Inverted Abe

There's something about Abe -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Was Abraham Lincoln gay? As interesting as the topic itself are the gut reactions of the debate participants. On one side, you have conservative, straight Republicans who are loathe to believe that the Great Emancipator was gay. On the other hand you have strident activists like Larry Kramer who insist that the GLBT movement requires a hero. In the middle is a crowd who might be persuaded one way or the other, but they feel there should be a solid basis for the gay Lincoln theory. C.A. Tripp, a recently deceased sex researcher, authored The Intimate Life of Abraham Lincoln in 2004; Tripp himself seems more in the Larry Kramer camp and Tripp's book has truly stirred the pot. Philip Nobile is a history professor at the Cobble Hill School of American Studies; he was coauthor of said book, until he and Tripp had a parting of ways over handling of various facts. Nobile's main contention is that there is no "hard evidence" (excuse the pun) of Lincoln's gayness; in fairness to Tripp, gay liaisons would never be carefully notarized or documented then or now -- quite the opposite, they would be concealed. Furthermore, the fact that someone is married with children is no proof of a straight orientation. That is as true now as in the 19th century.

Looking at what they have, there are a couple of things that make you go "hmmm" and maybe a couple that make you go "HMMM".

hmmm:

Poem
At 20, Lincoln authored a poem about two men marrying; this is not a poem you would ever write unless the topic was really on your mind. (See wikipedia.org or Tripp’s book for full text of poem). It's a humorous narrative, not an insult or attack against gays. It's possible that a straight man could have written it.

Awkwardness with women
Both Lincoln and his longtime roommate Speed were timid and awkward with women. Both men were even fearful on their wedding nights, and were perplexed by the fair sex. Many straight men share this trait; by itself it would mean almost nothing. Taken with other things we know, it adds more shading to the picture, and that shade is lavender with an overlay of periwinkle.

HMMM:

Relationship with Joshua Speed
This is probably the most compelling thing of all. Lincoln shared a bed with Joshua Speed, the handsome lanky owner of a Springfield general store, from age 28 to age 32. The men were lifelong friends, and Lincoln is said to have been deeply depressed when Speed moved away. To say that "men shared beds because wood was scarce" (pun intended) becomes a laughable statement. How far back in American history must we go to find that austere point -- that point where two adult men sharing the same bed is viewed as an act of furniture conservation? Lincoln was a lawyer -- he could've sprung for the bed frame, mattress and sheets. In 1837, it would've set him back a powerful lot of money - roughly $10. I see no crossover point in American culture of the past 200 years, where the gay factor of this living arrangement would be any less than it is now.

Relationship with Captain David Derickson
From 1862 thru 1863, Lincoln apparently shared a bed with his bodyguard when Mrs. Lincoln was absent. Even at the time, this generated gossip with the wife of a naval aide:

"Tish says, Oh, there is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the president, drives with him, and when Mrs. L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!".

Again, as with Joshua Speed, how friendly do you need to be with bodyguards and store managers? The more things change the more they stay the same -- basic human longings have not changed that much since 1862. If George W. Bush were having sleepovers with his male bodyguards, it would be all over the news. Lincoln was probably protected somewhat by the lack of paparazzi at the time.

Historian Nobile is right on one point -- we can't divine anything concrete from this. Nobile thinks that Lincoln was at least bisexual, and the record seems to bear that out. When Walt Whitman published Leaves of Grass in 1852, Lincoln is said to have liked it a lot. Victorian society was becoming nascently aware of the "gay thing" and Whitman's tome had many gay allusions. Lincoln was against the grain of proper (read "hetero") society in liking Whitman; now maybe we understand why he was such a man of the arts, ahead of his time.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Andy Warhol on Canvas

1986 Self portait -- Picture courtesy nga

by blogSpotter
Andy Warhol is one of the most celebrated, iconoclastic pop artists of the 20th century. The son of Slovakian immigrants, Warhol studied art at Carnegie Mellon and began his career as a commercial artist on Madison Avenue. Warhol diverged away from commercial art, and yet he always was a confirmed capitalist whose art paid homage to commercialism (Campbell's soup, Coke) and was itself mass-produced via silk-screen in the interest of making money.

Warhol was a multimedia genius who served up art in various forms: Interview magazine, movies like Trash and Chelsea Girls, and even involvement with the rock group Velvet Underground. By the 70's, Warhol became more famous for being famous, hanging out with the glitterati at Studio 54. He was shot by a deranged protégé, Valerie Solanas, during a 1968 photo shoot -- his health and creative energy never made a complete recovery from this assault. He died unexpectedly at 58, from complications of a gall-bladder surgery. His estate took nine days to auction and brought in 20 million dollars.


