I've Lost Half the Year and Half of My Mind (Duh Duh Duuuuuh...)

Whoa. Remember way back in January when I said I was taking time off from blogging but I'd still check in every once in a while with updates, thoughts, etc. Yeah, now it's...August. How did that happen? Where did this year go? All these questions are making me feel stoned.

Anyway, I caught a commercial the other day for Bonnie Hunt's upcoming talk show, shockingly titled "The Bonnie Hunt Show." How much do I love her? This is a perfect idea as Hunt is as funny, sarcastic and down-to-earth as when she's talking to David Letterman or little kids. Who knows how long this show will last but just seeing this commercial made me start compiling a list of other things I'm excited about right now. Other things such as:

- The new music video for "Warcwick Ave." by Duffy, a beautiful song sung by a new, up and coming singer with a great voice. The video is so simple and so touching in its lack of polish. It's light years above the generic singing-to-a-crowd video for her first single, the great "Mercy," so hopefully her record company realizes Duffy deserves a little something more.

- Out magazine's article, "Has Manhunt Destroyed Gay Culture?" In exploring not only why Manhunt.com, the most popular gay male website for, uh, "connecting," has gotten so popular, but what it has taken away from gay culture, writer Michael Joseph Gross has written a surprisingly compelling argument for logging off instead of getting off. Even more, the news that one of Manhunt's founders, Jonathan Crutchley, has donated thousands of dollars to anti-gay Republican presidential nominee John McCain has ignited such fury from Manhunt's subscribers that he's been forced to resign as Chairman. Granted, he'll still be raking in millions and probably still donate it to McCain, but in this age of Web 2.0, it's an inspiring reminder for writers like myself of the power of print journalism.

- The fact that "Project Runway" has finally gotten better. Season 5 has seriously been lacking with the challenges (recycling the grocery store challenge was fine, but then recycling the take-a-photo-in-NY-and-use-as-inspiration challenge? That wasn't even very exciting the first time!) and with talent (no one has really stepped out as a consistent bad-ass designer the way Kara Saun or Michael Knight did in their respective seasons). But when they had to design a day-and-night business outfit for Brooke Shields to wear on her nighttime drama "Lipstick Jungle," the results were exactly as they should be. The top 2 contenders were surprisingly great and the bottom two were heinous and laughable. The best of both worlds!

- Pineapple salsa. It's sitting in my fridge, right now, waiting to be piled on top of grilled jerk chicken for dinner tonight. Just sitting there, with its cucumber and mint and lime, calling my name, whispering, "Donny...Donny, you know you want to eat me...come on...there's plenty extra...I'm so sweet and crunchy...Just scoop me up in a spoon and eat me. Spoon me, Donny, spooooon meeeee." Ok, that just got weird. But whatevs. Between that and the quarter of a watermelon that I ate by myself a few weeks ago and the margarita that I had with ravioli - yes, ravioli! - when the in-laws visited, I'm loving summertime food. I just need some grilled corn and I'll be all set. I wonder if pineapple salsa tastes good on ravioli?

- Jamie Lidell. Love him. If you haven't heard of him, watch this. Or this. Or just go buy his albums Multiply and Jim because his brand of neo-soul pop is infectious.

- St. Joseph, MI. I'm heading there for 10 days in September. Not only is the train ride under two hours and a fraction of the cost of a plane ticket to anywhere, I found a great deal at a nice hotel that's downtown and right by the beach. It's close, it's cheap, it's beautiful, and my sweetie will be joining me for the second weekend for our first and only vacation this whole year. Thank you, staycation!



I'm sure there's more but that's what's occupying my time right now. Summer's almost done so I'm just hoping to make the most of it. And hopefully it won't be summer 2009 before I blog again, but knowing me, that's not out of the question.

Mag Hag Reviews the News

I'm such a follower of magazines that I could assemble a fort with all the piles around my apartment. Maybe I have already, but that's not the point. The point is that I kind of ignore them until I'm between books and then I go through my "magazine purge" to catch up. So I just thought I'd summarize some of the best and worst articles, issues and stories that have finally landed in my hands in the past few weeks.

The Advocate - September issue: Hey, did you know that Every. Single. Homosexual. in America is already planning on voting for Hilary Clinton? You didn't? Really? Me neither, until I read this cover story on The Hils. (Get it? Like "The Hills" but with less bleach!) I really wish someone would warn me what my peeps are planning for my future so I don't get my membership card revoked when I accidentally think for myself. I also wasn't aware that signing on for this whole "gay" thing included pre-determined presidential candidates. Sorry, Obama! See ya, Edwards! Nice knowing you...um...other guys! I can't wait for the mag to tell me what else is in my future: the jobs I'll choose, the cars I'll buy, the turkey I'll eat (well, that one will be true in like 3 days). It's so comforting to know that my glossy-paged future will show up on my doorstep twice a month.

Time - 10/15 issue: Great. Just as my love for yoga blossomed this past summer like a lotus flower in spandex, I find out from this Time article that 50 minutes of yoga burns as many calories as a 50 minute walk, or less than are in three Oreos. I wasn't getting into it because I thought it was the best cardiovascular exercise (like, say, checking on my Trader Joe's gingerbread spice cake in the oven - up! down! up! down!), but this is still disappointing.

