Review: Rolling Stone’s ‘Glee’ Article

Rolling Stone’s April 15th, 2010 issue featured a cover story entitled GLEE GONE WILD: Inside TV’s Hottest Show. Get ready, because you can bet this Diva has quite a bit to say about the subject.

Rolling Stone's Glee Cover

The Cover Photo

I knew I was in for a rough time just from the cover. My first instinct was to ask, are they all supposed to be running/biking/skating away from something? If so, why are they not actually looking in the same direction? Also, whoever on this photo shoot yelled, “Look like there’s a monster chasing you!” completely ruined the shot, as Dianna and Lea are both very beautiful girls who are making some of the stupidest facial expressions I’ve ever seen, making them barely recognizable.

But of course, what makes me the most angry is what they did to my girl Lea Michele (who, if you haven’t caught on by now, plays Rachel Berry). First of all, it is extremely obviously that every other person on the shoot is dressed like their character (Quinn in a cheerleading outfit, Sue in her classic track suit, Finn in a varsity sweater holding a football), but never in a thousand years would Rachel Berry wear that skirt. For God’s sake, even when she’s trying to impress men, her reference for what is sexy is Grease, not naughty schoolgirls. She certainly wouldn’t leave the house in such a short skirt, because that awkward Jewish kid with the red ‘fro would never leave her side if she did.

But more importantly, isn’t Glee a good enough show with a talented and good-looking enough cast that you don’t need to have an up-the-skirt shot in order for it to grace the cover? I know Lea Michele is not actually sixteen, but her character is, and the cover is of their characters. I don’t want to see Rachel Berry’s 16-year-old tush. Also, if you look very closely at her leg that’s in the air, you can see a little line from the yellow shorts that she was wearing under those undies; clearly, that has been airbrushed out from her left leg so that she looks more naked. I have no problem with the fact that sex sells, I just think Rolling Stone really did not have a solid creative vision for this shoot. There should be a theme pulling them together – they should all be in character, or they should all not be, but there shouldn’t be crazed faces and asscheeks flashing and everybody on wheels. That’s not a theme; that’s a hot disaster.

The Centerfold Photo

I unfortunately cannot find a picture online of the centerfold photo, but it is infinitely better than the cover art. Everyone’s beautiful characters shine through: Finn is in his football uniform, looking fully uncomfortable as Kurt, dressed as a Boy Scout (the only part of the photo of which I disapprove, because again, there is only one person not dressed in character), puts his arms around him and smiles up at him with a lovesick look. They still put Lea Michele in an outfit that Rachel would never wear, with an inappropriately short skirt, but at least she’s singing into a microphone, while Mr. Schue’s wife holds him by the tie, Puck mimes punching someone, Quinn lifts her pom-poms and Ms. Pillsbury cleans Puck’s helmet. It has its flaws, but at least this photo manages to capture the magic of Glee: the incredibly neurotic, diverse, and loony characters and how they interact with each other.

Part I: Intro & Lea Michele

I paid $4.99 for this magazine because I thought I was going to be reading about the cast of Glee. Instead, I got to read about the author of the article, Erik Hedegaard, who is not only far less interesting than the Glee cast, but he’s also a complete asshole.

Hedegaard opens the article with his desire to have the Glee cast and creator “entertain” him during their interview. He discusses this as if it were natural to assume that someone who performs for a living should be in performance mode 100% of the time, and entertain others on command. Instead of talking to or about them as if they were people, he treats them like trained monkeys at a circus. Not only is this dehumanizing and disturbing, but it’s not even good journalism! Aren’t interviews so that we can learn more about our favorite performers as human beings – you know, find out about what they do and who they are when they’re not belting out “Don’t Rain on My Parade”? Not so that we can watch a cold-hearted so-called journalist say, “We like [Lea Michele] so much that we can’t wait to ask her to entertain us” … “‘Entertain us!’ we shout… ‘You have to entertain us!'” I understand that Hedegaard is trying to get a rise out of these characters to show the “wild side” of Glee that is so desperate to find, but he’s not only being disrespectful, he’s trying to make these people fit into what he wants them to be instead of just talking about who they really are. Maybe these actors are not wild-child party animals who are dancing on tables with Lindsay Lohan all night – but you should write about who they are, not who you’d like them to be because that would sell more magazines.

