So I was supposed to release my follow-up to last year’s Volkswagen Jetta article last week, but I didn’t like the draft, so I threw it out. And then I fixed it.
It’ll be coming out Thursday, but here’s a couple of videos to get you in the spirit:
(Go to 4:00 on the one below)
I hate to say it, but… I told you so.
A big congratulations to Kings of Leon on winning Record of the Year. And I’m happy to report that New Music Tuesday will be back soon, reviewing…the first three Kings of Leon albums. Stay tuned.
This article, which was written for C Line News, was written and submitted prior to Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election results were released.
BROOKLINE—The weather in Brookline is typical Massachusetts winter—32 and snowing—but the situation for the Martha Coakley campaign is unusually cold.
Attorney General and Senate Candidate Martha Coakley, who enjoyed a 30-point lead in November polls, is now neck-and-neck with opponent Scott Brown, and the race has gained the national eye.
Inside Coakley’s Coolidge Corner phone bank, however, the 30 volunteers on cell phones are having another problem: cell phone service. Many are pacing the room, saying “Can you hear me now?” as if it is part of their script.
Yet Coakley’s phone bank is one of many set up by both sides in order to speak to Massachusetts residents and “get out the vote.” In an election that has the potential to make history by electing Massachusetts’ first woman senator or confine President Obama’s Healthcare Reform plan to the history books, campaigns are looking to any source of votes to win a pivotal election.
Beacon Street and Winchester Avenue, Brookline: Martha Coakley
Among the Coakley volunteers in the room is Alan Khazei, one of Coakley’s opponents during the Democratic Primary. Khazei said that despite losing to Coakley, he is still a strong supporter of her in the special election.
“Look, running against her in the primaries, she kicked our butts,” he said. “She did fabulously. Martha is a very strong leader.”
Cindy Rowe, Chairperson of the Brookline Democratic Town committee, said that Brooklinians have been working for a while to ensure a victory for Coakley. “Here in Brookline we’ve been working since the minute the primaries ended,” she said, “to make sure that Martha Coakley gets elected as our next Senator.”
Victoria Florea, a Brookline resident and Coakley volunteer, said a Coakley loss would be “catastrophic” in stopping the late Senator’s agenda, but also that the race is of national importance. “This is a critical election in that it doesn’t have so much to do with what’s going on in Massachusetts—this is going to affect the nation.”
Merrimac Street and New Chardon Street, Boston: Scott Brown
The volunteers at Scott Brown’s Boston phone bank are not fumbling with scripts or cell phones. Instead, they are seated at tables in the Government Center office, seated at high-tech landline phones that show numbers and scripts on a black-and-white screen. The energy level, volunteers also say, is immense.
“It is one of the highest [energy campaigns] I’ve ever seen, and not only that, it’s one of the best-organized campaigns I’ve ever seen,” said John Downing Jr., Former Chair of the Cambridge Republican City Committee.
The focus is great: Brown’s 30 volunteers, who are younger than Coakley’s, push buttons on their phones and smile while telling the Massachusetts voters on the other line just why their candidate is better than Coakley. Their biggest selling point is charisma: “He’s got universal appeal and a lot of passion,” Downing said.
The excitement was not wasted on Robin Newberger, a New York Resident who took a trip to Boston to support Brown’s campaign. “This campaign gave me the ability to stop complaining and start doing something,” she said. “I’ve been so frustrated and so upset about what’s going on in this country…and I just felt ‘wow, you can go out and vote in the 41st senator.’”
…
There are fewer than 36 hours before results return from the Secretary of State, but both parties agree that the election is very close. Downing, with a smile, says it all: “it’s coming right down to the wire.”
Little Note: I’m publishing a little feature on Thursday as a follow-up to an article I wrote for “little victories” back in May 2009. Here’s the reprint.