Details - October issue: Hey, did you know that Brad Pitt has, like, four kids? Which makes him a dad?!?! Luckily, Details illuminates the mystery that is Lé Pitt with a full two-page profile that also includes such nuggets of trivia as: he has a new movie! He's "partners" with Angelina Jolie! He's a worldly do-gooder! Although I will say in their favor, since they're profiling probably the most photographed man on Earth, photographers have to become more creative in what they do with him (not that you can tell by the waxy cover shot, but whatevs). Lé Pitt has a huge spread where he's saturated, inverted, negative-d, overlapped and more. It doesn't quite top his Rolling Stone-cover-in-a-skirt from a few years back, but it shows effort, however schizophrenic it actually appears.

Also, I never quite understood their whole "Gay or _______" feature on the last page of every issue. Is it satirizing how much gay culture has seeped into the mainstream? Or the two were blurred to begin with? Well, apparently, I won't have to worry about that anymore. Details is quitting the four-year-old feature like an inconveniently misbehaved orphan.

The Economist - 11/3 issue: Holy shit! Did you know that there are 218 million laborers worldwide who are under the age of 14? I was kind of skimming through the cover story about religion when I came across a column about Gap and how the retailer found out one its subcontractors was using child labor (more info here). 218 million. That's crazy. A positive twist, however: "Rather than simply cutting off factories employing children, Gap imposes and enlightened form of punishment: it requires suppliers to stop using child workers and to provide them with school instead, while continuing to pay them regularly and guaranteeing them a job once they reach the legal age." Wow. Even if it is just a PR move, that's pretty great. Too bad their clothes still kind of suck.

Jet - 10/22 issue: Jermaine Dupri wrote his new book, Young, Rich, and Dangerous: The Making of a Music Mogul, because, as he says, "No one is giving these young kids a book to read about something they love nowadays." Which is pretty cool and probably true considering how huge music is as a common reference between people. However, I don't really care about Dupri. I do care about the fact that he's dating Janet Jackson. Whenever anyone asks her about marrying her long-time boyfriend, she does her shy shrug thing and is all "if he wants to" or "if it's supposed to happen." But the article, unlike others, also mentions that if she does, she'll be a stepmother! No one brings that up! Dupri has a 9-year-old daughter. Can you imagine Janet as a stepmother? That poor girl will need earplugs to sleep through Janet and Jermaine's sex-a-thons. And the eating habits she'll pick up? One day it will be waffles and ice cream, the next a single lettuce leaf. It's a good thing she's cute.

Out - November issue: Out has this kind of great article about how aging gay authors, after chronicling the post-Stonewall life, now tackle something many of them only hoped to experience after watching many of the friends succumb to AIDS: aging. It's interesting to see how writers from Andrew White to Felice Picano address the issue differently.

However, the article then kind of address the so-called ageism of gay culture. White complains that while aging straight guys like Hugh Hefner are surrounded by young, beautiful women, the same can't be said for Gore Vidal. I'm kind of over this argument. Hefner is an exception. Yes, there might be more May-December romances between straight older men and younger women but so what? For the most part, most twenty-something women are not attracted to sixty-something men, and if they are, it's not always for the most heart-tugging reasons. Relationships between young men and older women are even rarer, something proven by the necessity of the term "cougar." (It's such a novelty that our culture is only now getting around to nicknaming it.) Notice, too, he compares a porn king to an author. Is any elderly author, straight or gay, ever surrounded by scantily-clad groupies 24 hours a gay? If White wants to live with a gaggle of gym bunnies, then maybe he should start a porn mag like Hefner did.

But it's the hypocrisy behind White's statements (he's comphttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.giflained in other articles, too) that really bug me. As a 67-year-old man, he wants the attention of twenty-something men in bars because they're the most sexually attractive, right? So, if he thinks they're the most attractive, wouldn't they also find other twenty-something men the most attractive and not, say, sixty-something men? I mean, if White isn't even attracted to men his own age, why should I be? The kicker is that White does have a partner...twenty-five years his junior. Something tells me that if his aging isn't exactly graceful, it should at least be grateful.

There's so much more, but those are the facts and follies that caught my attention. Until next time, mag hag out! (Aaaand gross. I need a new sign-off.)

Also check out: 3 Reasons Why I Love Kelly Clarkson.
And: Why I Love The Onion.

3 Reasons Why I Love Kelly Clarkson

From her recent interview in Blender:

1) On Jesus: "I frickin' love him! He's done a lot of cool things for me."

2) On meeting Clive Davis over her new record her reportedly hated: "I was like, I don't know you very well, and I am not a bullshitter. I get you don't like the album. You're 80; you're not supposed to like my album."

3) On hooking up: "I just don't make out with people. That's a waste of my kisses and time. And it's so personal: It's, like, my face. Plus, I'm afraid of mouth herpes."

Besides cracking me up in a magazine interview, which basically never happens, she comes off as a tough 25-year-old who stuck to her guns when an entire record company was telling her to cave. In a nutshell, she wanted to write everything on her new record, they wanted her to have outside help. What kind of help did they suggest? Turns out Davis sent her a song called "Black Hole," a song that already appeared on a Lindsay Lohan album. Oh, and no one told her. Could they have been more disrespectful?

I haven't heard her new album, My December, but I feel the need to give it a chance after reading about all she went through to get it released the way she wanted - and she did get it released the way she wanted. And how cool is it to see a young, successful, female pop culture obsession be defiant and rebellious without resorting to appearing in trashy outfits and getting busted for DUIs? (And how lame is it that that needs to be pointed out as a measure of her non-lameness?)

Plus, she's already working on her next album which she describes as "country-blues" influenced by Patty Griffin, Ryan Adams and the Rolling Stones. I'm already in line.