“We find ourselves drifting to thoughts of goody-goody Michele in high school, and what a guy in high school might say to her to loosen her up. ‘So… do you pee in the shower?'” This is perfectly teeming with immaturity and sexism, in which a teenage boy thinks that he can “loosen up” the virginal goody-goody with his obviously HILARIOUS sense of humor, which probably consists of an offensive or just plain stupid question regarding bodily fluids. If I were looking for a douchebag teenage boy’s perspective on the world, I’d go to a rush party for a frat instead of buying Rolling Stone.

Hedegaard did get one thing right: “While each of the Glee kids gets lots of numbers inside the halls of McKinley High… when Michele takes the stage, she’s about all you really see.” Well, that is for damn sure. The girl certainly knows how to steal the spotlight.

Part II: Cory Monteith

Cory Monteith has a bit of a dark past, so Hedegaard spends his time wringing all the juicy details out of Cory, who willingly gives it. But Hedegaard’s conclusion to his interview with Cory is not only offensive, but completely illogical. It actually scares me that this man may believe his own bullshit.

Hedegaard points out that Cory’s nickname amongst the cast and crew is Frankenteen, “because I’m huge and awkward… and I’m not a teen, but I’m playing a teen. I’m like the assembled teen.” At the end of the interview, Cory tells Hedegaard, “I’ve always been a chameleon, but I stopped and now I can just be myself.” Hedegaard calls this “a great big load of complete and utter Glee-worthy nonsense. He’s a Frankenteen, a soul assembled, and always will be.”

I have several problems with Hedegaard’s response. First of all, the phrase “Glee-worthy nonsense” offends me. Hedegaard’s disdain for the show is so thinly veiled, it makes me wonder who put a gun to his head and forced him to write this cover story. I understand that you don’t always get to choose what you write about, but for God’s sake, you’re getting paid to interview some sweet, talented kids on a popular show. There’s no need to be so damn condescending, like Glee is far beneath your superior journalistic integrity. These kids are more talented than you could ever dream of being, Hedegaard. Back the fuck off. (Also, don’t get pissed at these kids for not entertaining you when you clearly don’t even like their show to begin with.)

Second of all, who the fuck are you to say whether or not Cory is being his true self? You’ve had coffee with him for a maximum of 30 minutes. Don’t consider yourself such an expert on who he is. You’re not a psychotherapist, you’re a mediocre writer for a music magazine that hasn’t really been about music since before the Clinton administration.

And finally, how the hell is Hedegaard making the leap from Frankenteen to Cory never being his true self? Hedegaard seems to think this nickname means “a soul assembled,” ignore the fact that Cory quite clearly explained that it means he’s a big, doofy 20-something playing a teenager. Hedegaard acts as if this Frankenteen status is the very core of the meaning of Cory’s life. But it’s a fucking nickname, and it doesn’t even have the deep meaning that Hedegaard is trying to force upon. Here he goes again, trying to force these people to fit into what he thinks they should be instead of letting them be who they actually are.

Part III: Dianna Agron, Jane Lynch & Conclusion

Hedegaard treats Dianna Agron, the actress plays Quinn, the same way he treated Lea Michele, describing Dianna as “pretty uptight” and “an A-plus prissy pie.” The writer is clearly bored by Dianna’s sweet demeanor and refusal to drink more than one Bloody Mary during the span of the interview. Because obviously all interesting people should get drunk during an interview about their career for the cover of a major magazine.

