Executive Pay

President Bush thinks that executive pay should be tied to performance.

The President of the United States makes $400,000 a year.

If President Bush's pay were tied to his performance, how much would he be paid?

- Say that 100% approval rating equals $400,000/year...

- Major polls from the last two weeks put his average approval rating at 33.91%...

Bush would be making $135,640 for his crappy executive performance.

And that's still too much, if you ask me.

First Up: How To Launch a Bland Campaign

as you've probably heard by now, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) has announced that he's running for president. which is good, because his campaign launch gives me fresh fodder for critiquing fashion, image, and style in politics.

Joe Biden's candidacy is an interesting case from a stylistic perspective, because Joe Biden is not all that interesting as a candidate. he's one of those senators whom you hear about a lot ranting on this or that (along the lines of, say, Richard Lugar, his ranking member on Foreign Affairs, Chris Dodd, and others), but for whom a sharp mental picture doesn't appear right away in your head (unlike, say, Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman). the good news there is that the campaign has a lot of flexibility to work with in terms of the image, if most Americans don't already associate various things with Joe Biden when they hear his name. the bad news is the other side of that coin: Biden is bland.

let's start with Joe's website.



the first thing that strikes me is that there are WAY too many pictures of Joe Biden. and these aren't pictures of Joe Biden shaking hands, like on Obama's website. these are big pictures of Joe Biden staring at me like a deer caught in headlights, doing something with his mouth that might be called more a smirk than a smile. so already I'm thinking to myself a number of things:
1. this guy likes how he looks a little too much: vain and superficial
2. he's really wants to establish eye contact with me: desperate
3. why is he smirking? maybe he thinks his campaign is a joke, or that soldiers dying in Iraq is funny

Joe is wearing a dark navy blazer and a light blue shirt, with the top button undone. good choice on the unbuttoned shirt, although I can't say the same of the blazer. look at Barack. he has a crisp white shirt (with a tie on, unfortunately) with his sleeves rolled up and no jacket. the image Barack projects is much more working-candidate than patrician-candidate. Joe Biden doesn't need any more reminders that he's old and that he's probably running because this is the last open presidential field he'll see for a long time. the "I'm more comfortable with my jacket on, thank you" look screams inaction and inertia to me, rather than the energy and the momentum that I feel just looking at Barack's picture. at least he's not wearing a tie, unlike Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and Bill Richardson. I don't even know who Duncan Hunter is pointing at on his home page, but it looks like the staff was aiming for "strong" but overshot and got "heavy-handed" and "scolding instead. Sam Brownback just looks like a douche. Bill Richardson is the only one who pulls off the suited look because of the way he's positioned: slightly contraposto to show the effort he's making to turn his attention to me (me!), thus alleviating the otherwise static and uncaring tone. Bill's suit, though, leaves something to be desired. you're big enough, buddy, without wearing a dark color that makes you look positively like a boulder; try a vertically striped shirt next time, and don't crop the picture so close that it squishes against your bulbous features.


the reason why women should get into politics (besides the fact that they obviously make up half of the country's population and should therefore be equally represented in the upper echelons of government) is because they bring so much more flexibility in fashion and image than men. if I didn't know any better, I'd say that Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback were wearing the same suit. Hillary, on the other hand, gets to do all sorts of things with her wardrobe. in her current homepage, she's sporting an Al Gore-esque tan suit with a popped collar. the lighter shade contrasts well with the dark, bad, evil, deep tones of the men she's running against, although it's not quite as bold a statement as her crimson blazer for the "I'm In" announcement, which no man could ever pull off (or, if you're Sam Brownback, would ever dream of pulling off because it would look too ga-aa-ay). it's hard to see how the suit is cut, but what's nice about women's suits - especially military-looking ones with stiff upper collars - is that they can be sexually ambiguous, so they can flatter the woman's shape and bring out her feminine qualities (which voters I'm sure love because it doesn't threaten or belittle them) while giving an external image of toughness (which voters love because, well, we're American and enjoy feeling like we can beat down on other people if we wanted to). the only criticism for Ms. Clinton is that the suit looks out-of-place at a nursing home campaign stop, partly because it doesn't match what the other ladies are wearing but more because it crinkles while she bends this-way-and-that to shake hands. take a hint from Obama: shed the coat when you're on the trail and working. if you're going to really get to know America in the next two years, don't treat every room like a subcommittee hearing and don't treat everyone like a congressional staffer.

and, for goodness sakes, don't dress like it either.