So that's more than 3 reasons, but whatever. Our little American Idol is all grows up!

Also check out: D-List Divas: Mandy Moore and Paula Cole.
And: Feist Feels it All. A Lot.

What Time Left Behind

Time magazine's cover story on No Child Left Behind is a much-needed evaluation of a controversial, complicated law. I mean, their first example is a school where, before the law was enacted, only 13% of fifth- and eighth-graders could read at grade level or above. Now that number is 36%. That's like a difference of...um...well, it's a big difference.

I've never read the actual document because it's, oh, 1,100 pages, so I'm only as familiar with the law as I am with the criticisms of it. (I'm barely getting through The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, and that's only because I have to for my book club.) This article helped put the statute in perspective. The purpose of the law was to expose failing schools and hold them accountable. And, according to Time, it's done just that.

It's almost everywhere else that the law has underperformed.

Raising student achievement? "Though some districts are reporting significant gains, results on national math and reading tests are mostly flat - so far." (Which is only kind of true - their own graphs show gains in math for fifth- and eighth-graders.)

Measuring school improvement? "The law's reliance on a single,pass-fail system for assessing 'adequate yearly progress' is one of its weakest points." In other words, every school has to reach a standardized plane of grade-level reading. So even kids who make significant gains but don't reach that plane are considered failures.

Raising standards for teachers? "NCLB is the first federal statute to require that teachers actually know the subjects they teach, though there are still some loopholes." Time gave NCLB a mixed review for what it expects of teachers, and teachers have some problems with NCLB. 30,000 educators (and concerned citizens) have signed an online petition against the statute.*

Helping schools improve? "Even the department of Education concedes that its remedies for chronic school failure are not working." Ouch. None of the remedies, which include tutoring and transferring students to non-failing schools, "have any basis in reality or research," says one research professor of education at NYU. Ooh, snap.

The part I was most interested in reading about was how NCLB's intense focus on standardized testing for math and reading leaves other subjects overlooked. With so much time dedicated to taking tests (a skill some smart children aren't good at, to begin with), the article explains how science and social studies have suffered.

I was surprised that the authors left it at that. While those are undoubtedly essential subjects, I was expecting them to then explore the lack of art, music and physical education in our grade schools. Granted, their suggestions for NCLB's improvement include schools providing more information about "achievement in the arts" but the suggestion seems half-assed. What about the effects on students' morale, engagement and, indeed, performance in other subjects due to the dwindling focus on art and music? There have been studies done (they're what VH1's entire "Save the Music" foundation is based on), so why weren't they even briefly referenced?

Even more blatant is overlooking the consequences of diminishing physical education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (the same source for many of Time's figures), only 17-22% of elementary schools provided daily physical education in 2005. This is extremely important because childhood obesity seems to be growing as fast as a third-grader's waistband. (Seriously, has anyone at Time ever seen those overweight kids on Maury Povich? They eat grilled cheese sandwiches the way others eat french fries) Yes, there are other contributing factors, such as eating habits and extra-curricular activities. But do they think recess makes up for no gym class? Are they thinking about this at all?

Almost 1 in every 3 kids is overweight or at the risk of becoming overweight. It's a greasy, oily, deep-fried downward spiral from there. The huge increase in rates of childhood obesity has led to increased rates of childhood diabetes, so much so that "adult-onset diabetese" has changed names to just "type 2 diabetese" since so many kids have it now. Along with increased blood pressure and stress, today's children are on the road to lifelong health problems. And according to the American Heart Association in 2006, the direct national cost of treating obesity-related diseases are already estimated at $61 billion. That number could go up and up as these overweight children turn into overweight adults. Of course, this problem began before NCLB, but that program's intense emphasis on standardized testing has exacerbated it.

I just couldn't believe Time didn't even touch on this subject. Granted, it's already a long article (almost as long as this post), but still. If it's going to be a comprehensive evaluation of the program, negative side effects should be mentioned, if not thoroughly explored.

Time's final grade for No Child Left Behind? C.

My final grade for Time's article? B.

*Updated - Thanks to input from Philip, this part was modified as the original phrasing may have contained misleading implications regarding the motivations behind the teacher's petition.

Also check out: The Top 10 Lists of Top 10 Lists.
And: Cheney Trumps New Orleans?

Why I Love The Onion

Because of articles like this:

"Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does"

My favorite part? Where they rip on Luna bars, the energy bars specifically for women:

'Unlike traditional, phallocentric energy bars, whose chocolate, soy protein, nuts, and granola ignored the special health and nutritional needs of women, their new, female-oriented counterparts like Luna are ideally balanced with a more suitable amount of chocolate, soy protein, nuts, and granola,' Klein said. 'Proto-feminist pioneers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony could never have imagined that female empowerment would one day come in bar form.'

I don't find this hilarious because I have any problem with products championing women's health per se, but because I find Luna bars specifically to be hilarious. From their website:

"As women, we understand the importance of wholesome, natural foods to help energize and support you through your day and life."

Um, what? That's somehow attributed to XX chromosomes? So then, men who eat healthy are somehow blurring the gender lines? Gosh, now that bowl of quinoa I had last night feels so subversive. I guess that means my morning oatmeal is downright kinky! I don't consider myself androgynous, but apparently my meals are. I wonder if David Bowie ever eats tofu.

Also check out: Well, That's Better Than Oops! I Crapped My Spandex Shorts.
And: Pink vs. The Magazine Stars.

