The White Peril 白禍

There's a search string pattern you straight people with blogs probably never get to see. It's kind of a pity, because it can be a real trip.

What you need to do is (1) mention gay stuff on your site a lot, and (2) mention a man who's in the public eye lately and doesn't need a paper bag over his head once. Then wait, oh, say 12 hours. At that point, you will be inundated with people searching for "[name]+gay" or "[name]+homosexual" or "[name]+queer+please+god+please." Several months ago, I brought up the then-future Mr. Renée Zellweger in passing, and for weeks--no kidding, weeks--afterward, I was beset by Googlers and raving Yahoos with Enquiring Minds.

The latest object of Googlelust is this guy, and I'm sorry to say to the few dozen people who are wondering that I have no idea which way he swings (or, since his hobby is chasing tornadoes, "blows"...oh, maybe not such a great metaphor, given the question...let's give him the benefit of the doubt and make it "swings"). One lone, novel searcher asked whether he was married; I don't know that, either. His bio indicates that he spent four years at Cornell thinking about the weather without offing himself, which is pretty impressive. Otherwise, all I know is that he needs to de-pouf the hair and eat a few Big Macs, but you can see that without my help.

See, my problem with this ad (via Ace) is that it cuts off before Brian and Partner Simon turn on each other hungrily, start making out, and tear off each other's crisp little dress shirts. (That white totally washes you out, BTW, sweetie.)

Okay, my other problem is that there's just plain not enough of Partner Simon, who's the way cuter of the two.

Okay, my other problem is that Ellner is not running against George W. Bush for Borough President, so I'm not really sure how going negative on him demonstrates anything whatever about what Ellner can do for Manhattan. However much of a tough guy he is who stands up for his progressive beliefs, is he going to do anything about troop deployments?

I know--he needs to get himself name recognition and is appealing to Manhattan voters as effectively as he can in a fraction of a minute. Whatever works, do it. I'm also seriously cheered to see a gay guy appearing openly with his partner in a campaign ad. It's just unfortunate that what accompanies it reinforces the image that urban gays are suckers for the emptiest, most unhelpful sort of lefty jeering.

The NYT has more about the election itself, BTW.

Oh, I don't know, Connie. I like your libertarian version, and the feminist one is an oldie but goodie, but--and I realize I'm biased--my favorite is still

Q: How many gay men does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: What's wrong with right here?

Guys, do you have to put it that way?

The British army joined in a gay pride march for the first time, an army spokesman said.

...

"We don't really care what sexual orientation you are if you want to come and join us in the army," said Logistics Corps warrant officer Lutha Magloire, 39, part of the Army's Diversity Action and Recruitment Team.

"The army reflects society and we must recruit from all sections, so if there is prejudice in society it will be in the army also.

"But the army can only get better the more it represents all the community."

I'm glad the armed forces in the UK are recruiting gays. Well, sort of. To me "gay-friendly" is a bit excessive. "If you can cut it and follow the rules, no one cares whether you're gay" would be my version. But "the army can only get better the more it represents all the community" is a ridiculous statement. It goes beyond saying that the armed forces don't want to shut out talented, qualified people. The army is not supposed to reflect civil society; it's supposed to find ways to skim off the best people to defend the country from attack. Magloire's comment may have just been tossed off, but it contributes to the impression that gays succeed in society when mere variety is valued over the ruthless pursuit of excellence. For the sake of the British, one can only hope that any gays who think the army's gay-friendly recruiting policies mean they're in for eased standards and hand-holding have those expectations summarily thrashed out of them when they hit training.

Oh, and happy belated Pride Day to Manchester. (Some of my people are from Lancashire. Actually, a friend of mine is home in Manchester right now, too, I think--I'll have to ask him whether he went to Pride.)

(Via the Washington Blade)

Romeo Mike has two great posts up this week. The more general one is about how movements for tolerance mutated into political correctness. I'm going to zero in on the gay content--go figure--but there's a lot more to it:

I never wanted anything more out of my gay rights than to not be arrested for it. I was perfectly aware that my dynamics were different from the mainstream, so why should a tail wag the dog. Yet now society itself is being dismantled to accommodate a few hundred people who demand to have the same everything, even when so much of it has to be artificially constructed, and risks affecting essential social fabric.