Hedegaard asks Jane Lynch, a true comedic genius, to entertain him, and thankfully, she doesn’t fall for his bullshit. “I am not your monkey,” she tells him, and adds that she has a bit of a temper. Hedegaard asks for an example of this, and she spits out, “Why do you ask such stupid question?… Do you get off on that? Do you go home and think about it and jack off?” Hedegaard writes that he laughs, but was truly hurt by her words. “That was a total misreading of our intentions,” he writes. “That was not nice.”

Who gave this child a pen and told him he could be a journalist? He accuses Jane of being “not nice” when he has gone out of his way to basically harass the cast and crew of Glee, and claims innocence and good intentions when he gets called out on his bullshit. Smooth, Hedegaard.

Finally, Hedegaard visits the Glee set, where the entire cast and crew hears about his requests for “entertainment” and insistence upon asking them if they pee in the shower. One exec congratulations him on asking some “pretty out there” questions, but Hedegaard points out to us, “That’s an adult perspective.” Once again, he paints the Glee kids as too uninteresting to fields his demands for entertainment, and chalks it up to immaturity that the rest of us are disgusted by his own behavior.

Hedegaard embraces his inner child and ends the article by bitching about how he gets ignored by the cast. Lea Michele walks by him with no greeting, Dianna Agron looks right through him, and he is not invited to join the chatting, giggling circles of Glee cast and crew members. (Shocking, considered he treated them all like zoo animals during their interviews.) The final paragraph is full of self-pity and metaphors comparing Hedegaard’s current rejection by the cast to the Glee characters’ roles in their mean high school world. He pretends to be the victim of a clique that will not accept him. A perfect analogy, except Hedegaard isn’t the one being thrown into a dumpster by the football team; in fact, if anything, Hedegaard is the one doing the throwing.

So after pages and pages of making a jackass out of himself, Hedegaard concludes, of course, by talking about himself instead of the show, the characters, or the actors. Now it makes sense why no one was capable of entertaining Hedegaard – he is interested in nothing other than himself. Unfortunately for this reader, he is far less interesting than the people he was supposed to have interviewed, and that resulted in a truly disastrous article.

A Tribute to Alexander McQueen

Today, the world lost one of the greatest geniuses of the fashion world. I don’t have words to express how influential and inspiring Alexander McQueen’s work has been to designers, celebrities, and all other lovers of fashion. At such a young age, he became so iconic that his work was plagiarized by a Project Runway contestant, and he essentially created the fashion enigma that is Lady Gaga (who not only wore head-to-toe McQueen in her infamous “Bad Romance” video, but debuted that song at McQueen’s runway show). He achieved more in his short life than any designer could dream of. Alexander, your work will truly live on forever.

The Angel

Fall 2004 RTW

The craftsmanship that goes into every design is impeccable. He constantly uses poses and styling that bring so much more to the show than a mere stomp-and-turn ever could. This angelic ensemble looks like it is lit from heaven.

The Pre-Gaga

Fall 2006 RTW

Whenever people are curious about why Lady Gaga is constantly covering her face and head with over-the-top accessories, I want to point them to photos like this. Years before “Just Dance” broke out, it seems like McQueen was designing with a true diva in mind. He dares to do what makes sense to almost no one but himself.

The Favorite

Spring 2007 RTW

I think this is my personal favorite McQueen design. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything with such perfect color, shape, and volume, with perfect flowers that cascade perfectly across the model. It is breathtaking.

The Copycat

Alexander McQueen, Fall 2008 RTW

Project Runway: Kenley, Spring 2009 RTW

A McQueen original, and below it, a blatant rip-off by a designer who should have known better than to steal from someone so original. So many McQueen designs are instantly recognizable as his work; his design influence is so strong in each piece he creates. You have to be a real idiot to try and pass such unique work off as your own.

The Unforgettable

Fall 2009

For me, this will always be McQueen’s most memorable look, and most memorable fashion show. The giant, disturbing dark lips he put on every model are haunting no matter how many times you see them. His Fall 2009 runway show was incredibly morose, provocative, and theatrical. The styling was bleak in a futuristic, post-apocalyptic way, and although my personal taste is not that extreme, I cannot get these looks out of my mind. They represent McQueen as a modern artist who transcends the fashion industry.