There’s an axiom that says “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”. And it’s been used for a long time in a number of different ways: we use it to describe the feeling of being able to annihilate nations at the touch of a button, the greedy power of running a huge company, or even the power-crazed mannerisms of 9-year-olds when they’re left at home for a few minutes in charge of their younger siblings.
Germany knows a thing or two about absolute power corrupting absolutely.
Now, wait a minute. Before you close this page, telling me you’re angry that I would say such inflammatory things, this isn’t THAT kind of blog. I’m actually talking about the Volkswagen Jetta.
I remember the first time I experienced the Volkswagen Jetta- I was 10. My father, who had just taken delivery of his ‘99 Jetta, took it out for a spin with me in the back. Coming up to an intersection with a clogged left lane, my father tapped the gas and flicked the wheel to the right.
In a second, the car surged forward, jumped to the right, and zoomed through the green light like it was nothing. Zippy, the black ‘99 Jetta, was born. Naturally, being a Volkswagen from the late 90’s, Zippy had a fair share of problems, most notably the part where the engine seized with less than 50,000 miles on it. But it was always fun, even before I could drive, to ride in the little black zoomy thing.
We sold the Jetta in 2002 and bought a Mercury Sable (a car that made up for being catastrophically uncool by being stupidly reliable), and my mother won’t buy Volkswagens ever again, but the VW “bug” still bites me today.
It was my grandmother, actually, who got me going again, when in 2005 she leased a Jetta. Naturally, the same VW sense of one-uppance ran through the car: most small cars have four speeds, but this one had six. Most small cars have four cylinders, but this one has five. Most small cars are built to be very light. This one is built like a tank. It’s all very…German.
And the thing went like stink.
For those of you who don’t know what “torque” is, it’s basically this: when you push the gas pedal in your car and your back is smushed into the seatback, you’re experiencing torque. Well, the Jetta had lots and lots of it. I drove it back to Pennsylvania once and the car was brilliant- it just loved to go everywhere fast. It blasted through Connecticut (the worst driving state on the east coast), the twisty-roaded National Park I accidentally detoured through, and the curvy roads around my house. By the time I returned to MA I had suffered more than my fair share of dirty looks in my hometown for speeding.
So when my grandmother decided to lease a new Jetta (in the same color, mind you), I was elated- when VW fixes things, they fix them very well, and VW had had three years to make the compact sedan better. So when I had the chance to take it for a spin down the Mass Pike and into Logan Airport, I was excited. I strapped in, pulled out onto the street, and pushed the pedal.
And nothing happened.
Remember that “torque” thing I talked about earlier? The old Jetta had so much when you accelerated from a stop that once, while on a liquor run with my father, I managed to get some serious wheelspin. The thing used to thunder forward and now… nothing. It just takes ages to get moving. Drive like you know what you’re doing (using the “manual” mode and starting not in first but in second), and it’s even slower.
So what gives, you ask? A German car company just committed regime change, that’s what.
In the old car, anyone could drive like they were competing at Le Mans, and it was simple: push the pedal a little bit, look at the speedo, and bam- you’re driving through a town at twice the speed limit.
Now, it’s still got enough power to get you from point A to point B quickly, but its lack of low-end grunt means you sound like a boy racer when you do gas it. You’ll find yourself, then, looking at the speedo and realizing that no, in fact, you’re not speeding much at all. VW just turned an unintentional sports car into a glorified grocery getter. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Volkswagen just kicked corruption out.
And a German car company just subtly told someone to slow down. A GERMAN car company.
EDIT (May 5): I checked with Edmunds, and the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta is actually faster than the 2006 version, by 20 horsepower and somewhere near a second in the 0-60 time. But with 7 fewer torques (available 1,000 revs later), it explains the lack of muscle-y feel. Nerd moment… over.
.Comm Ave News is now “C Line News,” serving the people of Brookline (I’ve changed Journalism Classes). It’s still available at www.bentimmins.com/news, so stay tuned for another semester of articles!