Random Thoughts: The Devil and Miss Stone, 300-Pack Abs, and Akon's Vibe

Some pop-culture-related nuggets that have been floating around in my head:

- Last summer I posted my positive review of The Devil Wears Prada to Blogcritics and got some feisty comments. “It’s not as good as the book!” “It glamorizes unhealthy female body image!” “There’s no conflict!” To which I say: no, yes and kind of. Now that I’ve rewatched it on DVD and also read the book, I still want to praise Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci. What Lauren Weisberger, the book’s young author, couldn’t understand was that her boss could be both a bitch and a brilliant woman who is incredibly good at her job. It is too bad that the heroine deems slimming down to a size 4 (from an elephantine size 6) as a major accomplishment, and yes, the boyfriend is lame (he’s an aspiring chef and he’s complaining about her schedule?), but overall, the film is still entertaining fluff.

- In the spirit of re-thinking, or amending past reviews: my love, or should I say my really like, for Janet Jackson’s 20 Y.O. has sufficiently waned to wonder what exactly is wrong with it. I know it’s underwhelming, and I know I’m tired of her obsession with sex, but what else is there? It didn’t hit me until I listened to the chorus of “Show Me” for the 800th time: “Show me, ‘cause actions speak louder than words.” No shit? I mean, she’s forty, and this is what she’s learned? A cliché that’s older than she is? Since the whole album is based on how she’s a forty-year-old woman who still looks/feels/acts like a twenty-year-old, I had to ask: should a forty-year-old want to think like a twenty-year-old? How is that a good thing? If it means trite “insights” like that, then guess what? It’s not.

- Why are songs that are about how inspiring music is so uninspiring themselves? I was reminded of this when listening to Joss Stone’s new CD and her song “Music.” It’s so laid-back it’s practically asleep. I mean, the song is fine, I guess, but if music is really so awesome then why is its tribute so comparatively boring? It reminded me of Leela James' "Music" (even these titles are boring) which I found equally odd – all about how amazing music is, yet so underwhelming itself. Which made me think about Lauryn Hill’s “Superstar” which at least had good lyrics but was still a mid-tempo chill-out that embodied her own accusations: “everything you drop is so tired.” Ironically, Hill guest-raps on Stone’s “Music.” It doesn’t help.

- What is up with AfterElton.com’s horrible book section? They feature only four items right now – scratch that, make it three, as they actually repeat the same link twice. And the big feature is an interview with Augusten Burroughs from May 2006! Their other sections like movies and especially TV are chock-full of articles, columns and recaps. Granted, if the site is about how gays are portrayed in the media, then I guess TV probably has a bigger impact than literature, but when Bookslut features new interviews with Edmund White and Andrew Holleran in the last two months, you have to wonder who’s asleep behind the wheel at AfterElton.

- In his gorgeous new Italian cookbook, Jamie's Italy, Jamie Oliver recommends a local treat: drizzle really good olive oil over really good vanilla ice cream and sprinkle with sea salt. I tried it. I think I need better olive oil.



- I love how, in his new interview in Vibe, Akon basically admits over and over again that he lies whenever he feels like it, leading one to believe that you probably shouldn't believe anything he says. And yet, somehow, I don't think that will affect his career at all.



- And finally...I finally saw 300. There’s a minor hubbub in the gay community over its portrayal of the villains in the movie. I was doubtful going in, but now I kind of agree. Frank Miller, who’s historically inaccurate graphic novel the movie is based on, clearly has some (probably unconscious) prejudices that he needs to work out. His heroes apparently have to be white and very heterosexual, virile, macho and hirsute who live to sleep with only women (again, historically misleading) and kill people. His villains, on the other hand, are be-jeweled, manicured, effeminate RuPaul clones who stage massive orgies with lesbians, trannies and hunchbacks. It’s not just offensive for the stereotypes and negative associations he’s passing on to young straight men everywhere (as if an R rating is keeping out the teens), it’s lazy, outdated shorthand to contrast the “other” from the straight, white, male protagonist.

I wonder if it would bother me less if I really enjoyed the movie, but I hope not. As it was, the special effects were cool, the Abercrombie & Fitch models - I mean, the cast - looked good in leather briefs and capes, but I didn’t care about any of the characters.

(Thanks to AfterElton for the pic.)

Also check out: If She's the Devil, Then Hell Must Be Fabulous.
And: What Do I Call Her If I'm Not Nasty?
And: Soul Sisters: Amy Winehouse and Joss Stone.

Well, That's Better Than Oops! I Crapped My Spandex Shorts

Man, it's been over a month since I've posted, missing Christmas, New Year's and my birthday, the most important of all the holidays. But I swear I'm getting my internet situation cleaned up this weekend so I can get back to it.

In the mean time, feast your eyes on the latest in publishing glory:



OK, I don't want to be rude, since I have nothing but respect for the people they feature in their magazine (I say this because they show an elderly female weight lifter who could crack my head between her shoulder blades), but, come on, Geezer Jock? Couldn't they think of something less...um...self-parodic for the title? Like Elderly Athlete or Oldies Squattin' or something?

I shouldn't mock. Like I said, I just celebrated yet another birthday and twisted my ankle drunkenly falling down a stair. Yes, I twisted my ankle falling down one singular stair. Next stop: dialysis. So I can only hope that I'll be half as fit as the subscribers of Geezer Jock when I'm their age. Or hell, even by my next birthday.

Also check out: Happy Birthday to Me.
And: Party Like it's 2001, or 2001: A Space Cadet's Odyssey.