The Latest

Spring 2010

And of course, his infamous Spring 2010 collection, which featured those insane, ten-inch, claw-like shoes, and a wild jungle/alien princess theme. He turns things that appear nonsensical into beauty.

The Future

McQueen’s latest collection is supposed to show this week, which is New York Fashion Week. Not sure what’s going to happen yet, but I’ll keep you posted.

I had so much trouble choosing just a few McQueen pieces to put in this post. There were literally dozens of incredible looks that he created over the years. The fashion world has lost an icon. May he rest in peace.

Obama Appoints Transgender Woman to Commerce Dept

Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog.

On Tuesday, January 5th, Amanda Simpson began her work as a Senior Technical Advisor to the US Commerce Department. Ms. Simpson is the first known transgender presidential appointee.

The backlash was immediate. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth, an antigay group, released the following statement:

Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration? How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby.

The White House website currently shows 643 appointments and nominations made by President Obama. Apparently, 1 out of 643 represents a quota to groups like Americans for Truth, who are so panicked by Simpson’s appointment that they are ignoring her qualifications and claiming that this is a political maneuver by the president.

Simpson worked as the deputy director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems. She is a flight instructor and a test pilot, and with thirty years in the industry and degrees in physics, engineering, and business administration under her belt, she’s already proven more than worthy of the job. Her high qualifications only highlight the absurdity of claims by Focus on the Family that this appointment is just Obama’s “payback to his far-left base for their political support.”

If this is supposed to be payback to the LGBT community for their support, it’s too little, too late. The President is far too intelligent to believe that one appointment would make the LGBT community forgive him for his lack of progress on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It’s clear that groups like Focus on the Family either have no idea what the LGBT community’s priorities are, or they are just trying to instigate media attention with their radical messages.

Amanda Simpson represents a milestone in our nation’s history, and it is important to recognize what she has done for the transgender community. But we should remember that she was appointed because of her unique skills and qualifications, not because Obama wanted to use her to “pay back” the LGBT community.

Let us hope that this appointment ushers in an era not of quotas and political pandering, but of equality and opportunity for all.

Best/Worst of 2009: Superlatives

Time to finish up the best and worst of 2009 with pop culture overview. Here’s how I rate the lows and highs of pop culture.

Most Likely to Succeed

Don't stop believin'.

You can’t watch a talk show without one of these cuties popping up and charming the pants off the host and the audience. They’ve taken over facebook, myspace, and twitter. And they’re still adorable and fresh enough so that we’re not sick of them yet. This group of relative unknowns has been catapulted into the spotlight by the success of their hit show Glee. It seemed like a long shot for a musical dramedy with no big-name actors that’s basically geared toward choir geeks and theater dorks to have any sort of success, but what America needed most during a year of economic downturns and celebrity deaths was a bright-eyed show choir. Now that the show has ironed out some of its more absurd plot lines (Mrs. Schue’s fake pregnancy, anyone?), it can focus more on its strengths: The fascinating characters it showcases, and the show-stopping musical numbers. I’d like to see anyone try and rain on Glee‘s parade.

Biggest Comeback

It’s Kermit, bitch!

Sorry folks, but Britney’s comeback from the brink of fucking nuts started in ’08. It’s the Muppets who had a shockingly popular year.

Our furry friends were everywhere this year! Rocking out. Being worn as coats. Helping families on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (I’m watching it now, and let me tell you, it’s phenomenal). And since star of How I Met Your Mother, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and my dreams Jason Segel has spent all year writing the next Muppets movie, 2010 might be their biggest year yet.

Most Changed Since Freshman Year

The good old days

It's Peter Jackson, right?

I think the photos really say it all.

Worst Thing to Happen to Nice Girls

Tiger Woods, I'ma let you finish, but Kanye West is one of the biggest douchebags OF ALL TIME! OF ALL TIME!

