Month: January 2011

They game the system better than anyone else.

The official who yanked the David Wojnarowicz video after Bill Donohue pulled some Christianist strings … now says he acted hastily. He pulled the art work without ever viewing it. And he basically concedes the move was entirely political. He's right that much of the other work was superior – often vastly superior – but saying he didn't want publicity of the Donohue kind because it would have undermined the purpose of the exhibition seems perverse to me.

Actually, I think it would be the perfect way both to draw attention to it and its theme: that gay artists have long had to navigate political and social marginalization to express art. And it would reveal that the Smithsonian actually backs the artists and not the bullies.

Steve Clemons is having none of the usual anti-anti-Semite code being flung at him because he actually shares the Obama administration's approach to Israel, but wants a change in tactics:

I would like to know from Jennifer Rubin and from her editor — and from the Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post — what I have ever said, what I have ever written, what I have ever organized that deserves the characterization I received from Jennifer Rubin today at the Washington Post. What does she consider makes me an Israel-basher?

I think the answer is that any criticism of Israel is evidence, in the paranoid neocon mind, of anti-Semitism.

There will be no apology, I suspect. If the WaPo had to remove every insinuation that a criticism of Israel is "bashing" or "pummeling", or rotted in bigotry, their Israel coverage on the opnion side would largely disappear.

Of course, the issue beneath this is whether the Obama administration should use a UN resolution on settlements to abandon the US's long deference to Israel's national security interests. Given the intransigence of Netanyahu and the near-fascism of Avigdor Lieberman, I'd say the US should at the very least abstain.

A little pushback against Dishhead Apple haters from yours truly. It seems absurd to say that iPhone users have not complained about AT&T. We've done nothing but whine. It also seems absurd to argue that Apple has not led to entrepreneurial or innovative collaboration. Yes, I know the system is closed and censored. But the explosion of iPhone apps has changed media and our lives. And Apple didn't invent them itself. As for the stores-as-churches, I guess aesthetics are a matter of choice. The new Los Angeles Catholic cathedral is about as beautiful as one sees in the modern world, and it too is stark, open, clean, simple, letting air and light do the work of material substance. The Apple Stores, translucent squares of light, just strike me as inimitable and deeply recognizable – and elevating.

I guess, lastly, I'm not a geek. I use this technology and marvel at it without having the slightest clue how it really works. And since switching to Apple for everything a few years ago, the only problem I have had with the technology is AT&T and when I dropped my iPod in Cape Cod Bay and when I left my MacBook in a cab.

And the upside of the control freakery is the reliability and elegant, stylistic unity. I remain a disciple. And want Jobs to get better and thrive again.

Montevideo, Uruguay, 10 am

A hilarious and very British moment in the Commons. The deputy speaker's response is priceless.

According to a new GAO report, the federal government between 2004 and 2009 spent nearly $200 million to kick out gay and lesbian servicemembers, costing taxpayers an average of $52,800 per expulsion. Igor Volsky updates us on the latest efforts by House Republicans to preserve the pricey policy:

[On Thursday], Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA) officially introduced a measure to require the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to sign off on allowing openly gay service members, even though the chiefs have previously suggested that such a measure would undermine the military’s chain of command. The current law requires the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Obama to certify the repeal process.

Ann Friedman asks "whether men are more likely than women (or vice versa) to have strong social support networks" and tentatively concludes that women maintain stronger friendships:

According to the Encyclopedia of Women and Gender (there's a reference book for everything!), "one of the most consistent findings in gender research is that men invest most heavily in their wives as support providers whereas women most often turn to women friends and family for support." This is probably why men suffer more than women in a break-up.

From an early age, most women are socialized to be more nurturing and relationship-oriented than men, so perhaps this isn't surprising. My guess is that homophobia also plays a huge role. Men are taught to perceive intimacy with other men as gay. You can see it in trend stories about "man-dates" and movies about male friendship, which often veer pretty quickly from depictions of platonic affection to defensive homophobia. There's even a social stigma attached to cross-gender friendships. Just ask Slate's Juliet Lapidos and her best friend, Jeff. Or me and my bestie Josh. (No, he's not gay. No, I'm not gay. No, we've never dated. Yes, we are super tight.) If all of these relationships are socially off-limits, who's a man to befriend?

(Illustration: Fab.com cards.)