Well, societies do evolve. The decriminalization of homosexual conduct has itself certainly been a change in the social fabric, after all--however innocuous those of us with the most to gain by it may find it. And entitlement-mindedness did not originate with gays; it's the way politics works nowadays. Furthermore, just about everyone who espouses "traditional values" is picking and choosing customs from the past that he deems worth reviving or updating, and human institutions are by definition artificial constructs. Even so, none of that vitiates the point that fecklessly restructuring long-standing institutions to serve political ends that only emerged a decade or two ago is ill-advised. Not even all gay activists can agree on why gay marriage, as opposed to the other potential ways gay unions might be recognized, is the only way to go. The reasons most frequently and loudly offered appear to center on "respect" and "dignity," which it's dangerous for free people to expect the government to confer on them.

About feminism, RM (I hope he doesn't mind my calling him that; I am certainly not going to refer to him as "Romeo") says,

Though males had to work to support their families, feminists co-opted work as an equality issue. Now, child-rearing is disdained by many women who identify their life purpose by labouring for their employer. For many, children aren't part of the equation anymore, even though they still mate. Yet the subsequent rise in mean income forced up the cost of living so now women have no choice but to work, child or not. Surely, on their death beds their last words will be,"I can rest now knowing my life's purpose was to make profits for my boss."

Again, I'm with RM overall. Encouraging people to think of their career as their primary source of fulfillment (or even intellectual stimulation) works against their instincts and the good of their children--no argument here. At the same time, let's not lose sight of a couple of things. For one, while Australia has a different tax system and welfare state from the US, my understanding from Australian friends is pretty much that the two countries are not much different in this respect: families with children can make it with one income if they're willing to forgo the frills of full-on bourgeois living.

For another, not everyone is cut out for child-rearing. We are a complex civilization with many important artifacts to maintain and develop for future generations, and there's no shame in devoting yourself full-time to such tasks. The problem is that everyone--including the vast majority who will eventually become parents--has been encouraged to develop in a way that's at odds with good parenting, not that women who aren't the mothering type are now free to pursue careers.

The big problem is mouthing abstract bromides about "diversity" while taking concrete steps to shoehorn people into politically-approved personality and behavioral types. RM tackles that in the other post, coming up with a useful neologism:

mis.het.eur.andry; from misandry, hatred of men + het, heterosexual + eur, euro

"denigration of straight white male/s under the guise of promoting anti-patriarchal ideology."

The whole mentality of seeing different ways of life as some kind of rebuke directed at your own is something I've never understood. If you have to defang people's personalities in order to be able to deal with them comfortably, there's something wrong with your spine. Liberal societies nurture strong, combative personalities and will always have their share of friction. Feminists and gay activists who expect us to make lasting gains that are woven into society instead of being appliqueed onto it need to see the advantage there. Opposition doesn't just tear you down, it also shows you where your own arguments have flaws so you can improve them.

I tried to get interested in the discussions of potential gay "conversion" at The Volokh Conspiracy and couldn't. I find Eric's comments on the topic fascinating, though:

But there's a real world out there, and when you're young, hot and horny, and there are other people running around, there are naturally going to be occasions when one of them is naive, yet willing.

Looking to be converted — to put it in Volokhian terms.

Such types — apparently heterosexual, but what you might call "bi-curious" — used to regularly come on to me, and they'd scare the hell out of me, because I could not have handled the responsibility. Fortunately, I had a house full of openly gay men which I used to use as a "dumping ground" for the wannabe converts. All I needed to do was get them into the house, sneak out the back door, and drive away. The rest was not up to me.

Eric's right, though I think he may overestimate the naive part. A lot of us who are gay were once "straight" guys finding cagey ways to put ourselves in proximity with gay men who might put the moves on us--or not even necessarily put the moves on us, but connect somehow.

This isn't the "conversion" or "recruitment" scenario as envisioned by most social conservatives, which involves the seduction of a straight man who's just kind of confused and horny by either a specific homo or the general normalization of homosexual behavior. Then, through some mysterious mechanism I've never seen explained, Straight Man is in danger of becoming addicted to the combination of instant gratification + lack of need for messy emotional entanglements and ruining his life, which result would presumably be all the more tragic because he's not "really" a faggot.

Do such things happen? Possibly. It definitely happens that gay men scam on hot straight guys a lot, and sometimes they score. But I find it hard to believe that seriously heterosexual men don't pretty quickly find themselves thinking something like Blech--I just made it with a guy!...and not doing it again.

Regarding the rest? Well, you can't exactly "convert" them to something that's already inside them, and seduction between adults never goes just one direction. For every caddish homo pestering a straight friend to give him a chance to demonstrate the joy of gay sex, there's a "straight" man who's driving a gay friend of his crazy by sending constant flirtatious signals.