With the quote that launched a thousand memes, Kanye solidified his position as the Crown Prince of Douchery by destroying probably the most exciting moment of a young girl’s life (that is, until that young girl went on to win like every single other award of 2009). While he had a point that Beyonce’s video was probably more deserving of a VMA than Taylor Swift’s (if we’re speaking strictly about the video and not the song), his booze-induced improv session made most of America’s youth turn against him, in favor of Team Taylor. He might have destroyed Taylor’s night, but he also unintentionally rallied a huge amount of support in her favor and made himself an enemy to basically all nice people everywhere.

There is a lesson to be learned here: Friends don’t let friends drink an entire handle of whiskey on the red carpet.

Best/Worst of 2009: On the Red Carpet

Best of the Divas

It may be a cop-out, but I had to go with a three-way tie for this one. These three women had fantastic years for their careers, were all nominated for major awards, and all knocked their red carpet looks out of the fucking park. More than just being beautiful at first glance, all of these dresses were incredibly memorable for me.

Anne Hathaway at the Oscars

I loved this the moment she stepped onto the red carpet. She brings such elegance to everything she wears, and this Armani Prive gown was stunning to begin with. The impeccable styling and perfect fit add to Annie’s fabulous and classy runway persona. And the cherry on top is that she looks even better in it than the fucking runway model, even though she’s curvy and not model-thin. That is why Anne is a goddess.

Drew Barrymore at the Grey Gardens premiere

Drew went mega-period piece in this ensemble, and yet it looks event-appropriate instead of costumey. I usually loathe gowns that match the woman’s skin color too closely, but this nude Alberta Ferretti design is breathtaking. The make-up, hair, and accessories are perfect complements, and Drew’s old Hollywood glamour shines bright at the premiere of her crowning achievement in 2009.

Kate Winslet at the SAG Awards

If you lived in Ivory Tower 412 in spring of 2009, you would know that Kate Winslet was our queen. It seemed as though she was winning every award, looking fabulous all over the place, and making us weep with every acceptance speech she gave. She has an uncanny ability to speak in an incredibly humble and thankful way, while dressing like she knows she’s going to win. This Narciso Rodriguez gown is what the red carpet is all about. Flaunting the curves without being slutty, a color that pops, a perfect cut, and a few stunning accessories. This is the dictionary definition of what a winner should wear, and Kate just glows in it.

Worst Singer-Actress Hybrids

Let’s stick with our three-way tie theme, and begin with two hilariously memorable outfits from the same event, by the same designer.

Leighton Meester at the MET Gala

There’s nothing I can say about this except, WHY? The hair is awful, the make-up is clownlike, and the Louis Vuitton costume is beyond insane. To top it all off, her awkward stance and pedosmile make her seem legitimately insane.

Madonna at the MET Gala

Madonna. You’re 51 years old. The dress? Awful. The gloves and peekaboo bra? Seems like you’re trying to relive your youth. The boots? Far too trashy for that event, regardless of your age. The headpiece? I have no words.

Beyonce at the Oscars

I can’t find the name of the designer for this one, which means it was probably designed by Beyonce’s mother, the creator of all her most trashtastic outfits. This is a nightmare. The print is completely out of style, the dress is at least one size too small, and I LOATHE MERMAID GOWNS WITH ALL OF MY SOUL. Why do your calves need so much more room than the rest of your body? Oh, right. They don’t. So STOP IT. The fabric looks cheap and tacky, especially at the bottom. And it does not flatter her curves at all. She just looks like a large, uncomfortable couch. Beyonce, I deplore you: Find new gays, because the ones styling you now clearly hate you.

Best/Worst of 2009: On the Catwalk

Here’s what I loved and loathed on the runway this year.

Best of the Runway

Christian Siriano, by far the most successful winner of Project Runway to date, gave quite a show in his Spring 2010 collection. My favorite thing about Christian as a designer is that he is a showman, but unlike most fashion designers, he makes the drama all about the clothes.