BOSTON–Jack is an Actor, Kurt is a singer, and Christian is a designer. What do all of these men have in common? They are all characters on popular television shows, and they have all drawn ire for being “too gay.”
An ever-changing television atmosphere and a broadcast set eager to target new niches have introduced many new gay faces to TV, but critics have been quick to decry what they see as damaging, stereotypical characters.
What has transpired with the recent success of TV shows such as FOX’s Glee and Lifetime’s “Project Runway” is a conflict between activists in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (or LGBT community), with one side pushing for more gay characters on television, with others pushing for TV’s existing gay characters to more accurately portray real life.
Yet this issue is not old: the arguments that surfaced as Kurt from “Glee” came out on national television closely follow the arguments in the 1990’s when “Will and Grace” polarized audiences by showing Jack, the flamboyant, effeminate gay actor next to Will, the toned-down gay lawyer.
“I think that there has been representation of gay people in a non-hyper-effeminate form: Will [from ‘Will and Grace’] is not as effeminate as Jack is,” said Tyler Sit, a Chapel Associate in charge of LGBT Ministry at Boston University’s Marsh Chapel. “The thing about ‘Glee’ is, it’s okay for Kurt to be gay, but I would have liked to see someone else—like the black football player—be gay as well.”
“Glee’s” status as lightning rod for LGBT issues was cemented last month in a Newsweek editorial by Ramin Setoodeh, who questioned whether Kurt, a flamboyant gay character on FOX’s hit show “Glee,” was hurting the movement for marriage equality.
“In one episode, the glee club split into a boys’ team and a girls’ team. Guess which side Kurt went for?” he said. “If Kurt were transgendered, all that would make perfect sense, but he’s not. Instead, he’s that oldest of clichés: the sensitive gay boy who really wants to be a girl.”
“If we accept that ‘Will and Grace’…once fostered acceptance, it’s fair to ask if Glee may be hurting it,” Setoodeh added, “because the Kurt model is everywhere.”
Sarah Hall, a Sophomore at the Boston University College of Arts and Sciences, said that while the stereotype was alive and well, it is not actually damaging. “A lot of the gay people on TV are endearing but they do promote the stereotype a lot,” she said. “So many gay people are not that stereotype at all, and it gives them an inaccurate representation.”
“In an idealized world, there would be less stereotyping and more actual reality,” she said.
Andy Cohen, Executive Vice President of Original Programming at Bravo TV, said he was ambivalent about the style of gay characters on television, as long as the proportions were in line. “I think that the more gays there are on TV the better it is for all of us,” he said, “[and] I don’t think it matters whether they’re effeminate or what they act like, what their mannerisms are, it matters what people they are.”
Deborah Jaramillo, Professor of Television Studies at the Boston University School of Communication, said that what televisions most famous gay characters have in common is that they are upper middle class and educated—itself the cause of why many are accepted.
“I think that one of the reasons that the LGBT community is actually becoming better represented on television is because…we’re seeing white, upwardly mobile, middle and upper-class folks,” she said. “When you have that it makes everything more acceptable.”
“The more money you have, the more acceptable you are,” she added.
While discussing negative stereotypes of LGBT people on television, Cohen said gays are not the only minority to experience negative stereotyping at the hands of television.
Cohen alluded to the evolution of black characters: “I think the first representations of black people were white people’s caricatures of what they thought black people were or should be on TV,” he said. “And I think that’s what the first gay characters were drawn out to.”
“I think the representation of every minority group is way out of whack,” Cohen said, “and gays are probably one of them.”
The sparring over accurately portraying gays on TV comes at a time where the role of the American homosexual is undergoing change. LGBT citizens looking for acceptance and equality post-Proposition 8 (the California ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage) are striving to put a positive image forward in the hopes of swaying negative public opinion.
Andrew Hoffman, a Sophomore Media Arts Major at Temple University in Philadelphia, was optimistic at television’s chances of achieving this goal. “If [television] is powerful enough to hurt with negative images and negative portrayal, then it certainly can help.”