The Top 10 List of Top 10 Lists

It's that time of year again when editors need to fill space and people need to be told what to buy lest they actually think on their own. Thus, we have not only have The New York Times' Top 10 Books of the Year, but also their Top 100 Notable Books of the Year list which, now that I think about it, is a strangely vague title. Are they notable because they're good or just because they got the biggest PR, media and critical attention? Well, Nicole Ritchie's "novel" never made the list, so their credibility is intact for now, no matter how boring and obvious the list may be.

A more interesting list, however, is The Atlantic's 100 Most Influential Americans of All Time. This title is decidedly not vague, but it is a little unambitious. I mean, geez, only 100? "Of All Time"? Slackers.

The list is full of predictable (which I don't use to imply they're undeserved) choices: Abraham Lincoln (#1), George Washington (2), Thomas Jefferson (3) and Martin Luther King Jr. (8). What's interesting is reading about how the ten historians chosen to vote by The Atlantic made their decisions...

No celebrities! What? Are they all living in some stuffy, TV-less, elbow-patched-jacket vacuum? Historian Walter McDougall "eliminated celebrities altogether on the grounds that their influence is shallow, ephemeral, and replaceable." David M. Kennedy said entertainment is "highly evanescent" and that most entertainers "leave no lasting legacy." How colorless and asexual are their sad little worlds.

Of course, there is Elvis Presley (66) and Louis Armstrong (79), but, I mean, come on. Interestingly, Walt Whitman is ranked 22nd. Haven't they heard? Poetry is so 60's! A-duh hickey, too-cool-for-school (or should I say, too-cool-because-of-school?) historians. Since poetry is such a floundering, uninfluential medium today, how could Mr. Body Electric rank so high? (Please note: the last 39 words are totally sarcastic. Poetry isn't floundering. It's dead. Dead as a rotting carcass on top of a dried skeleton on top of Richard Grieco's career.)

So allow me, at the risk of making those so-called "historians" jealous, to make some of my own suggestions for this sorely lacking list:

3) John Travolta. Bear with me here. OK, in Grease he was this totally studly, good-looking, popular guy who could also sing and dance and wear fitted t-shirts all while appearing 100% heterosexual. So, thanks to him, a whole generation of women could believe that the studly, good-looking, popular guys who could also sing and dance and wear fitted t-shirts who went to their high school were actually straight, and those guys could actually convince themselves and others that they were all about chasin' the cooter. Thus, with one jut of Travolta's slithery hips, a whole generational high school survival system was solidified: millions of guys can avoid getting beat up and get to have prom dates and millions of girls can convince themselves that it's normal for really sensitive boyfriends to bake banana bread for their girlfriends. God bless this American tradition. God bless John Travolta.

2) The Sumerians. Because my .5 seconds of online research taught me that the Sumerians inadvertently invented beer 6,000 years ago (although it doesn't say specifically where they were when this happened, it's safe to assume it was either Vegas or the University of Wisconsin-Madison). Anyone who invented this sweet nectar must have been the celebrities of their time (even if we're talking about an entire culture). Sure, they may not be "American" (what does that even really mean anymore, anyway?) but because of them, ugly people get to have sex, frat boys accelerate the Darwinian process by killing 90% of their brain cells within two months of their freshman year and I get through life every day. (Please note: that last part was totally sarcastic. I also use pot. And Starbucks.)

1) Phil Donahue. Not because he introduced whiny, self-absorbed validation-seeking as self-help. Not because he taught us that the best way to communicate is through confrontation and televised humiliation. And not because he was a totally intellectual stud muffin paving the way for the Matt Lauers and Stone Phillipses (remember Stone Phillips? No? Neither do I) of the world. No, Donahue is influential because without him there would be no Oprah, and without Oprah there would be no Tyra Banks. 'Nuff said.

Yeah, so suck it, Thomas Edison. Eat you heart out, Walt Disney. And it's more like the "Wrong Brothers," Wright Brothers.

But, of course, these are just suggestions. The Atlantic's list is still kind of pretty good. I guess.

Roundtable: Don't Piss Off the Advice Columnists

Dan Savage is mad as hell. And he's not going to give advice anymore. At least, not to straight people. Or straight people with marriage on their radar.

Ever since the New York Supreme Court denied gay couples the right to marry because straight people need it more (that sounds horribly reductive, but that really is the gist of their argument), Dan has been firing on all cylinders. First, there was his op-ed piece in the New York Times (sorry, you might have to pay to read it, but you can read an excerpt here) where he explained that the courts' ridiculous arguments against same-sex marriage (which I explained and picked apart here) are getting weaker, which is a good sign that they may disintegrate altogether in the near future.

But now his passion and frustration are influencing his day job as a nationally syndicated sex advice columnist. Not that he's been particularly hesitant to include his political views in his column, but now he's giving the total brush-off to those considering marriage or already married.

To a woman who wrote in about her wonderful, studly, well-endowed boyfriend who doesn't want her to use her beloved sex toys once they get married, Dan wrote:

"I just can't be bothered today, BAB [Blushing Anonymous Bride]. You see, state supreme courts in New York and Washington handed down blatantly bigoted rulings against gay marriage in July and I'm kind of pissed at the fact that you get to marry your big-dicked boyfriend but I can't marry mine."

Ouch. And then, to a married man who was given a "free pass" by his wife to indulge his kinks and wants suggestions on how to set up a gay one-night stand, Dan offered this:

"No ideas, MAK [Middle-Aged Kinkster]. No advice, no guidance, no pointers. You know why I got nothin' for you, MAK? Because if we gay guys aren't allowed to be married—to each other—then you married straight guys aren't allowed to be gay. Not even once, not even if you're just going to put it in a little, not even with the wife's permission."

