for our own ceremony. Again, what we fear about the reactions of others very often says more about ourselves than it does about them.

Tear Jerker

So the Malcontent has launched a March Gayness contest, pitching gay blog against gay blog in a bracket that is supposed to have something to do with basketball, but which I'm pretending is a tennis tournament instead. Malcontent Matt, who launched this cockfight, is, I believe, evil -- anyone who's ever heard me yelling while playing in a tennis tournament knows I have a tendency toward over-competitiveness. Or, as I prefer to view it, an aversion to losing. So, while I'm honored to be included, I'm likely to totally obsess over this the same way I generally obsess over my magazine distribution numbers and tracking which stories appear first in Metro Weekly, and which appear in that other paper that I'll leave unnamed.

And people wonder why I'm high strung.

Unfortunately, my first round blog opponent seems a far more established blogger than me. Also, his home page has a dildo on it, plus a link to "black Thai anal beads" -- hell, I was about halfway to voting for him myself. But, I've thought about it, and I want to win this for my dear, departed dog, Lula, who shuffled off this mortal coil late last year. She's the sweet-looking, black pug gone gray you see in the photo.

Aren't those eyes the cutest? Lula wants you to know that if you vote for her Daddy -- that would be me -- then she'll get to stay in doggie heaven, a place where the skies rain bacon bits and the rolling green fields are home to legions of  slow-witted, three-legged squirrels. Won't you keep Lula in heaven and vote for me?

Cool days

Some days just remind me of why I like my job -- specifically, yesterday, when I interviewed Pam Grier. I got gardening tips from Foxy Brown! Specifically, if the spring is coming a little too quickly and you want to avoid a premature tulip blossoming, try getting your bulbs up and putting them in a refrigerator. I have no idea if the tip actually works -- Cavin handles the yard, I handle the cooking -- but it's from Foxy Brown! It has to be cool!

And I'm thinking that simultaneously getting excited over Pam Grier and gardening tips is about the gayest I've been in years. Lest anyone not remember the original Foxy, watch this:

The nature of the beast

Gee, with all the acrimony flowing between Andrew Sullivan, Joe Solmonese and Chris Crain over the Human Rights Campaign's financing and priorities, you kind of get the feeling that there are going to be some really tense dinner hours over at Duplex Diner.

This whole debate, while worthy, has a certain feeling of deja vu about it. Way back when in the Gay '90s, when we wore onions on our belts because that was the style, HRC was still known by its original, non-truncated name, the Human Rights Campaign Fund. Naturally, all us activists who couldn't afford to donate money to political organizations regularly dismissed it as the "Champagne Fund," because of its propensity to spend its time raising money and having dinners, plus an occasional cocktail party. Then, as now, it was a valid criticism to an extent -- any large organization raising massive amounts of cash for political purposes deserves some intense scrutiny. Although, I have to say that Andrew's conviction that the blogger pile-on underway over HRC is simply unprecendented is a bit of an overreach. Hell, Michael Petrelis was already making all the national groups nervous in the late '90s with his relentless requests for copies of their 990s and other public-record tax forms. I think things are happening faster now, and HRC in particular seems unable to integrate new communications technologies, but it's not as if no one's ever questioned the large national gay political groups before.

Anyway, I can't help but feel that Andrew's attack on HRC for pumping up its membership numbers and only pretending to bi-partisanship is a bit like attacking a leopard for being spotted. HRC is an establishment organization that engages in the same types of activities as the rest of the horde on the Hill -- from AARP to the NRA to SEIU to the NEA. That doesn't let HRC off the hook, it just points to a more systemic problem. I should be very clear here that I don't believe that another round of Rube-Goldberg-like "campaign finance reform" is any sort of solution -- I'm of a mind that people should be able to spend whatever money they want, however they want, on whomever or whatever they want.* The only rule I really care about is disclosure of who's getting what so I can take that into account. Perhaps Tim Gill has the answer to all our political problems -- Lord knows it would be nice if someone did. Until then we all have to pay attention to where we give our time and money -- bloggers and editorialists and activists can scream all they want, but if the people who write the checks aren't swayed, it won't matter much.

None of that, of course, is meant to let HRC off the hook for any weaknesses or missteps or errors. I was disappointed when I read the Boston Globe story that HRC had focused on Democrats over marriage amendments during the last election cycle -- but then again, how many people complaining about HRC right now gave money to, say, the Commonwealth Coalition back then? (I'm assuming Andrew did, since he spoke at a fundraiser where even I, a notorious political tightwad, ponied up a few hundred bucks.) The fight against the amendment in Virginia never got near its fundraising goals, and it could used a lot more help from both the HRC's of the world and the local gay and lesbian community itself.

I'm also dismayed to see HRC out so early and often on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon. I've lived pretty much my entire adult life with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, and I'm fucking tired of it. I imagine that by the time the election rolls around, my main criteria will likely be anyone without those names. Of course, that really means a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton race would make my head explode. It's going to be a long, long year and a half.

*Drugs and hookers not excluded.

Now they tell me

The Advocate just announced its Top 10 best places to live for gays and lesbians. Leaving aside the usual gay havens -- LA, NY, DC, Atlanta, etc. -- and who should end up on the list but Lexington, Ky. Funny, I would have pegged Louisville as the more accepting city in the Bluegrass State. Lexington, though, has a leg up on the quality-of-life scale, in my opinion, simply because it's a much better-looking city. Having just returned from there, I have the rolling fields and white fences of the horse farms still fresh in my mind.

The list isn't available online yet -- I guess the Advocate doesn't want to move one of the 20 or so items on friggin' American Idol off its home page -- but I'm guessing that Lexington has more going these days than the local gay dance club and drag bar, the inventively named The Bar. Anyway, now that my home state is officially a hip and happening place to be, maybe I'll be able to convince Cavin to move there. Yeah, likely not.

Here's the full list, according to the mag's press release:

·    Columbus, Ohio
·    Dallas, Tex.
·    Ferndale, Mich.
·    Ithaca, N.Y.
·    Lexington, Ky.
·    Missoula, Mont.
·    Portland, Ore.
·    San Diego, Calif.
·    Santa Fe, N.Mex.
·    Tucson, Ariz.

No real surprises, to me, with the possible exception of Columbus, Ohio -- but that's mostly because I have that reaction to anything involving Ohio. Oh, and where the hell is Ferndale?