Mentl as anything

Alas, I don't own the copyright for this splendid photo,
and I'm quite sure it's not in the public domain. The photographer
is George Etheredge of the New York Times; the photo was
published in a profile about DJTJr in the March 18, 2017,
"Style" section of the Times. If you don't already subscribe to
the Times, you should: It produces excellent journalism.
I am a subscriber, and I'd encourage you to be one as well.
It's one of the chief ways that we can contribute to
fostering democracy and transparency in government.

"Papa?"

"Papa!"

"Papa, can you hear me?!"

The Great White Way's latest hit is Mentl, starring Donald Trump, Jr., Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, and an ever-growing stack of Russian nesting dolls, each one with a smaller and smaller sense of morality.

It's a sad, strange musical put on by the worst cast imaginable. It had tryouts in New York and bankrupted a number of theaters and backers. So why its backers imagined that this show would play well in Washington is anyone's guess.

With a little luck and a lot of determination by the critiques, hopefully the show will close before too many more performances ruin the stage in America forever.

Need a hearing aid tonight

"Смоленская церковь" [Smolensk Church]
by Антон Денисенко [Anton Denisenko].
Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
via Wikimedia Commons

This is what I learned yesterday:

In the INXS song "Need You Tonight," the opening line is as follows--

"All you got is this moment."

It is not, in fact--

"In the gardens of Smolensk."

As I have thought it was for the last 25+ years.

Blame it on a mid-'80s trip to Leningrad and a then-obsession with Russian culture. I could swear there was a Smolensk cathedral in St. Petersburg. Things were opening up in the Gorbachev era, so I just figured that Michael Hutchence, international jet-setting rock star, had been there and had been inspired.

This is what I thought about yesterday. And, yes, this is what I learned yesterday.

It was the only thing I learned yesterday.

* * *

My memory is not as faulty or confused as first feared: There is indeed a Smolensk church and cemetery in St. Petersburg. And look at the blue! The colors of Leningrad buildings are one of my favorite memories from my life of sporadic travel and adventure.

* * *

And why not give credit is where credit is due?



The late great Michael was certainly "sex on a stick" (as I think Kylie Minogue once described him). This doesn't mean that I wanted to sample his charms; I actually always thought he was rather a Sybarite--which is, as best as I can determine, ancient Mesopotamian for scuzzbucket.

He always struck me as the kind of guy who, well, *would* try auto-erotic asphyxiation--though I would have wagered he was expert enough at it that he wouldn't have accidentally killed himself in the process. So maybe it was suicide after all. Having to deal with The Prick Formerly Known as Bob Geldof would be enough to make anyone take his own life, I would imagine.

Regardless, Hutchence was a major pop talent who I'd love to see alive today, still singing, still performing, still creating, still dating the world's top models.

Miss you tonight, Michael.

Evenings in Moscow

Nostalgia time: This is the version of "Moscow Nights" or "Evenings in Moscow" (in Russian: "Подмосковные Вечера") by Soviet-era jazz great, George (aka Georgiy) Garanian and the Melodiya Ensemble. As noted in the description for the YouTube video, this version of "Moscow Nights" was played as a sort of interval signal or signature tune--a signal or piece of music that identifies a radio station and helps the listener fine tune the radio, especially a shortwave radio, to the broadcast--for the old Radio Moscow. According to the comments section for the video--for once, not as vile, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and sexist as most of the comments sections on the 'Tube--this was a specially commissioned version of the Russian standard by the broadcaster.

The question for me is whether this version was ever available on vinyl, CD, or as a high-quality mp3. So far, no luck on this one. I can find other versions by Garanian and the Melodiya Ensemble, but I would love to find a copy of this one--the sleek, jazzy, summer-in-the-city version.

This version makes me nostalgic for a number of reasons. In the 1970s and even into the early 1980s, I used to listen to Radio Moscow on shortwave. I don't think it was for the programming, other than Moscow's take on the news, somewhat skewed reports on life in America, and the occasional cultural moment, like Soviet jazz recordings. But listen I did, just as I did to Radio RSA: The Voice of (Apartheid-Era) South Africa, the BBC, the Voice of America, Paris Calling Africa, Radio Australia, Deutsche Welle, Radio Prague, Berlin Radio International, and hundreds of other stations--sometimes for the news, the music, and the cultural programming, sometimes just for the exoticism of the broadcast location. Iceland! Cameroon! Radio Sutatenza in Colombia! ORTF in Papeete, Tahiti! And, yes, even the exoticism of Soviet-style communism intoned--politely, firmly, humorlessly--by quasi-American-sounding voices.