And finally, the same week an 18-year-old girl wrote about being impregnated by her 18-year-old boyfriend, who not only doesn't want to get married (!), he doesn't even want to have sex with her anymore (!!) - which is unsurprising to anyone over the age of 18 - even though he still says he loves her (!!!).

Dan's response?

"Doesn't your boyfriend read the papers, PAD [Pregnant and Deprived]? According to the State of New York's highest court, the institution of marriage exists expressly to entice the likes of him—that is, irresponsible straight boys—into marrying the likes of you—that is, irresponsible straight girls. Since heterosexual relationships are 'often casual or temporary,' and since 'unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes,' the court found that the state can deny same-sex couples—with kids, without kids, whatever—the right to marry. Marriage is set aside exclusively for folks like you!

And you mean to tell me that your boyfriend doesn't want to marry you? What a fucking ingrate! I'm not sure what you can do about it, PAD, but perhaps those justices in New York can help you out. Maybe one of the justices can hold the shotgun while another officiates?"

Now, I loves me some advice columnists. I read Dear Prudence at Slate, Since You Asked over at Salon and try to keep up with the Chicago Tribune's not one but two daily columnists. Obviously their personal views are going to influence their responses, whether they're consciously aware of it or not (although they really should be self-aware enough to know it).

And I think Dan had a point. I mean, how much do help do straight people need with marriage? Aren't there like three dozen wedding/relationship magazines, four hundred books, the previous generation's hard-earned wisdom to turn to and, you know, the state and federal governments to help out?

But seriously, did he go too far? With one of the most widely-read columns in the country, plus editing Seattle's alternative The Stranger and the author of books such as The Kid and The Commitment, Dan is very influential to both straights and gays. This week he admits to getting flack from readers who want him to do his job - give advice. So he's back helping out with kinky fetishes and STD prevention. He made his point but now he's back doing what he does best.

What would happen if all the advice columnists turned on their readers? Or went on strike? Where would all the confused, directionless advice seekers turn to? How would we best know how to sign a "thank you" letter? Who would set boundaries for how to properly walk your dog? Who would start a movement to spread santorum without an advice columnist to help us? There'd be riots on the streets, I tell you. Sheer chaos.

Laughs and Tears, Courtesy of the New York Times

I'm pretty sure this doesn't really fall under any of the categories I usually talk about, and I'm also jumping on the bandwagon a little late, but last week I read about recent developments in the same-sex marriage debate and found a lot of it interesting.

So two weeks ago the New York Supreme Court ruled that a legislative ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the state constitution. The judges offered two arguments. One being the "role model" angle, stating that children are best raised by a man and a woman. The second is what is now referred to as the "reckless procreation" rule.

Kenji Yoshino, in an excellent op-ed piece for the New York Times, first uses actual evidence (imagine that!) to deflate the "role model" argument and then goes on to explain the "reckless procreation" approach.

But the New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”

To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”

First, as Dan Savage pointed out in an earlier New York Times piece, what does having children have anything to do with whether or not gay couples can marry? There are plenty of straight couples who get married without the intention or ability to have kids. Having children is not required for a marriage license.

Second, isn't this ruling insulting to both gays and straights? I picture the NY Supreme court as this condescending teacher patting the heads of all the straight-A gay students, saying "Gays, since you're all so devoted to your kids anyway, you don't need our help, right?" And then turning to the straights wearing dunce caps in the corner, snapping "Straights, you're too stupid to figure this out on your own. At least get married so you can do something right for your kids, because you obviously can't be trusted to do anything right on your own."

Third, does this mean that straight couples that go to the same lengths as gay couples to have children - adoption, artificial insemination - will also be unable to marry? You know, since they're obviously just as committed as gay parents to providing a stable environment for children and therefore don't need the stabilizing effects of marriage? Will they be deprived of a marriage license?

I love how apparently gay couples have become such beacons of parenting in the eyes of these judges (actually, to judges in Indiana, New York City and New York state), to the point where their abilities are so above and beyond that of straight parents they apparently don't need any governmental support at all. Well, isn't that flattering? Gosh, I guess a legislative bitch-slap doesn't sting as much when it's preceded by a hug.

And, oh yeah, if straight couples do need all that help, then fine. But, again, why do we need to deprive gay couples of the right to marry for straight couples to benefit from it? Wouldn't straight couples supposedly benefit from marriage even if gay couples could also marry?

The funny part? Where straight relationships are described as "all too often casual or temporary." Translation: "breeders, you're all a bunch of whores." (Which is true. You all are.)

The best part of the column is the fact that it appeared in the paper the same time as a piece about the hot new gay vacation spots, reminding us, yet again, that everyone can accept a friendly gay when he's contributing to their economy but God forbid he actually want to partake in the same economic benefits to which he's contributing.

Oh, well. I guess I shouldn't complain too much (but I probably will, anyway), since the House Republicans still can't pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Ha ha. Losers. The Republicans on the state level, on the other hand, are a little more succesful. Curse you, Tennessee, Nebraska and Georgia!

You should read about the House debate anyway. It's actually a funny break between all the Lebanon tragedies. Some highlights:

The Democrats accused Republicans of raising the issue even as they ignored what the Democrats said were more pressing problems, including the war in Iraq, an expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices and North Korean missile tests.

