NPR Says Bush Can't Have His Lapdog

You gotta love it when a media organization refuses to let Bush be interviewed by his hand-picked lapdog who also works for Fox News.

That's apparently what happened when Bush wanted to spout some pablum in commemoration of the Little Rock Nine, but only to his favorite NPR reporter Juan Williams. I say, way to go NPR.

Juan Williams was, of course, shocked and appalled. He ended up getting it situated so that he could "interview" Bush about race relations in America on the Fox News network. I didn't watch the interview because I've been there before, and it makes my blood boil. I have heard Williams interview administration officials for years, and I'm always screaming at the radio. He asks softballs if he even poses questions. He'll sit there with draft-deferring murderer Cheney and talk to him like he's an actual human being with a heart who isn't hell-bent on deceiving the world. Despite my cries of "Ask him this, Juan. Ask him that, Juan! But what about issue X, Mr. Vice President!"

Williams said he was disappointed because he has experience with race relations. Yes, he has. He's a nice, safe, token on Fox News. (I'm not saying Juan Williams is a token period--he is a respected journalist, hence his stature on NPR. However, we all know Fox wouldn't have him if he were not milquetoast who makes them look more diverse. C'mon, the best thing Fox has in terms of anyone not rabidly right wing is Alan Colmes!) He further went on to add that he's often critical of the Bush administration when he's on the talking head show on Fox. Yes, he is in that capacity, editorializing and holding the place of someone who's not Bill O'Reilly level crazy.

But when he's reporting, Juan Williams wants to have his cock and suck it too if it's with a member of these fascists. I'm thrilled NPR took a stand.

Iraq Vet Says Medals are Bogus

I just read this great story about how an Iraq veteran is returning some medals he got as a result of his service in Iraq because he doesn't believe he did what the medals credit him for. Interestingly, it's in the Army Times. I've been frequently surprised that these military sites sometimes have the most damning stuff about the Bush administration that I see; they won't let them blog and cherry-pick the dumb chest-beaters for the photo ops, but somehow the military community manages to keep themselves abreast of developments.

Josh Gaines, 27, plans to mail the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and National Defense Service Medal to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He said he will do so during a protest scheduled for Wednesday in Madison.

“I’m going to give those back because I truly feel that I did not defend my nation and I did not help with the Global War on Terrorism,” said Gaines, who lives in Madison. “If anything, this conflict has bred more terrorism in the Middle East.”

I really admire someone who would make such a statement. While I agree with Mr. Gaines that he did not defend us, actually, or help with the so-called Global War on a Tactic. (Which I've always felt was a bit ironic--global war on terrorism, a canard created by an administration terrorizing American citizens nonstop since 9/11. The war is on a tactic that's the only trick in their bag--well, aside from voter fraud and those sorts of things.)

I've gone through a lot of personal growth since 9/11 with regard to servicemen. I grew up in an Air Force town, and never had much affinity for the military. I don't get into authoritarianism or chest-beating, uniforms, warfare--and I'm gay. My response to military personnel and their fans was always along the lines of "you're not doing anything for me, so I don't owe you anything. You chose to have a job that always had your kind better off than my hard-working family with the benefits and the housing and early retirement. You're not doing me any favors and you don't like my kind, so I could not care less about your "service"."

Since then, though, I've really come to respect and appreciate the members of the armed forces. I always draw a distinction between the soldiers and the people who've used them as pawns, sacrificing thousands (coming up on four thousand) of their lives in the process. The idea that they have not actually protected the "homeland" (which is, by the way, a very Nazi sounding way to describe our country), though, and that they are not actually keeping us or making us safer is a tough sell. I don't want to insult people who signed on to do that and were sent into hell for oil instead. I don't want to demean the intelligence of people who have to cling to something in order to survive the ordeal in Iraq.

Meanwhile, though, I was taught to believe that you don't repeat lies, that you speak truth to power. When I studied race in America during college, I came to believe that if you permit those around you to be racist, for example, you are perpetuating the system. So I don't want to remain silent, nor do I wish to insult folks.

My practice, when I encounter members of or supporters of the armed services, has been to thank them for making themselves available to risk their lives for all of us, but to qualify that by saying I don't believe they've actually done anything for us--but I don't hold them responsible for their having been sent to do something so contrary to their purposes; that's a vitriol I reserve for the lying chickenhawks in the current regime. (And, truth be told, I am working with that vitriol--I believe, as I heard Alice Walker say of the soulless bastards who run the country, that the best thing to do is to wish them loving kindness because there's no way they're at peace now, or will ever be. Just look at their photos: people like Giuliani, Rumsfeld, Chertoff (I know Giuliani is only in bed with them at this point, not a part of their "administration" per se.) look like their souls have been sucked from their bodies. They're all dollar signs in dead eyes.)

