BOOKS SORTED

Okay, I’m done sorting my longtime personal secretary’s books and it’s back to the blogosphere with me. Seriously, I don’t know how Andrew does this everyday. Just keeping up with the email is killing me-don’t get me wrong, You People. I’m enjoying the hell out of this. I’m even enjoying the hate mail-and, I’m sorry haters, but you’ll have to work a bit harder if you want me to lock myself in the bathroom and cry. I get hate mail every day at Savage Love, my syndicated sex advice column, that puts the the pathetic mewlings of Michelle “I Hear Dead People” Malkin’s fans to shame.

-posted by Dan.

I’M INCOMPETENT: Well, it’s official. I’m a big, dumb dope. I got tons of responses to my query about the meaning of the Danish word/term SLUTSPURT, which my longtime personal secretary can be seen standing next to in a photo posted below. The photo was taken in Copenhagen, where we recently spent a few days. A lot of helpful, informed people wrote in to share the definition with me-a lot of different definitions. Apparently SLUTSPURT means different things to different people.

Anyhow, I copied the many definitions of SLUTSPURT that came in, pasted them into a document, deleted the original emails, and then somehow managed to the delete the document too. Whoops. I have just one email left:

I don’t know the literal translation for “SLUTSPURT”, but in practice it means “BIG SALE!” My other favorite, when I lived in Koebenhavn, was “BADFART”, or “BOAT EXCURSION.”-Ryan

Thanks for sharing, Ryan, but some of the other definitions were a bit more fun. According to other readers, SLUTSPURT literally means, if I can remember correctly, “big finish,” “final push,” and “end explosion.” In Denmark you only hear the word in stores during the final days of a sale, whereas in America you sometimes here it in, er, slightly more salacious circumstances-and there’s usually a comma after “slut,” an exclamation point after “spurt,” and it sounds rather like an order.

-posted by Dan.

THAT’S NO MULLET: My longtime personal secretary insisted on a clarification: sometimes he sorts my books. We’re versatile. Oh, and he doesn’t have a mullet! He’s wearing a hat and has long hair, and the pixilation makes it look rather mullet-esque, it’s true, but it’s an optical illusion.

-posted by Dan.

I’M INCOMPETENT II: Yesterday I posted a picture of a tree full of pacifiers that my LPS and I stumbled across in Copenhagen. We couldn’t figure out what was up, and none of the Danes we asked had any idea. Since Andrew is always going on about how brainy and resourceful You People are, I tossed the photo on the website and asked for your help.

Well, it turns out it’s not a memorial to Denmark’s murdered children, my LPS’ first guess, nor is it, as many of You People speculated, a memorial to Denmark’s aborted children. And it’s not, as Kurt from Trevose, PA, speculated, a drug culture thing. (“I understand that people into Ecstasy use pacifiers when they’re rolling to alleviate the dry mouth,” Kurt wrote. “Perhaps there was a rave in Denmark and what you saw was its aftermath.”) The answer is basically what I suspected-and the answer was literally at my fingertips. As one reader pointed out…

PACIFIER + TREE + DENMARK x GOOGLE = ANSWER!

There’s a nice run-down on Danish “suttetræ,” or pacifier-trees, here. A snip:

Frederiksberg Garden is, like all parks, a favored place for pushing strollers. It is thick with infants and toddlers at any time of year. At some point, some Danish mother must have said to her child, “Skat, you’re old enough to stop using your pacifier now, aren’t you? Yes, you’re all grown up, now! But I don’t want you to give it to me. I want you to give it to that tree, and I want you to promise the tree that you’ll never use a pacifier again because now you’re a big grown up!” Maybe that’s not how it started. In any case, that’s what happens now, according to the women I spoke to. The babies of Frederiksberg are weaned off their pacifiers by giving them to the tree and promising the tree never to use them again.

Another reader sent me this very sweet letter…

Obviously, you have by now figured out that your longtime personal secretary is wrong about the binki tree in Frederiksberg. The best thing about the existence of this binki tree is that it is-in typical Danish fashion-explained very earnestly in a brochure put out by the government.

In the brochure, the county explains all the best ways for people to help their children kick the nasty binki habit, explaining that a new stuffed animal, emotional support from parents and siblings, or a visit to the binki tree might all be helpful.