Another Georgia Republican, Representative Phil Gingrey, said support for traditional marriage “is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”

Yeah, that really is the best message. Forget peace or gender equality or religious tolerance. It's a good thing they see our government denying its citizens civil rights at the exact same time we're trying to convince them that their governments are oppressive and intolerant and should emulate ours. Oh, thanks for the laughs, Rep. Gingrey.

But the best part is the so-logical-it-almost-hurts-that-some-people-don't-get-it quotes at the end:

“How does the existence of same-sex marriage discourage or retard heterosexual marriage?” asked Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is gay, calling it “the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard.”

Mr. Frank and others on the Massachusetts delegation said the state’s social fabric had not unraveled in the two years since its highest court recognized a right to same-sex marriage, a decision that set off a nationwide battle against it.

“It’s had no effect on my marriage,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, “except we get invited to more weddings.”

Amen.

All right, I'm done ranting. I'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming of trivial updates on Jessica Simpson's latest turd of a single and why Nutella is crack in a jar.

Janet Jackson's Career Trajectory in Five Easy Steps

If this 1993 hands-over-breasts cover...



Lead to this 1997 nipple-through-the-shirt cover...



Which lead to this 2004 catastrophe...



Does that mean that this 2006 itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-skanky-wanky bikini bottom cover...



...will lead to full out, full-frontal porn?

Discuss.

Cheney Trumps New Orleans?

I'm usually a fan of the cover illustrations for The New Yorker. When you're scanning hundreds of magazines at Borders, the typical close-up photographic portraits and nondescript graphics blend together like grazing zebras. It's a welcome relief when your eyes land on a colorful, witty illustration that slyly satirizes a recent event or general idea. There's something both charmingly sophisticated and coffeeshop cool about using cover art the way The New Yorker does.

So I was disappointed when I came upon the news (via The Millions) that the magazine had bumped a beautiful and touching rendering of New Orleans:



Instead, they used a trendy, unoriginal joke about Dick Cheney's hunting mishap:



According to the artist, Bill Joyce, the magazine had approached him, a Louisiana native who still lives there, to do both a cover illustration and a story about New Orleans post-Katrina. The editors then decided to go with the Cheney story, not only replacing Joyce's cover but also completely dropping his story as well.

There are many reasons why they may have dropped his story. They did feature other New Orleans-related content in that issue and his story may have been redundant. Or, quite simply, it may not have been well-written. Since we can't read it and weren't privy to the editors' discussions, there's know way of knowing.

We can see, however, the cover they rejected and its unimpressive replacement.

By the time this issue hit the stands, the hunting story had already been written about, blogged about and talked about everywhere, from network news to late-night talk shows to online editorials everywhere. The New Yorker, jumping on the political bandwagon a little late, would hopefully have a new perspective worthy of their cover. By using a bland Brokeback Mountain reference, they proved that they don't.

While this isn't a terrible cover (out of context, it's almost kind of funny), it does feel dated and, worse, uncreative. How come a highly esteemed publication such as The New Yorker can only think to make yet another Brokeback Mountain reference/joke? There's already been about, oh, three million Brokeback jokes made in the media, from late-night monologues to dozens of homemade parodies. Plus, as this blog explains, the magazine already did a Cheney-and-Bush-as-gay-lovers cover a few months ago. Expired, over-saturated topic + expired, over-saturated cover = an oversight on the part of the editors.

Conversely, Joyce's boldly colorful cover manages to be both haunting and hopeful, conveying pride in the face of disaster.

As Joyce himself says, "I really had hoped that compassion would win out over clever. Mr. Cheney's friend is thankfully alive. Meanwhile, we're still finding bodies in New Orleans."

Pink vs. the Magazine Stars

I've had a love/hate relationship with Pink. Actually, it's more of a like/don't like relationship, since she's never done anything I've absolutely loved or completely hated. She keeps presenting herself as a "bad girl," but I don't know what's so bad about her besides the fact that she smokes and likes to snarl and flex her biceps for the paparazzi. If you're going to be bad, be bad! Trash a hotel room! Kick a puppy! Light someone on fire! Apparently, now you just have to say you're tough and that's it - no verification necessary.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw her new video for "Stupid Girl." In it, she makes fun of Magazine Stars (I don't even think I should call them actresses or singers at this point): Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the Olsen twins. Now, you may say, "So what? Everyone I know makes fun of them anyway?!" While every normal person might actually understand that Paris Hilton has no talent, or that Jessica Simpson's mediocre musical career does not warrant the attention she receives, the point is that no one in the media acknowledges this. Every magazine cover, every entertainment news show, everything pouring out of the TV/music/film/magazine industries would have us believe what these people ate for breakfast is important.

So while Saturday Night Live and Kathy Griffin have gone here first, it's rare and refreshing to see a female pop star make fun of her contemporaries. Cynics may say Pink is using their non-stop presence in print and on TV to help promote herself (and therefore exploit the very problem she's condemning), but I say: who cares? She's taking a risk. Even though Pink has fought against being musically associated with the likes of Spears and Simpson by angling for a more "rock" sound, she's still considered a pop star, and a lot of her fans (especially the younger ones) might take offense to her making fun of their role models.

More importantly, there's a message behind it. "What happened to the dream of a girl President? She's dancing in the video next to 50 Cent," she sings, standing at a podium in a business suit. "Girls with ambition, that's what I want to see," she declares, apparently forgetting Paris' and Nicole Ritchie's new-found status as "authors." In the video she's trying to persuade a young girl to drop the TV remote and pick up a football while making fun of tanorexic singers who writhe around on soapy cars and toothpick munchkins who get into car accidents every other day. Not exactly deep, but hey, it's a music video, and how many of those even have a message at all?