Hall agreed. “If somebody sees something on TV they’re more likely to accept it as opposed to thinking it’s alien,” she said. “If they’re first acclimated to it through television, they’re more likely to be accepting—at least they’ve seen it somewhere.”
Jaramillo said, however, that the fight for acceptance by the general public should not lead to normalization—homogenization is not, and should not be, the cause. “In terms of making a type of person normal, I have issues with whether or not that should be the function of television, to normalize people,” she said. “Is that really the mission?”
Jaramillo cited Elle Shohat’s 1994 book “Unthinking Eurocentrism” in saying that the entire issue of gay representation exposes rifts between cultural minorities and majorities. “There’s this idea that when white folks are in film or on television they can be anything, they can represent anything, and it doesn’t reflect back on the white community,” she said. “If you see a negative portrayal of an African-American in film or on television, that almost automatically reflects back on the higher, black community.”
Whether or not the portrayal of gays on television is accurate, Cohen said, the atmosphere on television has vastly changed in the last twenty years. “When I started in TV in 1990 there was, I think, The Real World was one of the few shows that had gay people on it,” he said. “The gay representation on TV has really exploded and I think that ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ was a huge show…I think ‘Will and Grace’ was huge, and I think that there are just so many more gay people on TV. It’s just secondhand, the idea [of a gay person on television]. It’s not a big deal.”
I think I’ve developed a sleep problem.
I think too much before bed, and the thinking isn’t even good. While 13-year-old boys dream of boobies (or high heels) all I can seem to think about lately is politics.
But one night, while lying in bed trying to compare the “Tea Partiers” to the cast of MTV’s “Jersey Shore”, I figured something out. By now you should know the drill: it’s about to get wonky in here.
Business: it’s a large and complicated world, but it wasn’t always this way–in fact, when I want to think about business, I usually think about an old, western small town (think Did You Hear About the Morgans?).
The town has a general store, a bank, a doctor’s office, and a gas station, all businesses owned by middle-class men your family has known forever. Despite the fact that there isn’t any competition on most items, you can trust that the men setting the prices are keeping them low.
The bank is very simple: the money that you give the teller goes into a vault. As the banker tells you, your money doesn’t stay in the vault long: it’s lent to other people, but because the bank collects interest on loans, some of that profit goes to you as a thank you for letting the bank manage your money. If the bank gets held up (this is the Wild Wild West, remember?), your bank is insured and your money is safe.
The doctor’s office is next to the insurance office, and the two work closely. When you have insurance you pay the insurer money–more or less based on what the insurer thinks he may have to pay on your behalf one day. If you’re sick, money from that insurance plan goes to pay your bills. The insurer and the doctor work together to make sure that the doctor makes enough money off of procedures, but not so much that the insurer goes bust.
If another gas station opens up across town, the two stations will compete: they’ll independently work to attract and keep customers by keeping prices low. If another general store opens up, the same thing will happen.
What you’re picturing at this point is beautiful–it’s 1950’s America without the civil rights problem. There’s just one problem: it’s a HUGE anachronism.
Today the issue with banking and healthcare reform is that free-market conservatives seem to think that the big business is perpetually stuck in the 1950’s, and the liberals intent on reforming these processes (because they’re not so simple anymore) are trying to curb profit in a capitalist society, whether intentionally or not.
So how do we solve it? Well, first we stop partying like it’s 1949.
What conservatives hell-bent on making sure that “the government isn’t running the banks” and that “there’s no-one getting between you and your doctor” are missing is that these sectors aren’t that simple any more. Conglomerates have replaced our simple banks–the same bank that holds your life savings also controls your retirement, your stock portfolio, and the APR on your credit card. Banks don’t make money anymore just on loans, either: our system collapsed in 2008 at the hand of Credit Default Swaps, which has been unmasked as a commodity that doesn’t really exist.