A New Direction For Me (And For America)

I've decided that I'm going to stop blogging about substantive political issues and actually get down to the important things in life: fashion, image, and style. my new goal is to be the Joan Crawford of politics.

why? because fashion, image, and style matter, unfortunately, even in a serious political system. in a culture of sound bites and 30-second TV ads, what you look like and how you are perceived are just as important as what you say and/or believe (for reasons that escape me, politicians don't often match up the two). there's no doubt that ideas matter, of course, as they should. but I'm just too lazy and tired form my day job to deal with them all the time.

so what will this new blog cover? well, fashion, of course. like Nancy Pelosi's olive-green suit at the 2007 State of the Union. it's always fascinating to analyze people's choices in projecting images of themselves. how do fashion, image, and style affect politics and the exchange of ideas? there's a whole semester's worth of discussion to be had right there. in addition to these conscious choices, however, there are also stylistic factors that are without our control. like our names, for example. why did Dukakis lose to Bush? it wasn't because his policies sucked any more than Bush's. in an intelligent debate of ideas, Dukakis should have drawn much closer to Bush than he did. I think it was the landslide that it turned out to be because of his last name. America was not ready for a president whose name sounded vaguely like a combination of intimate body parts and functions (doo-kahk-kis...you tell me). Which, of course, implies certain things about America's readiness for non-White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant presidents, since it's more than likely that a non-WASP will have a last name other than Bush, Washington, Adams, or Smith (isn't it interesting that the closest we came to having a Smith was New York's Alfred in 1928, and he didn't win because he was too Catholic for the time?). thankfully, the times, they are a-changin'. you now have candidates like Bill Richardson who's half-Mexican but has a fully anglicized last name.

WHOA. curve ball.

these are interesting issues, and we'll be looking at them closely, starting with Joe Biden's presidential announcement.

but first, let me get back to my day job for a little bit.

If the Constitution Allows It, Will the Democrats Finally Grow Some Balls?

a Reuters story today in the Boston Globe reported on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee meeting chair by Russ Feingold (D-MN) where several legal experts and former government lawyers testified that Congress did, in fact, have the constitutional authority to end the war if it so chose. Bradford Berenson, who was White House counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003, said: "I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war."

so the question now is: what's next?

so far, I've operated under the cynical belief that the Democrats were secretly angling for President Bush to have come out as he did on their opposition, that there was nothing they could do to stop him from making all sorts of resource decisions about the war in Iraq. that way, they'd never actually have to make a decision or take a real stand with consequences. what these constitutional experts have said puts the Democratic majority in an awkward position of - imagine that! - actually doing something for once (with the exception of people like Feingold, who was going to propose a ban on Iraq funding in six months anyway).

so c'mon, Harry and Nancy. what are you waiting for? do it! pull the plug! and screw it if they tell you that you're sending a message of defeat to our troops in Iraq. our troops don't need pundits and politicians to tell them that they're losing to see that things have only gotten worse over the last four years. any butthead who thinks that there is still a remote chance of victory in Iraq doesn't understand the definition of the word. we can't "win" in Iraq; the Iraqis have to win in Iraq. if we win in Iraq, we stay in Iraq, and that's not happening. so how are you going to claim victory when you have no rightful place as the victor? hell, how do you claim to fight a war against terror when you replenish the enemy's ranks daily by merely existing?

I suppose this goes back to my embrace of the term "cut-and-run." yes. I'm cutting and running. I fully advocate fleeing the region as fast as we possibly can. the Iranians want to peddle their influence and start a branch of the Iranian National Bank in Baghdad? go for it. be my guest. let them have four years of getting their eyes gouged out and their teeth knocked in and their fathers and brothers and mothers and sisters carted off to unknowable places. then maybe they, too, will learn the lesson that you can't dictate another country's ideology or socio-political practices.

Happy Anniversary

tonight I attended the 25th anniversary party of the Boston Gay Men's Chorus. under Jeff and Ken's persistent leadership (which they demonstrated throughout the course of the dinner in steadfastly wringing the best value for the Chorus as they could out of restaurant), the Membership Services Committee hosted the shindig at Maggiano's in the Back Bay. I was a little hesitant about attending even after I'd signed up because I wasn't sure how many "newbies" (I insist that technically I'm not new anymore since we auditioned and accepted a gaggle of freshmen in early January) would attend. having been around for 25 years, you can imagine that the Chorus has some well-established circles. there are some magnificently magnanimous people - like my good friend Jim McDonnell - who make sure to introduce themselves and to make new members feel right at home from the first rehearsal onward, but, understandably, it takes some time to break into the social network at the Chorus. anyway, I decided to go in the end and made it there just in time for dinner to be served (and thus avoiding any awkward pleasantries during the cocktail period).