One last thing along those lines: we're not just talking about "enjoyable" behavior. Figuring out that you like sleeping with people of the same sex is relatively easy. Coming to terms with the fact that you're destined to mate with someone of the same sex is not so easy. Many, if not most, of us who are confirmed homosexuals went through a period of transition in which we called ourselves bisexual. I don't deny that bisexuality exists, but "orientationally bisexual but behaviorally heterosexual" really is frequently code for "hasn't figured it out yet."

I don't blame Michael or Henry Lewis for not bringing it up, but there's an interesting aspect to this story that I think worth paying attention to:

The Concerned Women of America, a “traditional family values” organization run by Beverly LaHaye, wife of fundamentalist preacher Rev. Tim Lahaye, a Christian broadcaster, has targeted Starbucks for promoting “homosexual values” by including quotes from gay individuals on their coffee cups, and for the company’s support of a San Diego gay pride event.

...

The campaign also features quotes from other gay celebrities including singer–songwriter Rufus Wainwright, and musician Stephin Merritt.

Starbucks started the “The Way I See It” quote program “as an extension of the coffeehouse culture — a way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals.” Other notable figures whose quotes appear on the cups include actor Quincy Jones, New Age author Deepak Chopra, film critic Michael Medved, Olympic medalist Michelle Kwan and coaching legend John Wooden.

So--our campaign to promote discussion among people of differing viewpoints includes a few gays, a New Age guru, a few movie types--isn't Q still mostly known as a music producer, BTW?--and a few athletes. Notice anyone missing?

I suppose it's possible that there are deep thoughts from conservative Christians on some of the cups Starbucks printed for the program, or at least that there was bland spiritual content in the quotations from those considered notable for non-religious achievements. But it seems odd that the company's media manager wouldn't have mentioned that if it were the case. Doing so would, after all, have been the obvious way to deflect criticism from the CWF that Starbucks is promoting one-sided agenda.

Starbucks program planners probably didn't sit in their official smoke-filled smoke-free room and say, "Well, whatever we do, let's be sure to leave out those dreadful Christians!" But the effect of hewing closely to the academic left's definition of "diversity" is to give the religiously devout yet another little reason to feel that "the coffeehouse culture" believes they have no wisdom of their own to offer but plenty to learn from everyone else. Even if you don't think that's unfair, it's bad strategy, especially for gays and those who think they're trying to help us.

Aside: I think that if I were confronted, of a not-yet-caffeinated morning, with a quotation from Deepak f'ing Chopra on my coffee cup, I'd hand the sucker back and head back to bed, perhaps forever.

Added while trying to keep biscotti crumbs out of the keyboard: Henry Lewis commented to say that the contributors to "The Way I See It" do include a few conservatives; I'm more than happy to admit an error when it turns out I was being too cynical.

Even so, maybe I'm just too inclined to be hard on gay PR and am making a big deal out of nothing, but...put it this way: you've got an exchange of ideas that includes a New Age guy, an out gay guy, an Asian woman athlete, et c. I think that most rank-and-file Americans would say that if you really want to reflect the diversity of society, there should be an obvious Christian, saying pointedly Christian things, in there somewhere.

I don't seem to have enough gay readers to fill a taxi, and I doubt that those I do have need this particular sermon, but JIC....

There's nothing wrong with being boisterously gay at a bar. I do it all the time myself. But honey, it's possible to do so without screeching so loudly that everyone else in the place wonders whether he's accidentally wandered into a junior high school girls' bathroom.

Not long ago, I was at one of my favorite hang-outs, and it was fairly full. You had to talk at a bit above normal conversational volume to be heard, which was fine. Then in came a group of four or five guys who decided that if 70 decibels are good, 130 are even better. I don't just mean, like, every once in a while, they'd all laugh uproariously when someone made a good wisecrack. I'm talking about their sustained volume.

One of them was talking about his sex buddy Darren back in Boston. I learned (from five stools away, mark you) a lot about Darren. Darren ties him up just the way he likes it. Darren is close to 50. Darren is no movie star, but he's pretty cute. Darren has as much hair on his abs as on his chest. Darren's belly has a fair amount of fat on it, but the muscles underneath are still rock-hard. Darren proves that it's true what they say about guys with big noses.