It’s not much better in Healthcare: my doctor spends about a third of his revenue paying someone to deal with insurance companies. My doctor’s no longer mixing tonics in the backroom, either: he’s dealing with generic drugs, clinical trials, and lots of other numbers when deciding what to write on his prescription pad.
What both sides of the issue (especially Liberals) must also realize is that healthcare, while once something that was pretty simply bought and sold, is no longer a commodity. When a second gas station moves into our mythical town, prices will go down because there’s increased competition, but thanks to an intricate system of purchasing healthcare, an appendectomy isn’t the same as gasoline. It’s for this reason that I believe the Democratic Party’s Public Option may not be the best idea…but neither is the Republican idea to allow people to negotiate for insurance plans across state lines.
Ultimately, the greatest reforms to come out of Washington will be the ones that do just that: reform. We can no longer think of our businesses like we did in the 50’s—banks as vaults and insurance companies as sugar daddies—but must also combat the problems of the 10’s: banks bent on trading items that don’t exist and healthcare companies that pursue profit over actual health.
And for God’s sake, stop clamoring for America to be “like it used to be.”
So what is marketing, you ask? Well, it’s like advertising but with more numbers and less Photoshop. In other words: it’s like advertising, only worse.
As you could probably infer from the fact that marketing people adore saying things like “strategic implementation” and “unique availability niche market share”, they’re kind of boring. But, nevertheless, they’re responsible for most of the products we buy, so we have to stick by them.
So imagine yourself, for a minute, as a marketer, and then ask yourself this: what happens when either a) someone else comes up with a good idea or b) you don’t have any good ideas? It’s simple: you copy. The more copies (or “unique niche market competitors”) that are made, the bigger “market” there is.
So how does this apply to music? Ask yourself that marketing man question again, but now apply it to music. What happens when you don’t have fresh ideas? Well, you copy.
Sometimes, it works: Miley Cyrus stole the “market share” of cute tween singers who wanted television shows, but then Disney added new “market players” in Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, and the Jonas Brothers. Aside from the fact that most of the music these people makes is physically hurtful, Disney makes a lot of money off of them.
But what does it look like when it doesn’t work so well? Well, my friends, you get Owl City.
Owl City, for starters, is actually a guy who made some music in his parent’s basement and stuck it on MySpace. His music is so computerized it would make T-Pain blush, but it’s so warm and fuzzy it makes cold-hearted people stop for a minute and smile. His debut album “Ocean Eyes” is a hit: even I covered it, calling it “expansive” and “beautiful.”
Almost immediately, the haters come out of the woodwork, and point to Owl City as “a copy of Postal Service.” Naturally, I take it as just another snarky comment from indie hipsters who can only hate pop music because it’s “the establishment”. Check out The Postal Service for yourself on iTunes.
But then the lead singer of Owl City fields a question during an interview with Entertainment Weekly about how his music sounds like TPS, and he says this:
I think [Give Up, TPS' last album] left everyone asking, “What are they going to do next?” Since no one has done anything quite like it, it’s almost like everyone is naturally saying [Owl City's 'Ocean Eyes'] is the next step — maybe that’s me, maybe that’s this record.
So what does it all mean?
It means this: Owl City is filling an “empty niche market.” Hollywood thought the world needed some cute, sappy/emotional electro-alt-pop, The Postal Service was busy, so Owl City stepped in and stole the market. If this is all starting to sound less like a CD and more like a business meeting, that’s because it is.
Owl City’s music is alright, but it begins to sour once the honeymoon period of catchy hooks and “expansive sound” is gone, and it gets worse when you compare it to the original. But the biggest letdown is this: music has been a part of big business for as long as any of us can remember, but we tolerate it because, for the most part, we don’t have to think of it that way—because board meetings and “strategic planning committees” have nothing on the thrill and excitement of good music.
When the music starts to sour, though, we return to lamenting big business. And Owl City, unfortunately, soured a bit too soon.