I sat at a table with my best friends from the baritone section, Jim and Ethan, who were also with their respective husbands/companions. the menu was wonderful: fried ravioli, spinach and artichoke dip for starters; two salads; meat lasagna, fettucine alfredo, roast chicken, and eggplant parmesan (which, I'm sad to say, no one touched) for the main course; and profiteroles and apple fritters for dessert. there was also a delicious cake for the occasion, with champagne icing, nonetheless. the festivities for the evening included plenty of conversation but also some short speeches by the Chorus' luminaries: its three members who were part of the Chorus when it was first founded in 1982, among others. our delightful musical director, Reuben Reynolds, was asked to speak about the future of the BGMC, and he promptly admitted that he had no idea what the future held. wisely, however, he noted that the fights of the past have a nasty and unsurprising way of creeping back up in the future. he was referring to the gay marriage debate, which, with the reactionary voting that went on in the Massachusetts State House earlier this month, is slated to be debated again next fall and potentially advanced to statewide ballot in 2008. Reuben seemed to make a dire prediction: these issues will never die, and thus the work of the BGMC - as well as the myriad other social change organizations working to advance a more progressive view of society through music, art, or any other means - will never end.

Reuben's remarks made me think of the protests that MassResistance launched against the BGMC when those idiots caught wind of our concert through our advertising on WCRB. at the risk of giving them one more platform for their blatherings (I do, as a historian, believe in the value of reading primary sources, after all), you can read the protest on their blog here. in short, the group derided our holiday series as a "Sodomite Christmas Concert," where audience members would automatically and inevitably think about the chorus members' sexual proclivities instead of enjoying the spiritual and communal values in the music. setting aside the fact that these MassResistance must have almost next to no self control in their thoughts (nobody asked you to think about my sexual proclivity, and Jesus would likely disapprove of your mind being in the gutter), I looked around tonight at the anniversary party and tried to see if I could conjure up any vaguely sexual images about the musicians celebrating around me.


I couldn't do it. I did see old friends happy (but also sad) to have survived a devastating epidemic; happy to be busily engaged in a good cause through art; happy to be surrounded by friends and family. I saw couples who had been together for decades and only recently were allowed to officialize their love and gain the right to care for each other in sickness and in health. I saw professionals who've worked hard and dedicated their careers to challenging society's prejudices through song, and in so doing making the BGMC now the third largest arts organization in the Boston area and one of the best-loved gay choruses in the country. I saw older men teaching younger men about what it means to be aware and proud, passing on - along with some choice bits of gossip - a legacy built through decades of blood, sweat, and tears.

I saw, in short, people. slightly imperfect and majorly fabulous, perhaps, but everyone working towards a world where hate and name-calling would be a thing of the past. as Reuben points out, though, that might be an impossible goal, but it's mighty reassuring to have at least someone dedicated to building up rather than tearing down.

I figure that it's all in how you see people. tonight - and, I'm sure, for the next 25 years - I saw the good.

happy 25th anniversary to the Boston Gay Men's Chorus. here's to many more.

Iraq Obviousness

General Petraeus made the brilliant observation in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that the planned increase in troop levels and new tactics should enable American and Iraqi forces to provide security in Baghdad.

good thinking, David.

it makes sense, don't it? new tactics should enable us to provide security because our old ones didn't work. and more troops? well, at some point we just overrun the entire city with American presence and punch the lights out of anyone who dares besmirch America's great name.

as Susan Collins (R-ME) has pointed out, we've had four troop surges in Iraq since the beginning of hostilities, none of which has produced any significant results in terms of de-escalating the sectarian violence. from a strategic perspective, it seems rather clear that the logic at this point should not so much focus on how many more resources to put towards a cause that's imploding and exploding in every direction, but rather on how to wisely and carefully remove ourselves and cut our losses as quickly as possible.


I'm so glad Bush has found another military talking-head for his butthead policies.

State of the...Who Really Gives a Shit?

I have a confession to make. I didn't watch the State of the Union last night. not one bit. and I couldn't care less.

you know why? precisely because this morning, as I was walking into the T, I grabbed a copy of the Metro and read the large-print headline from Mr. Bush's address last night:

"America must not fail."

thank you, Buddha, for that little piece of wisdom. I wasn't planning on it.

of course, you might chalk it down to bad journalism and bad headline writing. but I think there's something simple and deliciously witty about the Metro directly regurgitating the idiocy that is Bush's futile efforts to be inspiring nowadays.