Marilyn -- Picture courtesy nga

Warhol's most famous pieces are of Marilyn and the Campbell’s soup can. His influence however, is ubiquitous in virtually every form of pop art created post-1960. Once dubbed, "the white mole", the pale-skinned Warhol was a shy but witty social critic as well as an artist. He had quite a few remarks which almost could rank with the observations of Truman Capote or Oscar Wilde. Below are some of his comments that survive to entertain us along with his art:

"Buying is much more American than thinking, and I'm as American as they come."

"I never fall apart because I never fall together."

"Sometimes at parties I slip away to the bathroom just to see what colognes they've got".

"If everyone's not a beauty, then nobody is."

"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art."

"I am a deeply superficial person."

"I like to be in the right thing in the wrong place and the wrong thing at the right place."

"I believe in low lights and trick mirrors. A person is entitled to the lighting they need."

Warhol was and is an American treasure -- his image doesn't suffer even under the brightest of lights.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

If He Did It

The Juice's mug shot -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When OJ Simpson was acquitted 11 years ago of murdering his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, many people were outraged at the apparent miscarriage of justice. In truth, the prosecutors lost the case at the time of jury selection -- they gambled that black, female jurists would relate more to a female victim than a black defendant. Prosecutors also felt confident enough, based on the "mountain" of evidence, to move the trial to a predominantly black urban district; this was a measure to prevent a Rodney King-like verdict riot.

We all know how it turned out. The prosecution made major stumbles like having OJ try on a glove. Smooth talking lawyer Johnny Cochran charmed the jury with Dr. Seuss rhymes -- "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit". Then, a red herring was presented by defense. Police investigator Mark Furhman had used the "n" word in taped sessions with a screen writer years earlier. This irrelevance became the focus of the trial, and pretty much all was lost for prosecutor Marcia Clark -- OJ was acquitted of both murder charges.

In subsequent years, OJ has successfully protected his homestead from damages awarded in a civil suit filed by the victms' familes. He now resides in Florida, spending much of his time playing golf. He has a strained relationship with his children, and word is that they have never discussed the murders in all these years. Maybe his kids suspect his guilt, and maybe they just don't want to think about it. OJ hasn't helped things really. He's been filmed in recent years faking a stabbing with a banana; he also was quoted as saying that if he had committed the crime, it would have been justified.

Now comes his latest work -- "If I Did It...". In the book he "speculates" about how he would have done the killings, being closer to the material than presumably anybody else. The book's publisher Judith Regan, a victim of domestic abuse herself, considers it an OJ confession of sorts. The book will also become a FOX special. What strikes me about the case itself is the way it desensitized the nation to murder. Two people were butchered, and yet the presumed killer has maintained celebrity status and the killings themselves long ago became mere fodder for talk show humor. The macabre spectacle of his retelling the events is bone-chilling but will garner a big audience. The same instinct that compels people to watch a car accident or a public execution will deliver FOX a ratings sweep. If OJ did it, he needs to rest assured that "the jurist in the sky" hasn't weighed in yet. I don't believe in Hell so much as I believe in Karma -- and OJ will someday truly confront the wrongfulness of his actions. We must add, "if he did it" to be consistent with the upcoming book title.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

The Joy of Running With Scissors

The doctor is in -- Picture courtesy Tristar

by blogSpotter
If you come from a dysfunctional family, you might find several things that look familiar in Augusten Burrough's biography, Running with Scissors. Even if you don't come from the Adams family, you'll be fascinated by the story of a creative, gay teenager whose parents go thru a nasty divorce. His father disavows the family, leaving Augusten with his manic depressive, poet mother. The mother, unable to handle her own life or reality in general, gives Augusten over for adoption to her equally nutball psychiatrist, Dr. Finch.

Dr. Finch is a "new age" person who believes that children should create their own boundaries. He presides over a filthy, fallen down manse on an otherwise upscale street. His wife Agnes is a frightened shadow of a woman and the house is a bedlam additionally populated by his haunted, older, 20-something daughter Hope and his more outgoing, naughty teenage daughter Natalie. Augusten becomes part of this weird family from age 13 to about age 18; my own impression is that he keys into their weirdness very easily and seems to enjoy, if not profit from, much of the goings on.