This week Ben is listening to Joshua Radin’s “Simple Times” album, which he bought because it was on sale on iTunes, and because he knows deep down that it was green-lighted because he was pitched to the label as “a folkier Jack Johnson”. But none of that business-sense matters for the simple reason that the album is actually good.
Hey guys, I guest blogged this week on “Redefining Faith Together”, the official blog of the LGBTQ Ministry at BU’s Marsh Chapel. Check their site out by going here.
___________________
Gay people, think for a moment about a long-term relationship. Now, think about all the wonderful things you can look forward to with that relationship:
But think of it this way: at least it isn’t illegal to be gay here!
That kind of mentality- that LGBTQ people in the United States aren’t breaking the law by being who they are but are left behind by the law when they decide to commit to marriage, is exactly the kind of thinking that warrants the phrase “One step forward, two steps back.” It’s a good bit of luck, then, that it was also the name of the last OUTlook lecture hosted by the LGBTQ Ministry, which featured the legal opinions of (happily married) BU LAW professor Dr. Robert Volk.
The talk couldn’t have come at a better (or worse) time. Just 48 hours before Dr. Volk took the podium at the School of Education auditorium, the voters of Maine had narrowly passed Question One, which nullified the Maine Legislature’s 2009 bill that allowed Maine to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Maine became the the second state in two years to grant the right to marry to same-sex couples, only to have that right rescinded by a ballot initiative. The event, originally called “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back”, was renamed the day before the event to reflect the mood: Iowa was now the only state in the win column for Equality this year.
The win stunned people who thought that 2009 could be “the year” for same-sex marriage, especially after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as civil-union bills around the country. It shocked the LGBT community, the Maine residents who thought the northern state was beyond discrimination. It even stunned super-pollster and incredible predictor Nate Silver.
But the win for same-sex marriage foes in Maine’s biggest feat? It illustrated to the LGBTQ community something that we long feared: that, on multiple occasions, something we see as a right (enumerated by state legislatures or supreme courts) has been rescinded, locked away, or neutered by the will of a voter’s majority.
It’s also something that differed greatly from the earlier losses for same-sex marriage. In 2004, in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples could be married because it would be unconstitutional to deny them that right, states across the US (stocked with what Dr. Volk called ‘vibrating conservatives’) moved to change their constitutions, pass laws, anything to stop same-sex marriage entering their borders. But in all of these cases, voters were charged with preventing something that hadn’t happened- denying same-sex couples the right to marry in, say, Kentucky, wasn’t a big deal–gays were never really allowed to marry.
But with the big win for Proposition 8 in California, the new precedent was set: the California Supreme Court had ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional, and the voters–en masse–registered their disagreement. Couples who were given the right to marry in California, among them Talk Show Television’s first gay couple (Oprah/Gayle conspiracy theorists, stick with me on this one) Portia de Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres, and then had that right removed.
It’s all very…sad.
Not only was it sad, Dr. Volk said, but probably not right, either. Volk devoted a bulk of his opinion to the Prop 8 decision’s ethics, coming to the conclusion that if marriage is a civil right (and LGBT people generally do hold it to be one), it is not the job of the majority to decide the civil rights of the minority. Citing cases like Brown vs. Board of Education in the Supreme Court and bills like the Civil Rights Act in the Congress, the majority of people (many of whom did not support either outcome) had no say in the rights of the minority.
But the precedent is still there, and the support will probably stay there for some time: popular support for same-sex marriage closely tracks age, and because of this it will take time for a true majority of equality-supportive Americans exists. As Professor Volk said, “some people just need to die off.” Want your grandparents and your husband/wife of the same gender? Survey results and simple math say that might be difficult.
But this all leaves us with one big question: is there hope? To answer that, take a minute and look at where you are right now.