States of the Union are no longer interesting to watch. they are, as someone I read somewhere pointed out yesterday, more a reading of a laundry list than any kind of platform speech. the alternative fuels bit was nice, I concede, but, apart from that, there's really nothing new that we haven't seen. and I really don't feel compelled to sit glued to the TV for Dubya (not much to look at, or listen to), reacting to every little thing that comes out of his mouth like it's a real shock.

I'm much more interested in the little political shenanigans that people play on momentous occasions such as these, like the uncomfortable exchanges Hillary and Barack shared while doing post-address TV interviews, or the fact that Nancy Pelosi apparently changed from a beige suit to an olive-green one (a note, dear girl: beige may be too neutral, but olive green just plain looks bad against the rich brown leather of the Speaker's chair; try a deep crimson or burgundy suit next year).


respondents to the New York Times' Caucus blog seem at least semi-outraged by the fact that the paper is paying any attention at all to Pelosi's clothing rather than the fact that she's the new Speaker or her achievements or blah blah blah. take a chill pill. the Times didn't make her change. she changed herself, with obvious thinking to the implications of her dress. there's a story there, perhaps about how women must struggle against the glass ceiling within the confines of a male-centric society. but don't blame the Times for making it interesting.

and, last but not least, the lucky cabinet secretary who got to stay home last night was Jim Nicholson, of Veterans Affairs. it tickles me every year to see that our government pays so much morbid attention to details.

Diane Patrick

the Boston Globe Magazine published today an interview with the new First Lady of Massachusetts, Diane Patrick. I truly admire this woman, since she stood so steadfastly by her husband and kept her head while the incompetent Kerry Healey campaign lobbed negative ad after negative ad at Deval. what really comes through in the interview is Diane's keen sense of public duty while at the same time being dedicated to protecting her family. I especially appreciate her answer to the question about her daughters dealing with the election, since we hear so much about this "keep-my-family-out-0f-politics" type of tirade. Diane and Deval seem to recognize the campaign and the next four years as an incredible adventure and journey that carries with it the responsibility of being open and visible. to some degree, the First Family becomes a sort of role model (sometimes, as with the Bush twins, as much for what not to do as vice versa). I like her candor, and I like her thinking about success over the next four years as anything but a foregone conclusion.

I have a special fascination with these "supporting actors and actresses" that accompany major political figures into the spotlight. Diane mentions Daniel Mulhern, who is the First Gentleman to Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who developed a youth mentorship matching program. It's precisely because these roles are so undefined that they have so much possibility for doing good. I'm encouraged that Diane already has a head start on thinking about the needs of the Commonwealth from her background and work experience in education and labor. I do hope to see some innovative ideas of substance come from her office in the next few years. personally, I'd like to see someone take a more practical approach to the leakage of young adults and young professionals from Massachusetts. and how about using public art to engage youth in their communities and increase their investment in a safe and viable neighborhood?

good luck, gal. let me know if I can help.

read the interview here.

Finally

Hillary's announced.

big whoop. didn't see that coming at all. no siree.

and, apparently, she has no last name. "Hillary for President." Hillary who?

or maybe it's a campaign strategy to sell her candidacy as a 22-year old cocktail waitresses. "hi! my name is Candy! I totally wanna be, like, your president!"

c'mon. act like the former First Lady (of one of the most popular presidents in recent memories) and the U.S. Senator that you are.

Sucks When Your Own Hates You, Don't It?

the House Dems have successfully concluded their Six for '06 campaign. and, to boot, in only 42 hours and 15 minutes.

the SF Chronicle reports that, on average, 63 House Republicans voted with the majority on the '06 package.

63 out of 202. that's an average defection rate of 31%.

then again, when the presented agenda is poll-tested and public-approved, why would you still vote against it? probably because your brain has swelled so much during your twelve years in the majority that you can't really think straight anymore.

welcome to the backseat, bitches!

Follow Meryl's Example

it took a while for me to finally get around to the Golden Globes, but Meryl Streep's acceptance speech on Monday night is exactly what an acceptance speech should be. take note: young Hollywoodians.

1. you thank people. yadda yadda yadda.
2. you present a social message. lots of people seem to think that making your little statuette relevant to the world at large is a problem. "politics brings down the arts," they say.

that's a load of crap.

art isn't the representation of life. art is life; art must have a point of view. and to separate art from political, social, and economic conditions makes it moot. this year, Meryl's made the issue of cinematic release her topic of choice, gently chiding theater managers (and, really, Americans in general) for liking Sylvester Stallone's turd-of-a-Rocky-sequel to, say, Helen Mirren's The Queen. is that elitism? perhaps. but I would agree with Meryl that Americans need to learn a little less about how to punch someone and a little more about the responsibility of leadership, and about the bravery to admit your wrongs.

so you keep doin' what you're doin', Meryl. I look forward to next year's tirade. just make sure you find another designer. your Carolina Herrera looked like a done-up version of a Visigothic nightgown. otherwise, flawless as always.