Christian Siriano, Spring 2010

He nailed the look from head to toe: shoes that complement the look perfectly without seeming matchy-matchy, low-key hair and makeup, a perfectly fit dress that’s incredibly body-conscious, impeccable draping and a truly beautiful print.

Other designers try to shock you into paying attention to them with moth-eaten ball gowns, outfits made for rich aliens, or enough whimsy to make you gag. This isn’t to say that those kind of over-the-top designers are untalented; on the contrary, they are incredibly innovative and creative artists. But what I personally love about runway fashion is when the designers don’t just let themselves run amok. The true challenge comes when designers force themselves to create ready-to-wear looks, and don’t use smoke and mirrors to distract from their clothes. Christian nails that challenge, and that is why he is an amazing designer.

Worst of the Runway

Hands down, the Lindsay Lohan-led Emanuel Ungaro Spring 2010 line was the biggest hot mess to hit the runway this year. I actually had to choose between several different atrocious outfits from that line, as there were so many that made me question Lindsay Lohan’s judgment more than I already did.

Emanuel Ungaro, Spring 2010

My thoughts in a nutshell:

  • A tacky, unflattering strapless bra is not a shirt.
  • The colors are nauseating together, and not in an interesting way.
  • High-waisted genie pants. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that one.
  • Adding an ill-fitting bolero jacket does not elevate your look. It just makes it more depressing.

The collection was doomed from the start, and under serious scrutiny because of Lindsay Lohan’s relationship to it. But there’s no excuse for putting this kind of bullshit on the runway. It’s an insult to Fashion Week.

Tune in tomorrow for more best/worst of 2009.

Best and Worst of 2009: Part I (Music)

This is the start of a multi-part series focusing on what I loved and loathed about 2009. Warning: Many of my answers will be cliche, but I’ll try my best to keep them entertaining.

Best Combination of Artist and Performer: Lady Gaga

It’s a cliche answer for a reason: Lady Gaga was the star of 2009.

Some pop artists have all the talent and none of the showmanship – Jason Mraz, who had a huge hit with “I’m Yours” this year and whom I’ve adored for years, is a talented musician who will never be stalked by the paparazzi because he’s not interesting enough to anyone but his biggest fans. Other pop artists have all the showmanship and none of the talent – like Britney Spears (no matter how much you love her music, you cannot realistically argue that she is a talented singer) and all of her teen queen disciples (Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, the Pussycat Dolls… the list goes on and on).

It is rare to find someone who is both a talent and an icon. Even Madonna, Gaga’s inspiration and predecessor, is not a particularly talented musician. She’s a chameleon, a dancer, an actress (ish), and a star, but her singing voice is only mediocre, and her musical talents end there. In contrast, Gaga has a powerful voice that, unlike nearly every singer of her generation, sounds just as beautiful live as it does on her albums. And she’s no one-trick pony – she’s also a talented pianist and songwriter. Despite her “disco stick” references, we can’t write off her music as dance-floor fluff. “Paparazzi” and “Bad Romance” are serious and fascinating songs, and even her lighthearted tunes are damn fun to listen to, even more fun to dance to, and never hit that obnoxious level that the Katy Perrys and Miley Cyruses of the world so often hit this year.

But of course, Gaga is also a one-woman show. She has crafted a mysterious, slightly insane persona, mainly due to the over-the-top, usually haute couture costumes she wears on a daily basis. I’d like to see any other modern performer get away with wearing head-to-toe Alexander McQueen, including those crazy-ass shoes that left nearly all women wondering, Um, what are those, and how the fuck do I walk in them? Her live performances involved pianos on fire, blood dripping from her torso, and a shockingly spiritual and meaningful address a group of LGBT rights advocates, including a song about the murder of Matthew Shepard. Her videos are epic works of freakish performance art. And most importantly, she brought Kermit the Frog back into the spotlight.