As you sit and read this, thirty states have constitutions prohibiting same-sex marriage. The National Organization for marriage, headed by Maggie Gallagher and her conservative-christian-”flapper” haircut, is claiming victories for “traditional marriage” in California and Maine. Carrie Prejean, the beauty queen who told gossip-blogger Perez Hilton that she “only believed in opposite marriage”? Yeah, she threw a temper tantrum on national television this week, and she’s going to make lots of money off of it.
Before you reach for the Ben & Jerry’s and turn up the Sara Bareilles, though, think a little bit more. Five states in the union grant same-sex couples marriage licenses. 14 of them protect students from bullying based on perceived sexual orientation, and you can’t be fired from your job for being (or looking) gay in 20 states. Perez Hilton, the world’s most flambuoyant–and odious–homosexual, hasn’t been killed for being gay. Neither has Kurt from ‘Glee’.
It’s taken us 40 years to go from getting beaten up in bars to being out in the workplace, taking public office, and getting married in some (possibly un-american) states. As the Broadway musical Hairspray (you didn’t think this column wouldn’t talk about Broadway, did you?) would tell us, “We’ve come so far, but we’ve got so far to go.”
Where has the little victories been for so long? You say. Why aren’t you blogging more? You say. Well, this stuff ain’t easy, I say.
In order to stay sane and still not leave my blogging duties behind, I’ve decided to blog today, by microblogging.
All of the “posts” today are 140 characters or less. Or “140 characters or fewer” if you teach English. Or have no life.
So: New Music Tuesdays. Ryan Leslie’s “Transition?” Win. Wale’s “Attention Deficit?” Win. Lady Gaga’s leaked “The Fame Monster?” Win.
But Music Tuesdays isn’t just about new stuff, so let’s dig deeper and find one of my favorite things about albums: their first songs.
The first song of an album is its “opener,” its lead-off hit. It has to set the mood of the album. Many artists don’t do this.
But one artist stands out as having the best opener I’ve heard all year: Death Cab For Cutie’s “Narrow Stairs” album.
Seriously? Best opening two songs I’ve heard in a long, long time.
“Bixby Canyon Bridge” and “I Will Possess Your Heart” together is like… I don’t know, Beyoncé and Lady GaGa together.
Speaking of which, they did combine for not one but TWO songs this month. It’s pretty much a homo’s dream come true.
But TLV isn’t just about music, it’s about opinion, and it’s about politics. And…well, not that much happened this week.
That’s a complete lie… “Going Rogue” by Sarah Palin came out! And according to the AP, it wasn’t well fact-checked!
But enough about that- my big thing this week is how people who kill gays can claim the “gay panic” defense.
Listen, I was once sort of hit on by a girl. But I didn’t kill her- in fact, we’re still friends today. Actually, this happened three times.
So if I hit on someone that looks gay, can he kill me because my advances were panic-worthy?
Is it even possible to talk game good enough that someone will actually kill you to reject your advances? I’m certainly not.
But I guess you’d have to do SOMETHING in order to look manly after a queen basically tells you you look like a homo.
But killing someone? Really? Couldn’t you just chug a Foster’s beer and then crush the can against your skull?
Ooh, or do shots of Jager off of a hot chick and then yell “brah” at everyone! That’s manly! Or so I hear.
But my sympathies to the fallen and to those who think claiming “gay panic” in 2009 isn’t patently ridiculous.
I’ll also be back next week with some more actual stuff. I just have to, um, have ambition and drive to write.
I also have a new idea called PointCounterPoint where I write two columns that present both sides of an issue. I’m positive that would be co
Characters were counted by http://www.lettercount.com, and the idea for that last post was stolen from Neil Patrick Harris.
Remember the 18th century? Americans running around, busting caps in Redcoat asses, throwing tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes, and generally being an ingrown toenail to the manicured foot that was Colonial Britain?
That was AWESOME.