There is nostalgia, too, for my trip to the Soviet Union, one of the highlights of my life (so far). Washington, Helsinki, Leningrad, Tallinn, Moscow, Helsinki, Stockholm, New York, Washington, May into June 1985--a journey that still makes my heart hum, moan, and ache, with the sights, sounds, voices, aromas, and thoughts almost tangible 30 years later.

It was my first time overseas and led to some other overseas trips, such as Australia in 1987, because of friends I made in my travels. I got to use my very limited Russian (often badly). I made a fool out of myself on more than one occasion (I was all of 23 at the time; in theory, I'm allowed to be immature, even though I won't allow myself that excuse in my memories). I was tired by the end of it, sick of dealing with American jerks (and the occasional Russian one), a little homesick, a little hungover, and needing some downtime and solitude, being the introvert that I am. As a result, Helsinki and Stockholm are somewhat of a blur.

Yet I was homesick for Russia, for Europe, after I got home to Washington. I felt I should be elsewhere, anywhere but here, a feeling I still experience regularly, though less painfully nowadays. I don't think it's so much that I thought I should be European; it's more the case that I just was ready to travel, learn, experience the universe, and meet people who had a larger worldview and more knowledge about life, culture, history, and the now than I--a little hayseed/hipster wannabe from rural North Carolina--had at the time (or even today). But I only had so much money to do so, and no real guidance from family and friends on how to go about it.

Afternoons in Leningrad, circa May 1985

So in some ways that first trip abroad was wonderful, revelatory, sublime. But in other ways, it was painful, harsh, and frustrating--it just made me want more.

I still feel that way today, often frustrated by my limited vantage from Pittsburgh and the insularity around me. I'm impatient for change and hopeful that the next change, the next move, the next job, the next trip, will salve my restlessness just a bit.

But maybe that wouldn't be such a good thing. Perhaps it's better for me to stay restless and hungry for something more, something better. Frustrating, yes, but it is ultimately oddly enjoyable.

Well, maybe not enjoyable, nor satisfying. It's just who I am. And it's past time to accept that, be a little proud of it, and celebrate it now and into an uncertain, opportunity-filled future.

Forward, left!

Cause I like to rock-and-roll to the Iron Curtain hitparade of yesteryear, that's why.

And given the fact that we're nostril-deep into "our central government is more dysfunctional than your central government" shit-nanigans mode at the mo' in D.C., couldn't we all benefit from a little Motherland love?

The answer is "da," comrades. Or possibly even "da da."

P.S. Say what you will about the decadent West, to our credit, no self-respecting Capitalist would be caught dead or alive in the Shapeless White Shift of Shame. There's some hope for us yet, tovarischii.

A Red Army of lovers cannot fail

"Moose and squirrel are making great trouble for us"

I do love how we gay folk can make a nation "afraid." Much in the way we caused the downfall of the Soviet Union way back when.

(Joking, joking . . .)

I'm actually unsure of how to feel about or proceed on the Great Soviet Boycott of 2014, aka We're Here, We're Queer, Just Not at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

It's not that what's happening to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered + people in Russia isn't significant or important. I think it most definitely is. It's awful enough that "homosexual propaganda"--the right to talk about one's gayness in public or do any sort of advocacy or acknowledgement of homosexuality--is now suppressed under Russian law, apparently for political reasons. As well as because of good, ol'-fashioned ignorance and hate.

But if pictures and first-person accounts are to be believed--and I see no reason not to believe them--it's more than just "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" à la russe. Much more. It's violence, it's hatred, it's killing, it's threatening by the uniformed and the uninformed. It's a serious, terrible business that should be addressed with various forms of protest and pressure. We should show our support to all of the world's oppressed, whether gay or not. And we can show that support and action in many different ways, including boycotting the Sochi Olympics--or by attending and participating and performing many, many, many acts of civil disobedience on site.

* * *

For a couple of reasons, my preferred approach is the latter. I'm all about embarrassing Vladimir Putin and his crony fascist cohorts. He does Russia its citizens no favors by controlling the country year after year. Unlike Edward Snowden and a host of other opinionated folk I know on Twitter, I don't consider the current Russian government or the current Chinese one better options for freedom and fairness than the United States.

Then again, I hardly think the U.S. is perfect or innocent. Furthermore, I'm not in the middle of the Edward Snowden maelstrom either. Nor would I want to be.