Worst Band that Keeps Getting Worse and Keeps Getting More Popular: Black Eyed Peas

Once upon a time, a teenager named Samantha thought the Black Eyed Peas were a pretty decent band. They had a unique sound and a weird-looking chick singer with great abs. But it seemed as though their music got worse and worse with every single they released. “Where is the Love” was a pretty beautiful and fairly inspirational song, and it featured Justin Timberlake, so you had to like it. “Hey Mama” made you absolutely need to shake your ass on the dance floor when you heard it in a club. “Let’s Get Retarded” was beyond overplayed, but still a pretty fun tune if you were drunk, stoned, dancing, or trying to bother people. “Don’t Phunk with My Heart” had some interesting melodies in it, but was more difficult to listen to, and ushered in Black Eyed Peas’ Era of Obnoxious Music that Barely Qualifies as Music. “My Humps” was just Fergie speaking in rhythm about her tits and ass, using some of the worst lyrics of the decade (“Mix your milk with my cocoa puff,” anyone?). And the only good thing about “Pump It” was its sample from an older song – it had no merits of its own.

The real straw that broke this camel’s back was “Boom Boom Pow,” the song least deserving of its immense popularity out of all the Peas’ music, and perhaps even out of all of 2009’s music. This song is basically about nothing, exchanges lyrics for catchphrases, lyrics for onomatopoeia and melodies for noise, and yet somehow topped Billboard’s Hot 100 for this year. It’s not a fun song to sing to, dance to, or drive to, and it usually gives me a migraine.

And as for “I’ve Gotta Feeling?” While it’s not nearly as offensive to the ears as “Boom Boom Pow,” it’s obvious that this song was produced with the intention of causing drunk college kids to scream “MAZEL TOV!” while pre-gaming and talking about the latest episode of Jersey Shore. I know I’m guilty of singing this on the bar at McFaddens, but I judge myself for that, because I know that that was exactly what producers envisioned when they created that song. Maybe I’m too old for this kind of music, or maybe I’m just so two thousand and late, but here’s hoping that 2010 is a Peas-free year.

I Occasionally Care about the Palin Family

In my defense, I mostly try to ignore shameless media whores like Jon & Kate, Tila Tequila, and the entire Palin family, but this story is just too delicious to ignore.

According to the Associated Press, Bristol Palin (daughter of Sarah Palin, infamous for her teen pregnancy, now motherhood) is suing her baby daddy Levi Johnston (infamous for impregnating Sarah Palin’s daughter and not showing his penis in Playgirl) for full custody of their one-year-old child Tripp.

Now, that is a story I would happily ignore. But it becomes a bit more interesting when we learn that Team Palin begged the judge to do a closed proceeding (which would mean conducting the case in secret, away from the public eye), and Team Baby Daddy requested a public proceeding, claiming that he did not “feel protected against Sarah Palin in a closed proceeding.”

It makes sense that Johnston desires a public trial. After all, the only reason any of us know his name is because of his shameless self-promotion at the expense of his dignity and the Palin family’s sanity. It’s been working for him for a year and a half; why not continue the charade? But what interests me is why Team Palin wants a secret trial. An open trial would absolutely ensure even more book sales for Sarah Palin just by keeping her name in print, and since her book release, it’s been clear that Palin’s top priority is sell, sell, sell. So is she taking an interest in the privacy of her daughter’s personal life at the expense of her own bank account and notoriety, or is there something much more scandalous going on?

I think a possible explanation is that Sarah Palin still has some skeletons in the closet that will certainly be released as this custody battle proceeds. (I personally have always felt that there could be a bit of truth to the absurd conspiracy theory that Sarah Palin’s youngest child is actually Bristol Palin’s child, and the family lied about it to protect themselves from the scandal.) What is she so afraid of the public finding out, that she would sacrifice her name in print and her books flying off the shelves to keep secret? And more importantly, why did the judge choose to side with Levi and publicize the custody battle instead of siding with the much more powerful Palin family?