Must not be anything terribly rotten in a county where the government can put out brochures about getting rid of pacifiers! I remember hearing about binkie trees growing up in Denmark, but I managed to get rid of mine without visiting the local tree. (Oh, and the sign in the window, it literally means final (slut) sprint (spurt). It would ususally refer to the final round of price markdowns in a big sale.)-Mogens

So how come none of the adult Danes I spoke with-hip young employees at our hotel, young and young-ish gay guys we met at the bars-knew anything about the pacifier trees?

I don’t really know how the tradition evolved, but I think it happened within the last 10-15 years. It certainly didn’t exist when I was a kid…. I live in the second-largest city, Aarhus, and we have a few here too. Should you visit this corner of the world one day, wanting to witness this bizarre phenomenon, head for “Dyrehaven” in the forests of Moesgaard.-Mikkel

Now everything is illuminated-except why it didn’t occur to ME to go to Google and type in “pacifier” and and “tree” and “Denmark.” Like I said on the first day, I am a Luddite through and through. When something stumps me, my first response is not to jump on Google, but to start asking around.

Still, while I may have exposed myself to be a non-tech-savvy geek, without my idiocy and incompetence I wouldn’t have been treated to so many letters from around the world about Denmark’s suttetræ phenomenon.

My kid is long past the pacifier stage, but I think the pacifier tree tradition is a wonderful idea and should be adopted by American parents. First, I think it would really help get kids to let go of their pacifiers-if the tree communicates anything to little kids it’s that TONS of other kids have already given up their pacifiers. They’re big kids now, don’t you want to be a big kid too? Kids seem to have an instinctive connection with/love for trees-a throwback to the origin of our species, perhaps?-so building this charming ritual around a sprawling, welcoming tree is a stroke of genius. Central Park in Chicago needs a binki tree, Lincoln Park in Chicago needs a binki tree, Volunteer Park in Seattle needs a binki tree. American parents, let’s get this sweet tradition of the ground here.

-posted by Dan.

WHAT WAS ANDREW THINKING?

From the inbox…

Andrew: You made a big mistake is letting that fool Dan [Savage] use your web site for his personal vendettas. His vituperative writing and obviously one-sided view of everything is just showing what a left wing crazy he is really is and you’re a fool for giving him the web site. You disappoint with your lack of judgment in this matter.
-Sol K.

I must say how great guest blogger Dan Savage is. He is insightful, he makes me laugh out loud, and the self-conscious mutterings, while diminishing, as he gets more comfortable, are funny and human. Thanks for thinking of him.
-Anita S.

-posted by Dan

INDECENT EXPOSURE

Msgr. Eugene Clark, the 79 year-old rector at St. Patrick’s Cathedral accused of having an adulterous affair with his “longtime personal secretary,” a married woman, stepped down today. Newsday reports that the Roman Catholic priest once blamed the Catholic sex-abuse scandal on “the campaign of liberal America against celibacy.” Now we know the monsignor himself was a deep-cover, highly-placed operative in the War On Celibacy. Indeed, if the aggrieved husband is right, Msrg. Clark fired a few shots in this war himself.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, as my Caholic mom likes to say. It’s a sad day for practicing Catholics, St. Pat’s, and, of course, for that every-dwindling band Catholic priests who can keep appearances-and their black trousers-up. Still, we did get two great new euphemisms out of this scandal: I’m going to keep referring to my boyfriend as my “longtime personal secretary,” if only to keep the number of posts on this blog that touch on homosexuality to a minimum. That’s one.

The other? The cuckolded husband of Msgr. Clark claims that his wife told him she was “sorting books,” when she was, he alleges (and he has video), actually holed up in a hotel room with the Msgr. Eugene “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” Clark. I intend to spend some time “sorting books” with my “longtime personal secretary” this evening.

Right after I shower with my son, of course.

-posted by Dan.

ANOTHER PIC FROM DENMARK

I’m going to post what I’ve learned from You People about Copenhagen’s binki (binkie?) tree a little later today, but first I wanted to post this photo. (I just love postin’ photos!) It’s a shop window in Denmark…

Anyone know what SLUTSPURT means? I expect it doesn’t mean the same thing in Danish that it does in English. Oh, and that guy on the right? That’s my longtime personal secretary. I pixilated his face, at his request, since, thanks to a certain someone in New York City, being called a “longtime personal secretary” today is like being called a “White House intern” in 1998.