Meanwhile, though, if I did spend a year in hell under the impression that I was doing what I should be doing for my country, I don't know that I'd be man enough to make a statement so strong as this guy by returning my medals.

So, my hat's off to Josh Gaines. I'd like to see that thug George Tenet return his on the basis that it's not worth the materials of which it is composed. Similarly, because his payoff for biting his tongue about whatever really happened on 9/11 was that same worthless medal, Norm Mineta (former Secretary of Transportation) should follow Josh's lead. Ditto Alan Greenspan, who now seems to understand (in a lucrative book) that the fox is running the hen-house, though he pretended that fox was just a cocky rooster at the time. Ditto General Richard B. Myers. You too, Paul Bremer. (The estate of Ronald Reagan can keep his, though, as he's already burning in the fires of hell.)

And once again, thank you, Josh Gaines, for doing what you knew was right and then realizing that you had to do more to make right what you were duped into doing.

Blue Friday: " I Want to See It."

[Illustration: Victor Juhasz--Biggo Viggo: Mr. Mortensen fights naked in Eastern Promises. From the New York Observer.]

I just read this great article in the New York Observer called "Members Only." It's about how a new trend in American moving images has men exposed and objectify-able as women have been since Lois Weber's The Hypocrites in 1914. Among other things, the article discusses a new HBO series called Tell Me You Love Me and an upcoming release called Eastern Promises, in which Viggo "Hunk" Mortensen does full frontal (again) in a fight scene.

I've always wondered about the double standard for male versus female nudity. I know, I know: women allegedly aren't as visually stimulates as men, so there's no need to show a man's jewels to sell tickets. Because--like--all moviegoers are straight people. So, maybe this is just a victory for the gays. But I don't think so.

And I don't mean to say that selling tickets is the only reason to show a man nude. I greatly respect David Cronenberg's work--that and Viggo's jewels are going to put this film on my list even though the trailer doesn't really appeal to me. (Unlike certain tween idols, Viggo could certainly bring sexy back if it had ever left--and since Viggo's been around since before such popfluffies were frosting their hair, there is proof that it never left.) Plusly, the conversations Viggo and he had about the nude scene seem to have been artistically motivated. I guess my interest in the topic is not why there is now a market for male nudity in films for whatever reason; I wanna know why there was some unwritten law about male nudity in mainstream films for so long.

Men walk around shirtless all the time. A woman has to wear a bra or something to cover her rack, but a guy can saunter down mainstreet in nothing more than cutoffs all over America. I wonder if it's something about an unwritten code among the men who have traditionally run (everything) Hollywood: don't make him show how wee he is. But even then, you'd think people like Frank Sinatra, rumored to be HUGE, would have pushed to have their business on display when in films.

Whatever the reason, I'm all over this new trend. If every other boy on the street can show plumber's crack or skidmarked boxers, it's high time we see the naughty bits of BOTH sexes when appropriate (or just plain yummy) in American films.

Clarification: Flip-flops on Men vs. Flip-flops as Men's Fashion

Well Hello feet!
Originally uploaded by saraab

I blogged recently about the absurd column I read pushing flip-flops to men as one of the five it-clothes to have for summer. As I'd spent a good bit of time annoyed with that fuaxhawked fashion-ick-sta, I left that post feeling good about life again. I'd said my piece.

Some of my friends have pressed me, though, to post a clarification. I did not mean to say that men should not wear flip-flops. As I thought I had indicated, men with lovely feet (such as those in the accompanying photo) are welcome to wear flip-flops any time, all the time, provided they can keep them on their feet.

What I believe to be abhorrent about them is the recommendation that they are: fashionable; appropriate for men at large to wear; and can be worn into the evening. To hear that sort of crud from someone who's a "guide" to fashion is to hear someone recommend that the street is the coolest type of playground. That's just irresponsible.

You got purty feet? Wear 'em away. Don't try to tell me they're appropriate for evening--or fashionable--but feel free to wear them.

I hope this will put the matter to rest. My soul longs to have the darkness of the flip-flop flap behind us.

Who's Writing Your Copy?

Okay, one benefit of having a degree in English and a lifelong love of language (did you see what I did there?) is that you get to be bitchy about bad writing. I'll never get rich because I didn't learn marketable skills, so I get to be mean when people are apparently being paid to do something poorly.

Earlier today, I was posting about pet supplies. In particular, there was a dog bed in the shape of a Ferrari: a Furrari. This is being sold by a site called Wrapables.com; they have neat stuff and a nice design, but whoever they're paying to write copy should be fired. Here's why:

Share your love of luxury Italian sports cars with your furry friend with our Furrari Bed. This luxurious pet bed is a parody of the infamous Italian sports cars. This bed measures 32"x24" so it may only be suitable for smaller pets.

