Dave Cullen's Open Salon Blog

Not how I expected to get on Jeopardy!

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:11:02 -0500

Nov. 16, 2009, the day I really arrived:

Hahaha. I started getting facebooks and emails late yesterday afternoon. I was giddy all night. It actually tickled me even more than making the Pub Weekly and Amazon best of 2009 lists.

This was a dream I didn't know I had. I used to play every day, my little sister Mrs Che kept score. I would get a little nuts when I didn't win. I loved that game, the show, Alex. For years, I dreamed of being on the show as a contestant--that was one of my biggest early fantasies. But it never occured to me that I might make it on as a question.

The category was "In The Bookstore," BTW.

And I didn't even mind that they got my name wrong. Sorta. It's on my birth certificate that way, but not the book cover. (Technically, it's not on the front cover at all, but it's inside and on the spine that way.)

I was thinking about emailing my editor, but thought it might be too silly. Then I got home last night, and he had sent it to me. An editor at the house had tivo'd it (I think), and backed up to snap a photo, and sent it all around the house. Haha. Nice to know we all enjoy stuff like this.

Sarah making sense

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:11:07 -0500

So she's not dumb.

Sarah Palin deserved all the heckling she got, in my opinion. She made an ass of herself. She seemed to revel in ignorance, and glorify it. But she turns out to be intelligent after all.

I'm watching her right now on Oprah. I'm halfway through the show, and I've got to tell you I find the woman real, candid, and yes, intelligent. I can't believe I'm using that word, because I had never found her intelligent before. My big problem with Sarah Palin is that she has spent the past year celebrating ignorance and stupidity. She seemed to stand for it.

I have not read one word of the book, so I have no opinion on that, but she really comes across differently on this show. I don't buy everything she said, but I do buy the gist of it: that she was a newbie to that kind of VP stage and of course she made lots of beginner mistakes and was also kind of paralyzed by making more, and the McCain people's obvious terror that she would make more, and the press guffawing when she made more, so it was kind of f viscous cycle.

I'm paraphrasing massively, but that was the gist. And that rings true to me. Of course, I would also argue that was inevitable, and that's why it was dumb to nominate someone who had never gone near that stage.

But as for her role in the whole thing, yeah, I buy her version of it, at least big picture.

That doesn't necessarily contradict what the McCain people have said: that she didn't play ball well, that she went rogue way too often and basically didn't accept that she was a beginner and take direction better.

But I see her point of view, too. She sees them humoring her--eg, saying Good job on the Katie Couric disaster. She also feels that she is the candidate and she's supposed to exert herself and be herself and not roll over and play to a script. That's a very realistic tension to me, and I can see myself being torn if I were in that situation.

Once again: what the hell was she doing in that situation? It was a desperate move by McCain, but hell, he was in a desperate situation, too. He knew he was going to lose if he didn't throw a Hail Mary pass, so he threw one.

I found Sarah least convincing on the blame she laid on Katie Couric for badgering or condescending. Asking what Sarah reads was a reasonable question. It was Sarah who read way too much into it and got ruffled and rambled instead of just naming one. (I also thought Sarah was not completely candid there. It sure sounded like she wouldn't name a magazine because she would be heckled for any name she threw out. So why doesn't she just say that now?)

Sarah has not convinced me that she made a ton of wise choices during the campaign, but she has convinced me that she was facing a ridiculous no-win situation, and she made some reasonable choices in those situations.

Don't even get me started on some of her positions, and some of the hypocrisy. And she still pisses me off for the way she tried to make a virtue out of ignorance and inexperience.

But I understand what makes her tick a lot better, and it's much better than I imagined.

And she is no dumbass. She has not converted me into a fan, but I respect her a whole lot more than I did this morning.

This cruel web: The death of the Washington Blade

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:11:41 -0500

The announcement came suddenly, apparently. From Washington City Paper's site this afternoon:

Just hours ago, the staff of the Blade learned that its parent company, Window Media, had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, that the Blade was closed effective immediately, and that the paper’s two dozen employees were all out of work.