This went on and on, loudly. To make matters worse, one of the Japanese guys in the party didn't seem to understand idiomatic English very well, and Mr. Bostonian was being pretty slangy, so every once in a while he had to stop and repeat something he'd just said, rephrasing it with can't-miss-it literalism.

Aside from the tying-up part, and depending on just how much lard there is on his tummy, Darren actually sounds kinda hot. I'm almost sorry that I didn't encounter him when I was younger and wilder. At this point, though, I'm afraid the next time I go to Boston I'm going to run into Darren, recognize him, and merrily appropriate him as an old acquaintance before I remember that I myself do not, in fact, know him. Adjusting your voice so that your friends can hear you but those around cannot is worth the effort, guys. Otherwise, you look at best impolite and at worst desperate to convince the world at large that your life is exciting.

Okay, um, when Dianne Feinstein (1) is calling you petty and (2) has a point, it is time to change your thinking. it is high time to change your thinking. it is way past high time to change your thinking. just what the hell are you thinking, anyway? Jaw, meet desk:

The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.

But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision."

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," Feinstein said.

For crying out loud, people, I don't much like the military's stance on gays, either--but, you know, for much of the time the Iowa was in service, homosexual conduct was flat-out illegal everywhere. This kind of snippy grandstanding disregards any progress that's been made and looks like...well, snippy grandstanding. (Now, there's a stance that's likely to convince the military to consider a change of policy.) Furthermore, anyone who would spurn a ship that was used to help defend American liberties through key events in the 20th century because he happens not to like what the military is doing right now is a fruitcake. Slap Korean War veterans in the face to make a point about the Iraq invasion? I'm only grateful that the article doesn't spell out what the "other things" are. Happily, the officials from Stockton who are quoted in the article indicate that it's going to get a proper welcome there.

Sheesh. Next time I decide to click on a link to AMERICAblog, can someone kindly break my wrist for me? Thanks. Especially if I decide to scroll down from the post that someone linked and sample some of the other goodies available.

I'm not going to get involved in opining about Cindy Sheehan and what kind of person she is. I will, however, ask my fellow gay guys this: Is it really a good idea to be fawning over a mother whose authority in argument is implicitly predicated on the belief that she gets to own her son's memory and legacy now that he's dead? No matter what allegiances he publicly and consistently took while alive, as an independent adult? Even if what she supports is diametrically opposed to the way he lived? Do gay men really want to do that? Really seriously really? I'm thinking maybe it's not such a hot idea.

Added on 20 August: Henry Lewis gives the obvious response:

So, yes, she gets to 'own' her son's memory and legacy – because he was her son, and she loved him. The allusion here (I think, since the question is about whether gay guys should fawn over Cindy), is if you're gay and your parents don't agree, should they be able to use your memory (assuming you've died) to promote their anti-gay agenda? The comparison, though, is a false one. An anti-gay parent who uses the memory of a dead gay-child to promote their anti-gay agenda is (arguably) actively working to tear down their son’s memory. Sheehan isn't doing that.

She hasn't had anything bad to say about the military and, to my knowledge, hasn't said she opposed Casey's choice to be in the military. What she has said, is that she doesn't understand what her son's sacrifice was for. I suppose you might argue that if Casey was staunchly pro-war-in Iraq (as opposed to pro-doing his duty as a member of the military), you might argue that his mother's anti-war activities somehow go against his wishes, but even then, it's not the same thing. Cindy is proud of her son, she misses him, and there's no indication she wanted him any different than he was – that she didn't support him.

I find it hard to criticize a guy who may actually use more parentheticals than I do--which is saying something--but this is hair-splitting with a vengeance. The man reenlisted after the start of the Iraq conflict (as his own unit was getting ready for deployment, from what I've read). It's hard to imagine him, from the available information, as being anything but in favor of the Iraq invasion. Even so, how Ms. Sheehan's thinking actually relates to her son's thinking was not the point I was addressing.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all over after that first sentence: "So, yes, she gets to 'own' her son's memory and legacy – because he was her son, and she loved him." Whatever you say, honey. I'm less concerned with what Sheehan thinks herself than with the uncritical acceptance of the idea that her being a bereaved mother gives moral weight to the way she invokes her son's memory to support her political opinions. It simply doesn't. My mother loves me, sure--but if I died and she started going around and implying, however sincerely, that I'd only chosen an out life because I'd been suckered by the gay establishment...well, I hope it would be duly noted that she was calling into question my considered judgment as an adult.