Really, I know I should give a shit more about Eddie and the issues he brought out into the light, but again, too much of the Twitterati has told me how I must feel and think. Despite my more urban American trappings, I'm a mistrusting cracker at heart. You can't make me do something or believe in someone that I don't want to, no matter how loudly you yell at me, no matter how sure of yourself you seem.

And that mistrusting crackerdom and resistance to proscribing my thoughts and feelings by the Twitterborg, that invades my thinking about the so-called "gay agenda" and the response to Sochi. Yes, I'm still bitter over the gay marriage debate in the U.S. Not that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions didn't go far enough--all in all, they were pretty impressive, if limited, actions from a fairly conservative court. No, I'm more bothered by the focus for the last several years solely on gay marriage, an important right (if we want to call it that) but one that ultimately will affect and benefit a select group of people.

I agree that having institutional respect for our relationships might go some distance in helping nurture and sustain those relationships and the freedom-fighters in our army of lovers. But! What if I never have a solid, long-term relationship?  Goodness knows, I've tried and still continue to. But what if? How do my civil rights stand outside of the framework of a relationship and marriage?

Not very tall, not very proud, I'm afraid. I'm barely tuned into the mainstream newsfeed, let alone the alternative, activist, progressive, yadda yadda yadda press, but so far, this is the only article I've seen from Big Media in which activists discuss the fact that essentially most of us LGBTQI+ peeps in the U.S.--including in Pennsylvania--have no legal standing when it comes to fair housing, employment discrimination, freedom of assembly, or a host of other civil rights that many Americans take for granted.

I do believe we have the right to bear arms, though. Just not the right to be held in a big bear's arms.

I don't know that I'm actively complaining about this situation, at least not in any sort of screechy, strident way. However, it is an unfair situation and can be a frightening one as well. Really, many of us have to depend on the kindness of strangers and friends to co-exist safely and securely in this world, whether in the shadows or out in public. 

But there are many other people in America that must feel the same--women, African Americans, Latinos, persons in wheelchairs, those suffering from mental illnesses or intellectual challenges, the working class, the middle class, Muslims, Jews, Mormons . . . the list goes on. Heck, there are even a number of upper class whites that feel disenfranchised in this land of opportunity. Obviously. They've been highly vocal about this since November 2008.

I think I'm more irritated (rightly or wrongly) about how gay civil rights have been totally co-opted by pro-gay marriage supporters. It's as if the other rights aren't significant. It's as if everyone can feel good about themselves by saying they are pro-gay marriage without thinking about or supporting any of the other issues that confront us. It's as if everyone can wrap their heads around a bourgeois concept like marriage and family but still demonize single people, solitude, a less tidy approach to sexuality, not being parents, and apartment dwellers. To name but a few.

Why is this? Was there a concerted effort by activists to appeal to people's emotions and experiences with the focus on a shared commonality of marriage and children? Was the goal to turn off the harsh spotlight on gay men's "unsavory" sexual behavior that had shown too brightly during the 1980s and '90s? Is it that so many of those "unsavory" men died during the '80s and '90s and aren't around to see their issues brought to the forefront? Instead, our marriage-loving, child-rearing queer folk are the bearer of our standards? Is the right to marriage somehow not a "special" right compared with the right to fair housing and a ban on employment discrimination?

It just galls me that after all this time, some activists are waking up to the idea (or finally acknowledging in public) that we have not overcome. Rather we've just gained the ability to marry in a select group of states--or perhaps, better stated, the right to have the state's right to grant Adam and Steve/Mandy and Sandy a marriage license not left to be undone by the federal government.

Seems like a narrow victory at best.

* * *

So, to the point, this is why I can't get behind the big call-out for a boycott of the Sochi Winter Olympics by huge swaths of the Twitterverse and Stephen Fry. (And while I'm at it, can I just say I find I am increasingly at odds with what appears to interest said universe? Including cat pics, bad gifs, Neil Gaiman, Star Trek references, Star Wars references, Firefly, "cis" versus "trans," and various strident forms of opinion and activism I am becoming too afraid to address in writing for fear of being boycotted myself?)

I do enjoy the Olympics, mind you, and I know the athletes and planners have worked diligently to make the games a successful event. However, I also don't think the need to snowboard or ice dance overrules the right to walk down the street near a person of the same sex and not get bashed in the head for it.

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced a boycott is the best approach for any of the parties involved, not for the athletes or the Olympics or Russia or LGBTQI+ individuals in Russia. Will gay people be scapegoated even more if no one shows up to the big event? Will they be punished for the civil disobedience of others? And what about other dissidents in Russia and the world over? If we couldn't boycott Berlin in 1936 or Beijing in 2008 (or Atlanta in 1996--the lack of gun control, our prison system, our economic and social disparity, our penchant for the death penalty are all human rights issues, are they not? All worthy of boycotting it would seem), how can we or why should we boycott Sochi in 2014?