Listen, though: we’ve lost our edge. Look at America today: once the the rum-swilling, tar-and-feathering capital of the world, we’ve gone all…soft. Sure, our airwaves are filled with morons calling political candidates zoophiles, but we’ve come a long way from inciting bloody riots (well, kind of a long way). The last time physical fighting broke out on the Senate floor was 153 years ago, and aside from that whole “people who like the public option are GOING TO HELL” contingent, it’s pretty benign.
At the risk of agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, everything’s too politically correct in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. And (thanks, Rush, for this one): it’s HURTING AMERICA.
But the difference between Rush and I (aside from the fact that I hate OxyCodone) is that we share the same belief for two completely different reasons. Rush, ostensibly, thinks that we should all return to the 1950’s, when we all lived like “Leave it to Beaver” in unabashed prosperity (which made up for the fact that we regularly used words like “dirty wop”). I, on the other hand, think that political correctness is hurting America because–are you ready for this?–it’s being used to hurt the Gays.
Buckle up, readers: it’s about to get wonky in here.
The year is 2004, the place is the Supreme Court. The case was Elk Grove vs. Newdow, better known as “the case that decided whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance should say ‘under God’ or not.” An atheist father is fed up with the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “under God” and says it infringes on his daughter’s right to be an atheist, so he takes his case to court.
Now, the case was actually decided on a technicality and the constitutionality was never considered, but that doesn’t matter. Well, not as much as the case’s precedent.
The case’s underlying raison d’être is as follows: I have the right to free speech, and the government has the right to create institutions like the Pledge of Allegiance, but my right to dissent these institutions means I can fight to kill them. The fact that the Pledge of Allegiance exists infringes on my right to dissent it, so it needs to go.
And then things start sliding downhill.
It’s now 2008, and a bunch of conservative Christians get a question on the ballot to kill same-sex marriage in California, and the push to outlaw gay marriage in the late Harvey Milk’s home state has proved to be an uphill battle.
Up steps a dark-haired woman named Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, who has an idea: we’re not going to make Proposition 8 about Gays, we’re going to make it about…straight people.
Cue the ads, banners, and rallies: “Gay people aren’t happy with just being gay in private, or loving each other behind closed doors and with little pieces of commitment paper, they want to get married. And I don’t want them to get married. Them getting married infringes on my right to dissent their marriage. And if gay marriage is codified and I can’t dissent them, that infringes on my first amendment rights.” The “gathering storm” television ad hits YouTube, Californians vote, and gay marriage is finito.
On Tuesday Maine recalled its legislature’s decision to allow same-sex couples to marry, in a defeat that has already been called “the next big loss” for LGBT people in America. Blame has already been pointed for the loss, and the catchphrases have already flown. David Mixner yesterday even called Question 1’s passage “gay apartheid.” (I’ve seen apartheid, sweetie. First hand. On the ground. This is not apartheid.)
But what everyone’s missing (if the past 650 words is actually correct) is that we are sleeping in the bed we made. The tables have been turned, and the system that gave us Hate Crimes legislation and pushed our teachers to stop High Schoolers from using the word “faggot” has been commandeered by people who think that right to dissent same-sex marriage and sabotage it are the same thing.
So how do we fix it? Well, that’s easy—small government. The system that gave us free-market economics and laissez faire can be bastardized the same way. Tell the government—in no uncertain terms—to get out of marriage, and out of our bedrooms. And then, um, get married.
See, Maggie? Not everyone thinks you’re dumb. Just remember: two can play this game.
Don't expect perfection, cohesiveness, or a lack of attitude. This isn't the Christian Science Monitor.
Ben Timmins, a Junior at Boston University majoring in Magazine Journalism and minoring in English, loves the idea of "thinking outside the box" so much he devoted an entire website to it- THE LITTLE VICTORIES.
Inside, anything is game: cars, music, politics, culture, technology, and relationship advice (no, not really), it's here.
If you have questions, comments, or ideas for future posts, send me an email at ben@bentimmins.com, or if you can't remember that address, then look me up on "The Googles." That usually works.
Powered by Twitter Tools