The book was recently turned into a movie with a stellar cast including Alec Baldwin as the father, and Gwyneth Paltrow playing Hope. Annette Benning is superb as the mother, Deidre Burroughs -- vacillating from a beautifully coifed Anne Sexton wannabe, to a madwoman in the throes of mania. The movie has received some savage reviews; I suspect many come from 'ordinary' people who can't imagine this type of family setting anywhere, ever. Justin Chang, of Variety, gives probably a nicer review; he says that the movie suffered in translation from book to movie, becoming a series of chaotic outbursts and lacking the author’s first-person deadpan, comic point of view. He might have something there, and yet the movie fascinated me nonetheless. Brian Cox had the perfect touches of both evil and innocence playing Dr. Finch. Joseph Fiennes was schizoid superbness as "step-brother" Neil; Jill Clayburgh was haunting as Agnes. Evan Rachel Wood was slutty perfection as Natalie and of course, Joseph Cross was good as the sensitive young Augusten.

I don't recommend running with scissors, but I heartily recommend Running with Scissors. It may help to listen to the book on tape, to get the 'cohesive narrative' before you see the movie. Then, no matter how weird your life is, be glad that you don't have a step dad who predicts financial turnarounds by the shape of his stool. Perhaps I've said too much already. :-)

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Pelosification -- 2006 Election Recap

Pelosi, First woman Speaker of the House -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia
by blogSpotter
On the Today Show this morning, host Matt Lauer had a strained, ersatz smile on his face. As he hashed out the details of last night's Democratic House victory with Tim Russert, you could tell that the perennial, preppy Republican was unhappy with the election results. There was even more oddness when RNC Chairman Ken Melman said, "I like Nancy Pelosi and I look forward to working with her". Mr. Melman must have felt like he was eating major crow to have to utter those words any day of his life.

Fact is, last night's results were not a landslide. The Dem's picked up @ 30 seats for a slim majority, and the Senate is still in play with Virginia and Montana probably to get recounts in the next couple of weeks. But the pundits are right -- this election is a rebuke to President Bush and his cronies. George W. Bush is factually, not just arguably the worst president we've ever had. By numbers alone (daily cost of Iraq war, Iraq war casualties, national debt), the damage done by this administration is astounding. Something had to be done to slow Bush down. How much more havoc could we let him wreak upon the environment, the national debt, privacy rights and international diplomacy? Congress can't override his vetoes or anything, but Bush's wrecking ball will have to strike now from a five degree, no longer a forty-five degree angle.

One woman who will help to slow the wrecking ball is Nancy Pelosi, first woman to be Speaker of the House. This 66 year old mother of 5 is from a liberal district in San Francisco but grew up in Baltimore. Both her father and brother have been mayors in Baltimore. Republicans have depicted Pelosi as a "bitch from Hell", even finding some scary black and white images of her for campaign ads. If in fact she is a B from H, she's very much needed to counter balance the SOB from H that occupies the Oval Office. I don't know Pelosi, maybe she really is scary. We need her to scare some sense back into the Republicans. Official elections for Speaker of the House will be held on Jan 4th, at which point she could be deposed, but pundits say that's a long shot. People close to her have said that she will lead from a position of moderation and restraint which would probably be in everyone's best interest.

Now back to Bush. I often wondered what would happen if an average man like my Orkin man became president. What if we put a man in office full of prejudices and half-cocked ideas, not especially bright or thoughtful? Well that day came in January 2001 when Bush took office. Bush has shown what happens when a small man is overwhelmed by the office, too small for the chair. If truth be known, Bush is probably secretly relieved by these election results. He can offload just a little bit of the responsibility to Congress, a Congress that surely wants to bring our nation back to balance and sanity. Bush, take a breather -- two years of gridlock would be a welcome respite from what we've had. Nothing is preferable to something, when something is so very, very bad.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Election Eve News Digest

Don't count your chickens... -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I've thrown together some election eve tidbits here. It's a grab bag of political topics -- fairly random, no particular order...

As we draw down to the last hours before the 2006 mid-terms, it looks like the races are all tightening. Polling organizations think that the GOP will do better at getting out the vote this year, in spite of the GOP lagging behind Dems 47% to 43%. On a more optimistic note (for a Democrat that is), Chris Matthews predicts that the Dems will gain 27 seats in the House, and squeak by winning 6 seats in the Senate. After 2004, I can only feel that American voters will disappoint; I'm predicting that the Dems squeak by w/ a tiny edge in the House, but still lose the Senate. So much for "lessons learned". We've talked about partitioning Iraq -- maybe we need to partition the United States too. If that happens, I would call Texas "Bush-landia".

