JJ CC MM SS UU PP

The streets in downtown Seattle (north of Yesler) are Jefferson, James, Cherry, Columbia, Marion, Madison, Spring, Seneca, University, Union, Pike, and Pine.  Note the duplication there:

JJ CC MM SS UU PP

When I moved to Seattle ten years ago, I was given a handy mnemonic for remembering the order:

Jesus Christ Made Seattle Under Protest

This mnemonic even shows up in Wikipedia, and my mention of it got on the New York Times website’s Schott’s Vocab blog.

It doesn’t help for “Which ‘S’ street is next?”, but it’s great for figuring out roughly how many blocks you have to go.  But I was thinking this week that maybe this mnemonic would be offensive to non-Christians and maybe even to Christians who consider it to be taking the Lord’s name in vain.  So here are some alternate options:

We voted several years ago to make marijuana usage the police department’s lowest enforcement priority:

Just ’Cause Many Seattlites Use Pot

Why you should either go commando or wear a Utilikilt:

Jeans Can Make Some Underwear Pucker

Or maybe a recipe for consuming our most notable beverage:

Joe: Coffee, Milk, Stir, Uncover, Pour

(Geez, the things I come up with riding to work on my scooter on a soggy day.)
 

Letter of Comment — “Trapped in the Closet”

This letter was sent to the Seattle Weekly, in response to this February 27, 2008 article (titled “Seattle, You Love Your Mainstream Country Music” inside the issue, but “Trapped in the Closet” on the cover).  It was published in the March 19, 2008 edition, but the online  version only carries a portion of the letters.  (Which makes no sense: online is where you can easily print them all.)  The letter was edited slightly (which is fine); original content removed is [blue in brackets].  Special thanks to Spencer for letting me know the letter was published.

Brian Barr and the Weekly’s editor must be wearing their Wranglers a size too tight.   How else do you cover feature a story with a blurb like “Trapped in the Closet” without making any mention of the gay and lesbian side of things?

GLBTQ country-western dancing and music is alive and kicking [(up its heels)] in the Seattle area.   The non-profit, volunteer-run Rain Country Dance Association currently produces dance nights at the Cuff Complex on Capitol Hill every Friday night and alternate Wednesdays, providing both dance instruction and all your favorite country-western dance music.   Rain Country is also in an expansion mode this month: we are adding a classic country music night at the Seattle Eagle, and Monday lessons and dancing at Swank in Kent.  (Kudos to the Weekly for your recent story on gay life in Kent!)   We also produce a monthly non-bar dance night at a Seattle church.

[Rain Country’s biggest news, of course, is the upcoming Emerald City Hoedown on April 25-27, with a whole weekend of dancing and dance workshops, including guest instructors from San Francisco.]

And [since someone will be thinking the question,] no, you don’t have to show your “gay card” at any of our dances.   Everyone is welcome.   [We don’t care who you sleep with, so long as you like to dance!  Check us out online at www.raincountrydance.org.]

-- Jim Drew
   [President, Rain Country]

Letter of Comment — Swarm Theory

I sent this letter to National Geographic regarding their July 2007 article on “Swarm Theory”:

I was very interested on the article on Swarms in the July 2007 issue of National Geographic.  I immediately thought of three places where swarm theory works for humans:

• Consider crossing a street: tasks include wait for the light, cross at a reasonable pace, don’t jostle others, and avoid colliding with those coming the other way.  Especially interesting is how the crowd shuffles about, deciding whether to break out before the light changes.
• Or at a concert where there are no assigned seats: sit close to the stage, sit close to the exit (or concessions, or the bathroom), sit with friends, sit far enough away from your neighbors.
• And on the dance floor: don’t collide with others, keep the beat, move in the right direction, keep the right pace.  (And for some, “have fun” and “innovate” are tasks that should be included.)

Also of interest, though understated in the article, is the idea that we can predict what the swarm will do.  Any individual may vary behavior or break out, but as a group, the actions are roughly predictable based on known inputs.  For fans of science fiction, this is the basis of Isaac Asimov’s “predict the future” science of psychohistory.  We’re still a long way from the stuff Asimov wrote about, but the first step is recognizing that in the big, big picture, masses of humanity aren’t any different from a swarm of ants or a herd of caribou.