Unfortunately, the song itself leaves much to be desired. While I'm not a fan of all of Pink's hits, songs like "Feel Good Time" and, especially, "God is a DJ" are great, booty-shaking anthems. In "Stupid Girls," the above lyrics make strong points, but the rest consist of boring cliches. Even worse, the production is bland, uninspired pop, the very sonic landscape that she has been fighting to distance herself from on her last two CD's.

A spoken interlude where she whines that eating over 300 calories is so "not sexy" before sticking a toothbrush down her throat reeks of unoriginality and tastlessness. Can't Pink mock the media and magazine stars guilty of promoting unhealthy body images without making fun of girls suffering from the results of unrealistic body expectations? And if she can't, couldn't she at least be more creative about it?

So I'm back to my like/don't like relationship with Pink. Even with the song's flaws, it's still great to see a female pop star be funny and sexy at the same time while belting it out with a raw, rock-tinged voice. However, considering how eager she is to criticize the lack of authentic talent and personality in our celebrity-obsessed culture, I wish Pink had made sure her music was up to her own creative standards.

Stick To Acting, Your New Baby, and Your Dawson's Creek Alumni Wife, Please

In last week's Entertainment Weekly, they featured an interview with Heath Ledger regarding his new film, Brokeback Mountain. As anyone who's not living in a cave knows, the film is about two cowboys who fall in love.

They talk about how difficult the love scene was between his co-star, Jake Gyllenhaal, and him. After director Ang Lee made them repeat it thirteen times, Heath states, "Neither of us wanted to do it again any time soon." You're straight. Got it, Heath.

Then he pulls this bon-mot out of his newly sore ass: "But in the end, it was just like kissing a person."

Um...ya think? Are you sure there, Heath? Are you sure it wasn't more like kissing a dog? Or Cousin It? Or a duck-billed platypus?

Maybe the reason it felt just like kissing a person was because you were kissing a person. What a douche-baggy thing to say.

Sigh.

Despite all this, however, I am still very excited to see this movie, which comes out tomorrow. And Mr. Ledger is supposed to be excellent in it, so hopefully his stupid remarks won't taint the experience too much.

The Death of the Metrosexual

It was bound to happen sooner or later, and based on numerous articles, including The Guardian and the Chicago Tribune's Red Eye, it looks like "metrosexual" may be coming to the end of its 15 minutes (or four years, but who's counting?).

And it's about time. "Metrosexual" may fall somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual, but why is it on the same spectrum to begin with? To merge one's grooming sensibilities with their sexuality is unnecessary. Is male sexuality so poorly defined that any "new" behavior exhibited by men can actually alter our perception of their sexual preference?

News flash - ask any owner of upscale, high-end spas or salons that caters to a male clientele and they'll assure you that men have been participating in these sorts of activities for years. Look back on the 90's and the pre-metrosexuals were there. The 80's had more than their share of pretty, preening, pin-up boys. The 70's had their own version, too, they just maybe had a moustache and even tighter pants than their modern-day counterparts (but no "manscaping" - chest hair was big back then). The 60's? Well...hippies are smelly by definition, so nevermind.


Lots of people credit Queer Eye for the Straight Guy for intensifying male interest in grooming. After the grungy 90's, male style had been in a transition period. The Fab Five came prancing into our living rooms and made it OK for men to pluck their eyebrows, wear fitted clothing (for the love of God, when will they stop making pleated pants and tapered jeans?), and even exfoliate. After all, the men could reassure themselves that even though they were taking cues from gay men, it was all done to help them get laid, right? Because, really, that's what this is all about: men trying to find that elusive combination of manly ruggedness and sophisticated civility that will help them score with the ladies. Women dictate their tastes and men just try to keep up.

So what's really changed? Some men are clueless about fashion and their own physical image, other men take it to the extreme and spend more time in front of the mirror than their girlfriends. Most men (gay or straight) fall somewhere in between.

A little while ago there was an article in The Guardian about how "ubersexuals" are replacing "metrosexuals." Apparently, "ubersexual" men care about grooming as well, but don't get carried away with it. They smoke cigars, have more male friends than female friends, and lust after and respect women at the same time. Examples included George Clooney, Bill Clinton and...shudder...Donald Trump.

Then there was yet another article stating the following:

"The New Lad is old news, the Metrosexual should pack up his expensive eye cream and the Ubersexual can stop his pathetic dreaming about classic manliness. Modern man is actually a no-nonsense, well-balanced Heteropolitan, according to a new study.

Neither lager-loving sexists obsessed with football nor excessively moisturised, pink-shirted effeminates, Heteropolitans enjoy both the pub and the grooming parlour, and are surprisingly committed to relationships and family life."

Heteropolitan? Are you kidding me? Can't we just give all these names a rest? Why are we so eager to define and label men? Are "pretty boy" and "jock" and "nerd" and all the classics not good enough? We don't come up with all sorts of weird takes on the word "heterosexual" for all the different kinds of women who like to sleep with men. What it is about male sexuality that seems so slippery and elusive that we must stamp it with these strange, unsatisfying titles?

I'm done trying to analyze it. I don't think "Heteropolitan" is going to catch on anyway, so maybe - hopefully - it will all be behind us soon. Good riddance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go apply pomade to my hair while I drink a beer, watch football, and peruse the latest Express for Men catalog.