Governor Rick Perry of Texas has ventured into religious territory and says that only Christians can go to heaven. If this were not Bush-landia, Perry would feel very silly making such an assertion -- risking the alienation of non-Christian (and I can only suppose, Godless) voters. Following my stream of consciousness, Bush-landia calls to mind W. Bush. A friend of mine says that if Bush fired Rumsfeld, he would replace him with someone as bad or worse. He's right; Bush has run off anyone with a conscience -- Collin Powell and Andrew Card come to mind. His remaining gang is a crew of yes-men with Mafia-like social skills -- Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney. A scarier threesome is hard to imagine. It's better to retain Rumsfeld on the ropes. Rumsfeld is a punching bag who no longer gets any respect from the military that he "commands" -- let him stay there. Maybe Bush figures Rummy can draw fire away from himself, who knows.

Another headline -- Saddam just got the death penalty on election eve. Imagine that? Shiites are delighted and Sunnis are angry. Considering that Shiite death squads are maintaining Saddam's tradition of torture and bludgeoning, it hardly seems like progress.

I'm listening to David Limbaugh's book "Bankrupt" which describes the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party. He asserts that in fact two million Iraqi intelligence documents discuss Saddam's desire to amass nuclear weapons. He cites a Fox news report that the Taliban had invited Iraqi officials to its meetings prior to 9/11. "Several sources", he says, including the Boston Herald, believe that Saddam actually had WMD but moved them to Syria prior to UN searches. If there were a credible thread to any of this, it would be pursued by no less than Bush and Cheney themselves. Satellites would be mapping out the Syrian countryside and every "smoking gun" document would be traced. The fact is, these claims are all lame. They remind me of Arkansans who've been abducted by aliens; they only have hazy, anecdotal third-party reports to support the story. Mr. Limbaugh, to avoid being laughable, here's something you need: it's called HARD EVIDENCE. Without that, you can't be serious.

Well, it's nail biting time. In 48 hours we'll have a new Congress -- let's hope we get some much-needed gridlock. It's a tradition for Presidents in their final months to have lame duck status, and we want to observe that tradition.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Feet of Clay

The moral high ground loses another -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In a story as old as Elmer Gantry (Sinclair Lewis, 1925), protestant evangelists are brought to ruin by a combination of ego, hubris and unbridled lust. Rather than looking like believers who have stumbled, they look like con artists who never believed in the first place. All of us have "feet of clay" but it comes as a shock when those we hold in high moral regard turn out to have less self-control than a randy sophomore at a pledge party. One might ask, "I can keep my pants on for the next 20 minutes, why can't so-and-so?" You would think that those in the public eye, with so much to lose, would be especially careful of avoiding the "appearance of evil".

But power is itself an aphrodisiac -- something which tells its possessor that he will live forever and be immune to the heat of scandal. Thus, we have Ted Haggard, a boyish-looking 50 year old and married father of five; until recently he headed the National Association of Evangelicals. He had 30 million followers in the national organization and 14,000 followers in his own Colorado Springs church. He had the ear of President Bush and was considered foremost in the national evangelical ministry. What possessed this man to respond to the internet ad of a male escort -- some overpowering urge to snort some methamphetamine and get a massage? As with Bill Clinton and so many before, we are astounded by the fool-hardiness of the behavior. How did he get away with it for 3 years? How did Bill Clinton diddle Monica right in the Oval Office for as long as he did? Mark Foley should have known that text messages can be saved and forwarded, but he did it for more than two years. The mind is boggled.

But now and again I think these people want to get caught. I can only think of the Euless preacher who gave a PowerPoint presentation on the same laptop that held his collection of kiddie porn. Why on Earth was this man flirting with such obvious disaster? With the case in point, his PowerPoint progressed along from religious tenets to pictures of children having sex. Underneath it all, the man wanted to be caught -- to cleanse his soul. If a Father cannot absolve you of your sins, there must be some other unconscious way to blurt them out, some way to purge the mind of its overwhelming guilt. "Fire me, defrock me!" says the subconscious mind.

The Haggard story broke almost on the eve of our midterm elections. I'm thinking it would have minimal influence; one man's malfeasance is not necessarily a reflection on everything around him. But Mr. Haggard, to thine own self be true. Lying to me is no big deal, I never put great credence in televangelists. Just be true to yourself -- you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

A Species Out of Balance?