---

Update on December 18, 2009

The letter was not published in the magazine.

Letter of Comment — “Same Sex Experiments”

This letter was printed in the June 30 issue of the Seattle Weekly, in response to an article in the previous week’s annual Gay Pride issue (with their edits):

In Nina Shapiro’s article, she glosses over the higher divorce rate amongst same-sex couples versus heterosexual couples in some studies from Europe, positing a couple answers (lack of kids, lack of obstacles to leaving relationships).

Let me put forward another reason: Marriage (and marriagelike options) may genuinely not be the right answer for some couples at some times.  Same-sex civil marriage (and such) is new for us, and we don’t have the benefit of centuries of learning about how it should be done.  As a result, a lot of same-sex couples may think it’s the right thing and later find out otherwise.  Give it a couple decades, and the rates of divorce should fall close to heterosexual levels.

This is one of the strengths that today’s society is reluctant to embrace just yet: the idea that “one size fits all” doesn’t.  Career dad, stay-at-home mom, 2.4 kids, and a golden retriever is a scenario that we can’t all force ourselves into, but a lot of people try.  Civil unions, same-sex civil marriage, communal living, wife swapping, poly­gamy, open relationships, and just plain shacking up are all variations on a theme enabling us all to find the relationship model that works right for us, rather than trying (and failing) to wedge ourselves into the same one as everyone else.

---

Updated on February 25, 2011
 

Radio Killed the Newspaper Star

I was on the radio today, at about 9:20 am.

Rusty Humphries’ local show on the large local right-wing station, KVI (in the slot vacated by Rush Limbaugh’ trip to rehab), was focusing on Tuesday, January 27th’s big story.  No, not the New Hampshire primary.  What would they care about that for?  Bush is pretty much a shoe-in to win the Republican side there, don’t you think?

It was today’s other big story: the myDoom virus.  There was no particular political angle to the show today (unless you believe that liberals/progressives are more apt to use Macs than conservatives are, which is probably true).

Nothing too exciting beyond that.  When I was on the air, I told him that I get e-mails with viruses in them all the time, probably a couple dozen with/from myDoom in the last day alone.  But I never worry about them for two reasons: I use a Macintosh, while most viruses are written for Windows, and I don’t use Microsoft Outlook, which most viruses take advantage of.  I noted that while I use a Mac, it isn’t just because of virus issues.

Rusty wanted to know if I thought viruses like this were targeted at Microsoft and Bill Gates, but I affirmed that was unlikely.  When Windows has 95% or so of the computers out there, it is simply the biggest target.  (I didn’t mention that Macs are probably somewhat less vulnerable in general.)

He also expressed that he had had troubles in the past simply using a Mac.  I said that Mac and Windows are really pretty much the same — maybe 90% or so — but whichever one someone learns to use first is the one they will tend to prefer.

This was the first time I had been on a radio talk show.  I called on my cell phone (and once I got through, promptly plugged in the headset I have for it, so I could drive safely, thanks very much!) and they put me on after about 5 minutes.  While I was waiting, I could hear the radio show through the phone.  Once they put me on (I was the second person on after I called), though, all the background radio noise was gone, giving me no feedback to indicate that I was still connected, not even any breathing from the host.  I had to just start talking and go until I got to a point where Rusty would respond.  Very odd sensation.

[Weblog title reference: “Video Killed the Radio Star” by The Buggles was the first video to be shown on MTV, back in 1981.]
 

Letter of Comment — Spousal Equivalent

My latest letter to the editor leads off the January 22, 2004 issue of The Stranger, titled in their Letters column as “TOM’S CHEW TOY”:

I found the multiple references to City Councilman Tom Rasmussen’s “boyfriend” in the most recent issue curious.