Yow. A media institution and a gay institution, gone in one swoop.

It's hard to imagine who is going to survive by the time this media revolution is over. Or how.

The story mentions Lou Chibbaro Jr., the Blade’s longest-running employee, who has been there thirty freaking years. I had the pleasure of getting to know him while covering both Matthew Shepard murder trials in Laramie. Smart guy, good guy, great reporter. What is he going to do now?

I was also impressed, at the time, that The Blade flew him out to cover those trials. It was important. There was also one reporter there who had set up a freelance assignement for The Advocate--which probably would not have covered it without his setting it up, and probably would not have the cash to do it today.

That was it for the gay press. Who is going to cover these stories now?

Is there a gay press anymore? Do we still need one?

I think so. It's one of those situations where the purpose of a gay press is hopefully to help make it unnecessary. The day we are equal, we won't need a separate voice to advocate for us. I don't think we're there yet.

But that doesn't stop the audience from drifting away. I know I read the local gay rags much less than I used to. Almost never, actually. They're not very good, but that didn't stop me from flipping through before.

But now I flip through very little in paper, except for books, and I follow most of the gay stories much less because we have come a long way, and it's less a burning issue.

As a consumer, I feel less urge to partake. But my needs as a day to day consumer are very different than my needs as a member of society. I need someone out there pushing every day when I'm not, and I also need good reporting when the big stories come up and I am interested.

But most of us are no longer consuming, which leaves no revenue, no budget, and media institutions are folding.

I know a senior editor at one of the biggest, most respected pring mags in the country who left recently, because he sees their days numbered.

This situation is going to get much worse.

Photo of former Blade employees by Darrow Montgomery

Obama's moving memorial speech at Ft. Hood

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:11:58 -0500

I got really choked up watching that speech. Obama hit just the right notes, and carried himself just right: serious and a little subdued, yet resilient and strong.

I broke my rule against watching profiles of the victims, because that can send me spiraling down to the dark place, because I just wanted to hear what he had to say. How striking that so many were immigrants and minorities. It made me gasp, again, at the blissfully few voices calling for retribution or cleansing of various sorts against Muslims.

We are a strong country and we have a strong military because it includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, blacks, whites, Koreans, Pakistanis, gays (in hiding), straights, men, women . . .

I was so happy to see Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey speak so strongly on all the Sunday news shows about the danger of backlashes and persecution of Muslims.

“It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well,”he said.

That was a gutsy statement. I'm proud he's running our army.

And I'm proud of our commander in chief, who did a great job today. Just by giving us a snapshot of each victim, he made the same point--as well as honoring them, and bringing some small relief or perhaps moment of pride to their families.

It's so hard on the families. Ten years later, the kids at Columbine are generally doing really well, but it's a different story for the families of the ones killed. Many are still struggling badly.

The tone, for them, was set Day 1, and for these victims at Ft. Hood, hopefully their president made that terrible load just a little bit lighter. I hope.

You can read the full speech here. Here's how he closed:

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes. . . .

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest – when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown – it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

---

* Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times

Drama-queen for "center"

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:11:00 -0500

Pack journalism is a well-known evil in my sometimes-field, but my peers seem to pack even tighter on word usage. One of them hits on a hot new word, which seems to make them look intelligent or dramatic, and suddenly it's everywhere, constantly.

Ugh.

This New York Times column highlights some of the latest: trope, besotted, and epi-center--a drama queen's version of "center."

Then there is "battling cancer," which is oddly specific to cancer. Never battling diabetes. And worse, as the piece points out, the implication that cancer is overcome by people with courage or fighting spirit. It really does, doesn't it? That's the impression I come away with in those stories: it's not about chemo or radiation or genetics, early detection of plain old luck. It's the fiery determination of the fighter gritting her teeth every morning and declaring internally, You won't get me, cancer!

Yeah, that's how it works.

Why are so many journalists such bad writers?