
I am still fuming over the Sam Adams situation (incidentally, despite the uproar, Sam Adams the beer magnate/founding father still comes up in Google Images above our mayor), and I have to elaborate on it just a bit more. When people say he lied (about his relationship with Beau Breedlove) in order to get himself elected, I don't get it. Do they mean he wouldn't have been elected mayor if it was known he'd had a (brief) sexual relationship with a younger man? If so, ISN'T THAT MAYBE A PROBLEM WE THE PUBLIC HAVE, that we should look at, instead of demonizing Adams? Sam is not Bill Clinton - he doesn't have a wife to be cheating on! That's why I don't believe people when they say this is about whether he lied or not. And the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. How many of you can honestly say you never tell a lie for any reason? I think it's far more likely that Sam lied to protect his privacy and prevent people from freaking out - just as they're doing right now! - than to get himself elected.
I just saw a news clip about how Adams supporters are banding together on the internet. (I'm planning to attend the City Hall rally next Tuesday, at least the first part of it, since I have to be to class by 1pm.) They had a timid, apologetic looking young fellow on there talking about how Sam made a mistake...but that shouldn't be the end of his run as mayor. That's a way more apologetic stance than we should be taking on this issue. What I intended to do with my letter to WW is TO TURN THE TABLES ON JOURNALISTS - I am one! - and ask THEM To hold themselves to a higher standard of journalistic integrity and look at the way THEY participate in these modern-day witch hunts. The way WW just rubs itself with oleaginous glee over being the first to break this putrid story - they have to remind you every five seconds - just makes me sick! And now for Marty Davis to join the chorus - the publisher of Just Out! - is the ultimate insult. Think about what you're participating in! I don't even care that I freelance for Just Out, I'm going to say it. I only have a month or two to go anyway.
Speaking of things that are gay. I got an issue of OUT Magazine last night, a leftover from the gay.com account I canceled (or at least stopped paying for) a while back. It has a few good articles in it, and I'm not going to deny I love some nice glossy eye candy as much as anyone, and yet, I see it as a good example of the way mainstream gay publications push an identity that you're supposed to adhere to if you're a good gay. Well, I'm not a good gay, and I never will be. I look at other gay bloggers and many of them toe the line, with encomiums to Madonna (I heard a new song of hers accidentally at a bar a while back and it sounded like "Get Into the Groove" just sort of re-mixed! But I think it was a new song, the lyrics were different. How funny/pathetic), obligatory cattiness, every shallow thing you can think of, virtually nothing intellectual. Gays are being dumbed down like everyone else. And their editor came off as such a moron. A reader who wrote in with constructive criticisms that were actually perfectly valid was treated to a snarky, dismissive response that didn't even make sense. It's things like this that make me feel I'm not a part of the gay community any more than I am part of any other community.
I think I'm gonna try to write for OUT. Subvert from within, baby!