Michael links to this blog, by a man who's just come out to himself and his family at middle age. As Michael says, it's wrenching to read--but parts of it are touching in a frankly affirmative way, too. After reading Chris's passage about that first time you go from Why is that guy staring at me like that? to Wait a minute--he thinks I'm cute!, I can't stop smiling. And the part about the big, hairy guy of Middle Eastern extraction reminds me that I really should drop my first boyfriend a line and see how he's doing.

Another Gay Republican has posted a spare, concise coming out story that's worth reading. His conclusions are possibly of limited use for those with moral questions based on firm religious beliefs that are at odds with homosexual conduct, but he knows how to frame the issue:

Afterward, I was upset and angry for having fought myself over this. Why had I built being gay into this enormous, frightening obstacle? There had been nothing to be afraid of. It was me, all me.

Ignorant anti-gay prejudice does exist, and it does a number on you. But you get to decide how you're going to deal with it. The only thinking and behavior you can reliably change is your own.

Interesting, this:

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi upped the ante in his war against party rebels by instructing that priority be given to fielding female candidates in the Lower House election next month.

The strategy started to take shape with a decision by ruling Liberal Democratic Party executives on Thursday to field Satsuki Katayama as its candidate in the Shizuoka No. 7 constituency. The seat is held by Minoru Kiuchi, 40, one of the party's 37 rebel lawmakers who voted against Koizumi's postal reform bills.

What's the reasoning, I wonder? Are LDP strategists trying to get out the housewife/single woman vote? Do they just feel that female talent hasn't been sufficiently tapped and that this is a good opportunity to make a statement about the party's values? Koizumi's stated reason is this:

Regarding the backing of female candidates, The Prime Minister told the press corps, "[The move is] because there are very few women members of the Diet. I want those who rise to be the most competent people possible."

Fair enough. I'm sure he means it. It seems likely that the strategy is also part of an effort to change the party's image. Koizumi sees himself--and has pitched himself--as a revolutionary. More visible women in positions of power would help dispel the impression that the failure of the Japan Post privatization bill to pass means that the LDP is still under the control of well-connected old men who are tied to the old patronage system.

*******

Speaking of women politicians--the Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade 2005 was held here in Tokyo yesterday. I didn't watch and, of course, it got next to zero news coverage as always. The Mainichi did report on it tangentially, though:

The Mainichi has learned that Osaka Prefectural Assemblywoman Kanako Otsuji (30) plans to participate in the Tokyo Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade on 13 August, coming out in public as a homosexual herself. Her autobiography is also to be published soon. It is extremely rare for sitting elected officials to come out in public as homosexual. Assemblywoman Otsuji stated, "Because of discrimination and prejudice, gays frequently haven't made themselves known. I hope that, by making myself visible as gay, I can throw the issue into relief and put and end to the vicious cycle of discrimination and prejudice."

I assume Otsuji made the announcement yesterday; no one was talking about the parade when I went out last night, but as I say, it isn't really an attention getter. More power to her. The image of gays in the Japanese media is very much on the freakishly-funny end of the spectrum. If Otsuji is able to be charmingly ordinary and gets a reasonable amount of coverage for her book, she could do a lot of good.

Megan McArdle posted something that inflamed Eric into writing one of his usual good posts on the gay marriage debate:

In the incident cited by Megan McArdle, gay activists are apparently claiming that two heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other if they are of the same sex. Yet nowhere have I heard "heterosexual activists" making a similar argument (that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other if they are of the opposite sex).

Clearly, there's a lot of misunderstanding — both about existing marriage laws, as well as laws which would legalize same sex marriage.

What gives?

I have no idea, man, but when you find out, let me know.

Actually, maybe you should leave me in blissful ignorance. I'm in my early 30s and in good shape, but I'm afraid hearing a detailed explanation of these people's non-thinking might give me a coronary. Here's part of that article:

Two heterosexual fellows in Canada, invoking their rights under Canada’s recently passed same-sex marriage legislation, have announced their intentions to marry. Drinking pals Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, intend to marry not because they are gay but for the tax breaks.

News of the pending engagement didn’t sit well with same-sex marriage activist Bruce Walker, a Toronto lawyer. He complained that marriage should be for love.

You know something, bitch? The day our civilization puts people like you in a position to adjudicate (1) whether what my boyfriend and I have is love and (2) whether that qualifies us for government goodies--that's the day I depart for, like, Zimbabwe without looking back. I don't think it's possible to verbalize how angry this kind of thing makes me.