At the very least, Levi will claim some stupid, semi-believable shit about the Palin family that doesn’t really surprise anyone. At the most awesome, they’ll do a DNA test and discover that Levi isn’t even the real father. That’s the outcome I’m praying for.

LGBT Rights in 2009: The Battle in DC

Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog.

God’s war has just started. Shame on them. We’re going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don’t let the marriage licenses start flowing.” – Bob King, community activist against same-sex marriage in DC, as quoted in the Washington Post.

After a year of debate in the DC City Council, Mayor Fenty signed DC’s same-sex marriage bill on December 18, 2009. The bill needs to pass a 30-day Congressional review period before becoming law, but despite strong opposition from the religious community, the bill is expected to survive the review period and legalize same-sex marriage in DC in the coming months.

The biggest threat to this bill originally came from the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Washington announced on November 11 that they would refuse to continue their social service programs in the District if this bill passed. Although DC’s marriage bill does not require religious organizations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, it would require religious groups to follow DC’s anti-discrimination laws. In a highly controversial move, the Archdiocese argued that they would rather pull Catholic Charities from DC than pay employee benefits to same-sex spouses.

A month later, the Church seemed less willing to take such an extreme position. Recently, the Archdiocese’s officials have announced that they will be continuing their social service contracts in the nation’s capital. It is unclear in what capacity Catholic Charities will remain in the District, and whether they intend to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Some claim this announcement is merely a political maneuver, and that the Church will keep charities in DC in order to ignore anti-discrimination laws and be challenged by the DC City Council. This way, removal of Catholic Charities will be blamed on the government instead of on the church.

The other major concern is whether this bill could survive a ballot initiative. Opponents of the bill have sued the city in order to get a ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot, but city lawyers and officials are urging judges to throw out this case. According to the Washington Post, lawyers in the District believe a ballot initiative would be illegal, violating DC’s Human Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Proponents of same-sex marriage are fearful of this bill reaching the ballot, since attempts to pass marriage via ballot initiative have failed 31 out of 31 times. Whether or not this debate ends up on the ballot, religious groups in Washington will certainly continue their standoff against the government in order to prevent same-sex marriage.

LGBT Rights 2009: Maine

Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog.

Earlier this year, Maine’s legislature passed same-sex marriage, and the law was signed by Governor Baldacci. Six months later, Maine’s ballot initiative (Prop 1) banning same-sex marriage was approved by 53% of voters.

Attempting to legalize same-sex marriage through public vote is essentially fighting a losing battle. 31 out of 31 states that have put this issue the ballot have succeeded in banning same-sex marriage. But, to put it simply, Maine was supposed to be different. Maine is a libertarian state, geographically close to states that have legalized same-sex marriage through their legislatures. More importantly, proponents of same-sex marriage fought an excellent fight. They learned from the mistakes they made last year, when California passed Prop 8, and invested an incredible amount of money, time, and effort into the Maine campaign.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage,the leading conservative Christian group against same-sex marriage, released the following comments about Maine:

Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation. It’s socially liberal. They had a three-year head start to build their organization, and they outspent us two to one. If they can’t win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing.

Gallagher has a point. If the LGBT community lost the battle in a place like Maine, how can they hope to win anywhere?

But the failure in Maine may not be as telling as it seems. First of all, voter turnout in Maine for this election was nearly 50%. This was extraordinarily high for a non-presidential election, but it still means that the views less than half of Maine’s electorate were accounted for. More importantly, only the views of certain groups were accounted for.

As young, politically minded individuals, we are unhappily aware of the fact that our fellow young people are highly unlikely to vote. A Gallup poll from May 2009 shows that the 18-29 age group is by far the most likely to support same-sex marriage. 59% of America’s youth believe in recognizing same-sex marriage. This is the only age group that has majority support for same-sex marriage, and it is the least represented in the government. Perhaps if youth voter turnout was higher, same-sex marriage would have a shot at passing. But until we can convince our peers to participate in politics, same-sex marriage doesn’t have much of a chance of winning over the public vote.

No more posts.