I feel liked we're being pushed toward something in a you're-either-for-us-or-against-us way by an protected class of activists who know no fear nor any consequences. Russia is not the UK. Uganda is not the U.S. I can't help but mistrust the judgment of the pushers, however well-meaning, however passionate they may be.

Personally, I prefer civil disobedience. Maybe it's the softer approach, but it would draw attention and hopefully the right kind of attention. I love the idea, as expressed by my Twitter friend Pam, of rainbow-colored bobsleds zooming toward the finish line. I imagine pink-beclad speed-skaters and envision cross-country skier/sharpshooters aiming for triangle targets instead of regulation round ones. Let a few sports figures take a stand and get arrested for the freedom to play, rather than our leading the charge to do nothing, to be unseen, to sit this one out. It will be great winter sport to watch the opponents of freedom and human rights on display to the entire world, shields and swords in hand. But then again, I always did prefer the San Francisco marriage-ins of a few years ago, when happy gay couples decided to marry en masse as a way to make their wishes and their civil disobedience known.

However, to each his or her own. And that may be my ultimate concern: I don't want the world to be told how to feel about this, how to behave and react, especially by a group of activists who have poorly managed the attainment of gay rights in our own countries. Maybe there's a long goal that I'm missing--circuses today, bread tomorrow--but I've seen no evidence otherwise, just a steely resilience in the face of ignorance and obstinacy with an aim to achieve something that is ultimately rather middle-class, narrowly focused, and, above all, self-serving to the elites. Please. Even the Cheneys support marriage rights for that sleeping-with-the-enemy daughter of theirs.

Again, cracker, curmudgeon, whatevs. I'm not that radical, I'll admit. Just tired and perturbed. The older I get, the more I embrace the crank role oftener than not. Hopefully these days I see through the bullshit spewed forth from all sides. Including my own.

There are a lot of emperors out there and a lot of them have the worst fashion sense imaginable. I'm on my way to being the Suri's Burn Book of LGBTQI+ rights.

And more power to me.

The sexiest man alive, Glorious Soviet People's edition

"Daddy Bear" Mikhail Gorbachev
Source: Russian International News Agency
(RIANOVOSTI) via Wikipedia

The sexiest man alive. For as long as he's alive.

What say ye to that, "Boi" Putin?

Jus' sayin', Mikhail Gorbachev is The Man and always will be, while Vladimir Putin will forever remain the boy who would be tsar. Seriously, if you have to show up shirtless on horseback every so often to prove your testosterone count is still high, then perhaps you're not as strong-like-bull as you let on.

But Mikhail--what a man, what a man, what a man!

I was in Leningrad--excuse me, St. Petersburg--in 1985 when Mikhail came to town and walked through the streets to meet the people. I was in Washington, too, in the '80s when he did the same there.

Both times were electric. And both times, dammit, I missed meeting him.

From an outsider's perspective, I always thought Gorbachev was a terrific leader, pushing the boundaries of the Soviet system to open the country and the culture to the wider world, which, in theory, should have been a great plan. Compared to Ronald Reagan (ptui), he looked so vibrant, serious, intellectual, and forward-thinking, a liberal Communist leader, a real progressive chelovyek, if you will.

OK, so I only have an inkling of the "Backstage in the USSR" drama that went on during his era. And, let's be honest, one coup, some aborted attempts at creating alternative parties, and a long period of "Putinstroika" later, we can see that things didn't quite turn out the way we all wanted them to. A heavy, heartfelt sigh to that, tovarishchi.

Nevertheless, Gorbachev for me will always be one of the bravest, most daring, most vital, and most visionary leader of the later half of the 20th century.

Source: U.S. Department of Defense and Wikipedia

And just to completely cheapen the moment (as only I can), also one of the hottest. No (complete) joke, I always thought Micky G was so fine in a mature, Russian "daddy bear" kind of way. I know, I know, my Freudian slip is showing, but for reals, how could you not be tuned in and turned on by his politics and his persona? No need to overcompensate and be all attention-whorey like some politicos we know. Uh-uh. Mikhail, in the heady, trippy days of glasnost, had it going on and on and on. He is the Quiet Storm of Soviet leaders.

You can laugh, yes, but not too much. I once had a friend who use to sing the virile praises of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

Personally, I don't get it. There's obviously no accounting for our tastes in men, but at least my choices have the better politics.