-posted by Dan.

AT LEAST THE CHILD HAS A FATHER AND A MOTHER

But does his father shower with him? From today’s Seattle Times.

-posted by Dan.

FROM THE INBOX:Readers weigh in…

The idea that Republicans in power have ever favored personal freedoms is a myth. (I say “in power” because libertarians favor personal freedoms, and some of them are Republicans, but none holds, or to my knowledge ever has held, power.) Republicans have always opposed gay rights, pornography, and civil liberties in general; they favor freedom only for big business. There’s an old joke that liberals want to regulate big business but not our sex lives, while conservatives want to regulate our sex lives but not big business. In other words, each wants to regulate the other.

RE: “I predict that soon we’re going to have-and need-a straight rights movement in this country.”
Funny, I think what we need is just a plain rights movement. I thought gay rights were straight rights and vice versa–how can they be separated? Must we be stuck between those on the insufferable left who think there are inalienable rights to an equality of result and to never ever ever be offended and those on the insufferable right who have no concept of the Ninth Amendment which last I checked says just because a right isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a basic human right? I think the presumption of Liberty is in trouble, though it probably always has been and has always required active defenders. (And having said that, why are the organized Libertarians so insane?)

Remember when Reagan appointed Everett Koop as surgeon general? How it was going to be the end of science in medicine as we knew it? Well, Koop got in a lot of trouble with the Wingnuts by (among other things) refusing to endorse a “study” that “proved” that women who had abortions had a higher instance of breast cancer, and in fact he very publicly endorsed another, real study that showed no correlation could be observed.

RE: “The GOP’s commitment to personal freedom, fiscal sanity, well-managed wars, and family values,” When has the modern Republican Party ever actually tried to live up to those commitments? They have been very good at using them as talking points in an attack on liberalism, but whenever they actually gain power, these concepts are tossed out the window. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and a series of Republican-controlled Congresses…I don’t recall any of them being true champions of any of the “commitments” you list.

When I saw your post on beer, I thought it read “bears.” As in you had three bears last night. I got very confused when I read that your brother pours three over his breakfast cereal, but Woof!

-posted by Dan.

BATS AND BALLS

James Dobson cites some peculiar advice for parents who don’t want their little boys to grow up to be gay cowboys. The gem below, currently up on Dobson’s website, is from quack anti-gay Dr. Joseph Nicolosi:

Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

I don’t know whether to file this ridiculous/tragic or tragic/ridiculous.
And it’s wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. I have two older brothers, Bill and Ed. We had the same father, also Bill, and he played the same games with us. I don’t recall ever showering with my dad, but I’m pretty sure Dad didn’t drag my brothers into the shower and waggle his penis in their faces either. So it seems unlikely that my want of face-time with dad’s cock made me gay. And somehow-once again, we had the same Dad-my brothers managed to grow up straight.
I have a son, and I don’t shower with him, and I can’t imagine that the Docs Dobson and Nicolosi want me to. My boyfriend, however, does occasionally shower with our son; he takes him swimming at the Y, and you have to shower before you get into the pool. But I kind of doubt that seeing my boyfriend’s penis in the YMCA showers made our son straight. (I’ve been examining my boyfriend’s penis for more than 10 years now-in the shower and other locations-and it hasn’t made me straight.) And I’m convinced our son is straight.

Why? Because the first time he picked up a football he threw a perfect spiral.

-posted by Dan.

SANTORUM AT THE BAT…

…is preferable to santorum on the bat.

Writing about Rick Santorum without mentioning my past association with Senator isn’t easy. But a promise is a promise, and I swore to Andrew that I would keep things relatively clean during my stint here on AndrewSullivan.com. But, like, you know, what’s to stop an enterprising reader who wanted to Google my name and Santorum? Nothing, of course, but it’s not a Google search for the faint of heart.

I can’t resist running this photo, though.

That’s Senator Rick Santorum. At the bat. A inch or two closer and the photographer would have gotten the-substance-that-shall-not-be-named-in-this-space all over his lens.