Infamous? As in, "Of very bad report; having a reputation of the worst kind; held in abhorrence; guilty of something that exposes to infamy; base; notoriously vile; detestable; as, an infamous traitor; an infamous perjurer"? That "infamous"? 'Cause why would I want to drop two hundred eighty-two bucks plus shipping on something for my sweet little doggy that's a parody of a car with a bad rep? And furthermore, since when does a Ferrari have a bad rep according to anyone but whoever's writing copy for Wrapables and clearly prefers syllable-count to accuracy?

I'm just sayin'...

Fashion Footwear for Men on the Take

I read a post on about.com a year ago--maybe two--that made me cringe. While I don't recall what brought the post to my attention, I remember feeling as if someone had just stood atop a mountain and prophesied that the safest way to drive is with your eyes closed. Okay, the topic was men's fashion, so the stakes were not quite that high.

The article was about "The Perfect Casual Look for Spring and Summer" from a guide specializing in men's fashion. There were five must-have items for that perfect look, and one of them was so ridiculous I had to write the "guide" and ask him for clarification if not beg him to retract. When the guide, we'll call him Assclown, failed to respond to my message, I filed away in my head that some day I would have a blog and I would proclaim to the world the disservice he'd done to well-meaning men everywhere with his terrible advice.

Among the list of must-haves were a couple of eyebrow-raising items. Polo shirts! Well there's something I'd never have imagined one would wear in the warmer months. "Premium denim": that's what the kids these days call designer jeans. Sunglasses--move over Men's Vogue 'cause this guy wearing the ridiculous-though-once-trendy hairstyle in his guide photo is a freakin' prodigy! But the one that really got me going:

My Top Picks in Men's Thongs / Flip Flops
I buy a pair of flip flops every spring and I get lots of use out of them. They look great with your favorite pair of jeans and can be worn into the evening on those warm summer nights. Plus, they just look cool and summery.

Flip-flops? As a fashion item? For men? Otherwheres than twixt the dorm room and the gang showers? Surely you jest, oh faux-hawked arbiter of sartorial skill.

Where do I begin to explain why this is terrible advice? Flip-flops on a man, when not paired with a towel or a swimsuit, are simply wrong unless you're carrying garbage to the curb or in the privacy of your own home. Even with all the metrosexual craze going on these days, most men do not have pretty feet. We should never have to see them. The nails are all gnarled and yellow and--well, you've seen it. I'd urge caution whenever wearing any sort of open footwear while in the possession of a Y-chromosome. I have nice feet (as I can see and have been told,) and I'm a sucker for comfort, so I do own sandals. If I had a nickel, though, for every time I've seen a pair of flip-flops on a man and thought, "Someone should tell him we can see his ugly feet," I wouldn't need to have ads on this blog. My sandals, though, are certified street-wear and provide more comfort, support, and coverage for my feet than shower slippers.

[Aside: I'm a man. I have nothing against whatever a woman chooses to put on her foot when she's not jamming it into something stacked and sexy. I feel those women from the Northwestern lacrosse team who showed up to the White House in flip-flop-type shoes might have crossed a line--even though they were going to see George W. Bush, who merits little in the way of panache. Aside from that, I'll leave it to the brilliant vixens over at Go Fug Yourself to weigh in on women's fashion. This is between me and my bros.]

While Assclown thinks they "can be worn into the evening on those warm summer nights" and "just look so cool and summery," I'm inclined to think they can be worn to the laundromat on those warm summer nights and just look so insubstantial and plastic-y. But the real trouble, ugly feet and questionable taste aside: most men can't wear them because they can't keep them on their feet. If I'm standing next to a woman who's wearing flip-flops, I can look down and see lovely, pedicured feet, relieved to be centered on a slim bed of plastic flatness. Replace that woman with a man in flip-flops, and I see a V-shaped collision of grungy plastic on one side, ugly foot heel-to-pavement on the other, with a gnarled mess of toe-jam, nail fungus, and corns in the middle. That is not fashion.

Of course, now that I have had some time to air this festering peeve, I feel a little bit better. I've noticed, for example, that each of the must-have items on the guru's list of five is practically smothered in links to purchase some of these fashion items. Which makes me suspect (though I dare not allege) that Mr. Sunglasses-Are-So-Summer might get a referral fee when his fave styles are purchased via said convenient links. And since these styles range in price from $35 to over $100, I think I can breathe a sigh of relief. It's just the same old spin that sells stuff and keeps those factories in China busy. So, please, men who aspire, don't take that flip-flop thing seriously--just feel smug that you had a hunch about those polo shirts being seasonally appropriate.