Is the human species in balance? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
From the time I first studied biology in junior high, I wondered why sexual reproduction became necessary in nature. Asexuality is perfectly adequate for one-celled creatures. Worms can get by, having both male and female organs. Why do higher-evolved creatures require a sexual distinction? Two creatures of opposite gender have to merge genetic material and then a "compromise" fetus is created. Charles Darwin saw a great significance in sex, but he mostly focused on the posturing of males to establish dominance over females. His theory was that males primarily serve a protective function and females search out the strongest mate.

Looking at the whole animal kingdom and not just select examples, Darwin's conjecture was woefully inadequate. There are species where males are an accessory -- a species of fish where the male is dwarfed by the female and is nothing but a sperm-donating attachment to her body. We also have sea horses, where the males are the caring nurturers. Even with wolves, females can outsize the males and be dominant. The gender differences don't hold consistently across species with regard to size, dominance, colors, aggressive behavior or other criteria. With Westernized humans, the females wear bright colors. With birds, the males wear the bright feathers and the females wear brown. With insects, the sex roles are turned on their head completely.

POLARIZATION OF THE SEXES

My own theory is that sexes represent some kind of fundamental, universal power struggle -- some type of balance that must be carefully struck. When the power goes out of balance, you have 'species out of balance'. In such cases, you will have extreme sexual dimorphism. Dimorphism is a physical difference between adult male and adult female of the same species. The physical attributes under consideration are not the genitalia but rather the secondary sexual characteristics. Secondary sexual characteristics include such non-genital attributes as body size, color of fur, or presence of antlers. In mammals, there are many examples -- certainly including humans. With bovine animals, the antlered males can be twice as big as the female. With a man and woman, brother and sister born to the same parents, the male can be two heads taller and weigh half again as much as his sister. The gender imbalance introduces odd results in nature:

• Difficulty in mating. Cows can suffer fractures and broken bones when a giant bull tries to mount a small yearling
• Increased mortality in birthing. Both mother and fetus are at risk if the mother is birthing an overly large offspring
• Sterility and homosexuality -- Increased risk of sperm/egg incompatibility; behavioral ambiguity due to extreme body differences

SEX AND SPECIATION

My own conjecture is that when the male and female become too different, the species itself is at risk. A few things may happen, according to this theory: feminine males may pair with hyper-feminine females to create a new species. Masculine females may pair with hyper-masculine males to create a new species. One can look at cats and dogs -- both carnivores that probably evolved from a ferret-like animal. The cleaving into two species probably happened with emergence of canine males and feline females that went their separate ways. There are other possibilities. The species could go completely extinct, leaving no surviving child species. The species might actually survive indefinitely, but as a static, non-evolving species – because sexual competition (and thus variety) is sharply reduced. The species with healthy "dynamism" is one in which the male and female are different, but the difference is one of minor style and not major substance. Thus, side by side -- the sexes should closely resemble each other. It is possible in nature for male to overwhelm the female and likewise possible for female to overwhelm the male. In both cases, we have dismal, species-stifling results.

MALE DOMINATION

The greatest examples of male domination in mammals are the bovine animals such as cattle. They actually form a patriarchal "society" where a bull is surrounded by a harem of females. In such societies, the main goal is for males to express dominance over passive females and male challengers. The very fact that bovine evolution sacrificed opposable digits for a clumsy hoof says all we need to know about this wayward direction. The species should be not about domination of a sex.

FEMALE DOMINATION

Hymenoptera (social) insects are the best example of this. A queen evolved to be served by sterile female workers and 'serviced' by males. She has no competition whatever, and lolls about to create larva for the colony. Wolves and hyenas have matriarchies where females will summarily kill the pups of a rival female. In both these cases, the male role has been subdued and the resultant society lacks competition or dynamism. The species cited here are certainly surviving. But they survive as the meat that we butcher, or insects that we spray with insecticide and exploit for honey. Wolves are near extinction for all their effort.

The animal with the greatest evolution potential is the animal that keeps the sexes balanced. They need not be the same of course; “vive la 5%” as they said in Adam’s Rib. But the sexes should work in harmony, and not be at odds with each other. Can a woman support her family? Can a man be a caring nurturer? The answers to these questions may help one determine how he or she figures in the gender balance. There’s nothing at stake, except for the species itself.

© 2006 blogSpotter.