-posted by Dan.

SANTORUM VS. FREEDOM

Rick Santorum, perhaps my favorite Republican U.S. Senator, opened his fool mouth last Thursday on NPR. As Bush has moved his party away from its longtime commitment to fiscal sanity, balanced budgets, and black ink, Santorum (and the wing of the GOP he represents) has moved the GOP away from its historic position on personal freedom. Basically Santorum’s GOP is all for personal freedom-so long as you freely choose to refrain from smoking pot, pulling feeding tubes out of brain dead loves ones, and doing what you like in your own bedroom (or, in the case of Msrg. Clark, your own hotel room).

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want.

Listening to Santorum, I found myself wondering what part of “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” he doesn’t understand. That’s Amendement IV in the Ye Olde Bill of Rights. Call me ka-razy, but the right to shut the door to your bedroom and not have to worry about a sanctimonious, hypocritical, creepily fey U.S. Senator sneaking in and lifting back your blankets seems implicit.

And make no mistake, hetero readers: Santorum doesn’t just seek to stamp out the kind of relationship I enjoy with my longtime personal secretary. The Santorum wing of the GOP is targeting your privacy, your rights, and your pleasures, too. From porn (just as popular in red states as it is in blue) to divorce (more popular in red states than in blue) to masturbation (equally popular in red and blue states), the Santorums and Scalias and Bauers and Dobsons want to tell you how to live, who to love, and how exactly you should love ’em. When Santorum made his famous “man on dog” comments he wasn’t just defending anti-gay sodomy laws, but anti-straight sodomy laws too. Santorum doesn’t just believe that the state should have the right to regulate gay sex out of existence, but two out of three most popular straight sex acts too. In his dissent in Lawrence, GOP and Bush/Santorum favorite Antonin Scalia didn’t just bemoan the fact that the majority decision could lead to same-sex marriage rights, but that it would prevent the government from passing and/or enforcing laws against masturbation and pre-marital sex. Oh, the horror.

Whatever happened to the party that backed rugged individualism? Of personal freedom? Of autonomy? Remember Newt Gingrich’s stirring speech at the 1996 GOP convention in San Diego, in which he praised the way in which American freedom lead to the creation of beach volleyball? If that’s too painful, remember Dick Cheny saying freedom means freedom for everyone?

Personal freedom is like free speech: Some people are going to exercise their personal freedom and/or freedom of speech in ways that make you uncomfortable. So long as they’re not imposing themselves on you, they should be left alone. And, I’m sorry, Rick, but the haunting fear-or certain knowledge-that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself in ways that you think are sinful does not qualify as an imposition.

-posted by Dan.

REAGAN REPUBLICANS: You still hear the term “Reagan Democrats” being tossed around. They’re still out there, I guess. (The fact that their wages haven’t budged since Reagan conned them into voting for him hasn’t brought them, or their kids, around.) But where are the Reagan Republicans, I wonder?

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

I wasn’t a fan of Reagan when he was president-and that’s putting it mildly. I loathed Ronald Reagan. I voted for the very first time in 1984 for Walter Mondale, and I was stunned when Reagan not only won, but won by a freakin’ landslide. (Full disclosure: Mondale; Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry.) But Reagan managed to outlive my hostility, and when he died I felt same sense of sadness as most other Americans.

These days I’m positively nostalgic for Ronald Reagan. Yeah, yeah: He shrugged off apartheid, he ignored the AIDS epidemic, he saddled us with voodoo economics and Star Wars and all that horrible red White House china and he attempted to trade arms for hostages (and broke the law doing it), but at least he wouldn’t have sent government workers into our bedrooms to announce that they were there to “help” us.

-posted by Dan.

BREAKING THE 11THE COMMANDMENT: Those crazy kids at InTheAgora.com have declared today “Breaking the 11th.” It’s a reference to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” (Is the 11th Commandment still operative? Or is it permissible, as la Bush/Rove in South Carolina, to speak ill of a fellow Republican’s wife and child?) From InTheAgora.com:

With Republican control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, perhaps now more than ever in recent history, it is important for rank-and-file Republicans to loudly proclaim our dissatisfaction with the way our leadership have become heady with unchecked power. Too often these days, we are asked to support the Party as an end rather than a means. And also too often, the policies, positions, and rhetoric of our elected Republicans run contrary to the principles that lead us to identify with the Grand Old Party. And, unfortunately, too often Republicans are complacent or silent in the face of such betrayal.