Hillary's Low Blow: Part I

a friend of mine passed on to me the World Tribune article about an investigation into Sen. Barack Obama's Muslim background by "political opponents in the Democratic Party." sources say that the background check was run by researched connected to the Clinton campaign. you can read the full article here, but, as far as I can tell, the two main issues that the Hillaryites seem most hopeful of raising are:
1) that Obama went to a Madrassa for 4 years that espouses Wahhabism, which may have been funded by the Saudi government and taught doctrine denying the rights of non-Muslims
2) that Obama willfully concealed his (deeper) connections with Islam in his two books

if Hillary did indeed order this fear-mongering background check, then shame on her. she's obviously capitalizing on the poll conducted last summer where 54% of Americans indicated that they would absolutely not vote for a Muslim presidential candidate (don't laugh so hard, Mitt, you're next highest on the list with 37%). read the LA Times article on the poll here. at that point, the Times concluded that: "With no likely Muslim candidate on the presidential horizon, the poll numbers present the greatest threat to a potential contender from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as the Mormon Church is formally known)." I can just imagine a sniveling little Hillaryite sitting in a dark office somewhere reading that line and thinking: "hmmmm. 'with no likely Muslim candidate,' eh? we'll see what we can do about that!"

to those two issues:
1) who cares what that school taught and who funded it? even if it does turn out to have been an extremist Madrassa, it's not like Obama chose to go there. his parents - specifically, his father - made that educational decision for him, as we do believe, I hope, that all parents have the right to dictate their children's educational futures. and if the Hillaryites really want to make religious doctrines that deny the rights of others such an issue, then can we talk about Sam Brownback's religion saying that I am an inherently evil and seeking, I'm sure, to strip me of every civil right I have as a gay man? if you're going to fry that fish, babe, at least find a bigger one.

2) why should Obama be forthcoming about his religion if he doesn't feel that it's appropriate to mention? that's a personal decision that each candidate should make, and he's obviously acknowledge what he views as Islam's contribution to his thinking and life experiences. and yeah, if I had half a brain and knew how stupid and paranoid American voters tend to be (especially in that large, red swath across the middle of the country), I'd keep my Muslim upbringing to the wings, too. perhaps Hillary would like to tell us all of her deepest, darkest secrets that she thinks might ruin her chances at the presidency? what did happen with Vince Foster, anyway?

in the end, the only conclusion I can draw from this exercise is that, since it makes no sense in any way as a substantive political issue, Hillaryites who are behind the background check are desperate and fishing for fear to sell. it's as palatable a catch as Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) challenging Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-MN) right to be sworn in on the Koran rather than the Bible. which is to say, it makes me want to vomit.

Hillary, don't be a tool.

Handicapping the 2008 Presidential Race

let's kick-off my renewed attempts at blogging by handicapping the GOP field of confirmed and potential candidates:

Duncan Hunter: is he still running? is he even alive? or did he fall into the black hole that swallows all former House reps?

Rep. Tommy Tancredo (R-CO): I'd rather listen to a Nickelback CD than a single-issue candidate; at least that record isn't broken.

Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR): dead in the water.

Rudy Giuliani: dead in the water.

Mitt Romney: dead in the water. and I bet you he's making up fundraising numbers. $6.5 million? you couldn't even pull that off if you campaigned illegally at the Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City. oh wait, you already do.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): people say he's positioning himself for a run by distancing himself from the escalation strategy. I say he's dead in the water.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): stomach-able. don't move to the right. please.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): this guy's a domestic version of Joe Biden, except with more hot gas than experience and in domestic rather than foreign affairs. dead in the water.


and the Democratic field?

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): be the best Joe Biden you can be, but it'll still unfortunately fall short. the problem when you position yourself as a foreign affairs expert is exactly that; you have no credibility when it comes to the "homeland."

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): the candidate I'm likeliest to get excited about so far. as for all of your haters who say he hasn't got enough experience, I encourage you to read the Metro's interview with former governor Doug Wilder (I'm trying to find it; check back later for a link).

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): exciting in theory, at least if she stays on the left.

Jon Edwards: his progressive platform might make a difference if he could actually deliver the votes.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM): kinduva pudgy, jolly fellow. if only he ran a state with real issues.

Tom Vilsack: like Richardson, just too bland of a candidate.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): I'm only putting him on here because it's funny that he's even thinking of running. go get your eyebrows trimmed instead.