To the extent that gay activists began formulating their ideas about marriage a decade or so ago, when the opposing argument most frequently encountered was "Gays have sex, not love," I can see where it comes from. The problem is, the argument has moved on, and a lot of activists haven't. What kind of topsy-turvy world are we living in when queer activists are the ones who want to peer into other people's bedrooms and pass judgment on what goes on there? And who's to say that Dalrymple and Pinn--who are friends, after all--don't love each other? I think I could fairly say that I love my drinking buddies (especially after I've had a few).

The point that gays fall in love and make the sacrifices necessary to take care of each other is an important one, but it cannot serve as the fulcrum for an argument in favor of gay marriage. How gay activists can fail to be aware of this by now is beyond me--their inability to see themselves as the public sees them is astounding--but the more they push the "We're cute! We're cuddly! Approve of us!" line, the more they reinforce the feeling that we suffer from arrested development and have not taken adult control over our lives.

Downtown Lad asks an age-old question with the snark factor removed:

Are gay people better looking? That's a serious question. One of my gay friends mentioned how all of his gay male friends were better looking than their male siblings. Why is this?

• Because gay men use moisturizer?
  
• We keep in shape, because (like women) we know that men are visual, and we have to stay fit in order to stay attractive?
  
• The gay gene is the same one for good looks?

I'm inclined to think the factor with the most effect is item 2, along with some others.

For one thing, gay bars in New York and other big metro areas attract a self-selecting population that is disproportionately (though far from entirely) made up of guys who believe they belong among other beautiful people. That's often at least in part because they're of above-average attractiveness themselves.

Also, in addition to staying fit, urban gay guys are more likely to dress carefully than straight guys. Most of us tend to gravitate toward clothes that fit neatly and trimly--even those who don't care about style and stick to khakis + chambray shirt. A homely man can make himself look way, way yummier with flattering hair and well-cut clothes; sometimes, he can even work the beau-laid thing to his advantage if he's confident enough and has interesting bone structure.

Of course, if you had a good sample size of gay men and their straight brothers, you could test the third and most interesting proposition, theoretically, by checking things like face and body symmetry, thickness and luster of hair (in those who don't do the shaved-head thing), clarity of complexion, and other universal signals for sexual attractiveness. Who knows? Maybe there is a correlation. It doesn't seem any more far-fetched than our over-representation in arty careers.

Okay, we all knew this was coming and how it was going to be pitched. That doesn't make it any less vile:

A tell-all book by the nation's first openly gay governor is in the works, a New York publisher said Thursday.
The as-yet-untitled memoir by former New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey will be published by ReganBooks, an imprint of publishing house HarperCollins.

...

"Jim McGreevey has a rare opportunity, and the courage, to tell the whole truth about his life," Regan wrote. "In this deeply honest and revealing book, he will describe how he wrestled with his sexuality and his faith--from the expectations he faced as a young man to the divided persona he created in order to meet them."

Courage, my white faggot ass! For one thing, calling McGreevey "the nation's first openly gay governor" is misleading, since he announced his sexuality as a lead-in to announcing his resignation. He didn't serve a single openly gay day that he wasn't already committed to leaving office (when it was most convenient for his party) and thus never risked taking political hits for his homosexuality when it might have mattered. And give me a break--gays serving in Iraq under "Don't ask, don't tell" are showing courage. Gays who are willing to go on talk radio and defend our way of life to callers who tell them they're a pox on society are showing courage. McGreevey isn't showing the slightest bit of courage by adding to the already bloated genre of gay coming-of-age stories.

He could, however, do so by being up-front about how his mishandling of his own sexuality affected his performance as governor. As a lifelong Pennsylvanian, I blithely make New Jersey jokes all the time, but that's all in jest. The fact is that 10 million Americans were depending on his administration to protect them against terrorism as best it could, and he went and hired an incompetent cutie as security head who, being an Israeli citizen, apparently couldn't even get adequate security clearance to do his job. And that's not the only act of corruption of which McGreevey's of. I'd gladly pay money--I'd pre-order--a book in which he decided to get all "deeply honest and revealing" about that.

A conversation I had a few days ago reminded me that it must have been pretty close to exactly five years ago this week that Atsushi and I met for the first time. Sounds like an excuse for a celebration when he's home this weekend. (You knew he was coming home by the fact that there was just an air-traffic screw-up this week, right? Happens every time. Of course, as Atsushi points out, it's probably just that there's an air-traffic screw-up every few weeks lately.)