Like the GOP’s commitment to personal freedom, fiscal sanity, well-managed wars, and family values, Breaking the 11th doesn’t quite live up to its hype. “Countless weblogs will be taking part in this event,” InTheAgora.com claimed, “and you’re encouraged to join in too.” Can you count to three? That’s how many other blogs appear to have signed up. The InTheAgora.com kids asked Andrew to sign up too, but with Andrew away and me guest blogging all week (once again: Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry), I’m afraid AndrewSullivan.com will have to sit out the “Breaking the 11th” festivities. I’ve never recognized the 11th commandment, you see, so I can’t really break it. Despite the fact that my dad and some of my best friends are Republicans, I speak ill of Rs all the time. Constantly. But I’m happy to watch the “Breaking the 11th” fireworks from the sidelines.

-posted by Dan.

COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER?:

I’m not that inspired by the writing “Breaking the 11th” has generated so far. Joe Carter at TheEvangelicalOutpost.com has this to say about Rick Santorum:

Rick could have been a contender. He probably would have made a decent President. But he’s made too many odd statements to be electable. He’s said stuff that even makes me uncomfortable-and I’m generally in agreement with him on most issues. We needed someone with his principles but he let his loose tongue sink him. Too bad.

Yeah, it’s Santorum’s tongue that’s the problem. He has a hab
it of saying out loud what his wing of the GOP believes: the government should insert itself into your personal life and regulate the sexual conduct of consenting adults.

-posted by Dan.

STRAIGHT RIGHTS: A good example of how the GOP’s war on personal freedom and sexual autonomy impacts straight people too, look at the GOP’s maneuvering on EC, or emergency contraception. Go read this, this, and, most appallingly, this. Remember: EC is not an abortifacient. It is birth control-a particularly effective form of birth control that Republicans like Mitt Romney would deny to rape victims.

I predict that soon we’re going to have-and need-a straight rights movement in this country.

-posted by Dan.

THIS IS A TEST

Andrew’s always bragging on the wisdom, reach, and resourcefulness of his readers, or “you people,” as he likes to calls you. I would like to tap your collective wisdom, if I might.

I took the picture above in Copenhagen last month. My boyf-er, wait. Let’s just call him my “longtime personal secretary.” I was walking down a path in Frederiksberg Park with my longtime personal secretary when we came upon a large tree. Hanging from its branches were hundreds, if not thousands, of pacifiers. There were also notes and pictures attached to some of the baby binkies. We were dumfounded. My longtime personal secretary theorized that it was some sort of memorial tree, each pacifier representing a Danish child who had been murdered.

After a moment’s consideration I rejected my longtime personal secretary’s theory. Thousands and thousands of murdered children? In tiny little Denmark? Unlikely.

I thought it might be some sort of tooth-fairy-esque affair, a way for parents to manipulate their children into giving up their pacifiers. You take a child to a public park, he hangs his binkie in the tree, and then the Binkie Fairy sneaks into his house in the middle of the night and leaves a gift under his pillow.

We asked the Danes working at our hotel, and they had no idea what we were talking about. So I’m turning to you people. Any Danes out there? Any ideas? Anyone know for sure? Murdered children? Ingenious way to manipulate children into giving up their binkies? WTF?

-posted by Dan.

FROM THE INBOX

A reader writes…

Dan: You cited to the Post’s quote from wounded soldier Terry Rogers. I have sympathy for Rogers, but I don’t agree with his reasoning. He says that the U.S. could pull out of Iraq if we really wanted to do so. That’s true. He also says that doing so would reduce the casualty rate of American soldiers. True again. But his conclusion — that our continued presence in Iraq therefore is somehow driven by President Bush’s “ego” and that U.S. soldiers are getting killed there “for no reason” — certainly does not follow. To the contrary. The very fact that President Bush could reduce U.S. casualties simply by cutting and running in Iraq — but has chosen not to — suggests that he views our presence there as important, so important that he’s willing to risk all of the criticism and political baggage that he now faces.-Chris W.

posted by Dan.