Obviously, he and his company seem to have had an effect on Rasmussen’s campaign beyond that of other candidates’ spouses, and may warrant calling out for that.  And in this era of societal changes regarding gay and lesbian relationships, noting that a gay man is in a relationship is probably a good thing.  [Next sentence edited out of published letter: (But might it maybe have a counter-effect?  Any gay man whose partner isn’t mentioned may get inadvertently tagged as a stereotypical bar-hopping, promiscuous slutboy simply because he isn’t in a relationship “worthy” of mention.)]

I’m most curious, though, about the choice of term: “boyfriend”.  It tends to carry with it a notion of “short term” (months rather than years) and youth vs. adult, and perhaps a “they don’t live together” impermanence.  Is “boyfriend” the term the couple uses for themselves?  [Edited out: (In which case it is unquestionably the best on to use!)]  Or is it part of The Stranger’s editorial style guide when referring to same-sex couples, preferred to terms like husband, [Edited out: fiancé (which would be a man pledged to marry at some future point, even if it’s not possible [not legal] at the current time),] partner, life partner, longterm companion, fuck buddy, sugar daddy, chew toy,… the list goes on.

[Edited out: (Oh well, “boyfriend” is certainly better than the dreaded “roommate”.)]

And the response:

ERICA C. BARNETT RESPONDS: The issue of what to call a gay partner can be a confusing one.  As Rasmussen himself notes, “boy-friend” is often interpreted as “boyfriend du jour,” whereas “‘partner’ tends to convey permanency.”  Nonetheless, Rasmussen says he uses the terms “boyfriend” and “partner” interchangeably when referring to his significant other (and presumably, chew toy), Clayton Lewis, whom he’s been with for 12 years.

Hopefully needless to say, I’m thrilled by any reasonable term being used, and my letter was aimed more to poke fun than to criticize.  And I voted for Rasmussen, too.
 

Letter of Comment — Why So Negative?

Here’s my latest published letter to the editor, to the Seattle Gay News, in the September 5 issue (2nd letter, 2nd column [no longer available online]):

Why so negative about gay marriage?

Marriage: the uniting of two people in love via a public ceremony.

Is it my imagination, or do the gay arguments against gay marriage always boil down to “I’m single” and “Don’t rock the boat?”  That’s what comes across from Jason Fleetwood-Boldt (“Gay marriage isn’t necessarily the next step for Queer nation”) and Hastings Wymann (“Capital Letters — Gay marriage: Gain or pain?”) in your August 22 issue.

Fleetwood-Boldt covers his complaints in a veneer of “Why should we want gay marriage when marriage itself is such a bad thing?”  He then goes on to say nothing that is bad about marriage itself, just about the legal benefits that our society attaches only to marriage.  While he’s right that it would be good to apply many of those benefits to a broader spectrum of people, their attachment to marriage doesn’t mean that marriage itself is flawed, or even tarnished.  In other words, he has some beef with marriage that he can’t express with a logical argument, so he has to toss rocks from a distance.  Only he can say what exactly that issue might be, but I’ve seen other cases where it boils down to the person bad-mouthing marriage solely because he has no marriage-type romance prospects on the horizon.

Wymann’s piece is, if possible, worse.  His argument against gay marriage is that it might shake things up.  If gays and lesbians got married, they might move in with each other, settle down, have fewer sexual partners, raise kids and become pillars of the community.  They might even gain the respect of straight couples.  And (gasp!) they might even on occasion break up and have to go through the same messy things straight couples do!  “Don’t rock the boat,” Wymann might have said at Stonewall.  “Just let the police do their raids and we’ll all be just fine.”

Gays who don’t want to get married don’t want resources expended on gay marriage.  Ones who don’t like the army don’t want us to waste time on gays in the military.  The ones who ditched the church want to ignore gays in the priesthood.  Those who don’t want kids don’t want to give to funds which fight for gay adoption rights.  If it’s not something potentially fatal to every one of us — AIDS — then we’ve got naysayers wanting to distance themselves from it and in the process distance us all from it.

God forbid that we as a community should seek something which we as individuals don’t immediately need for ourselves.  Because after all, if it isn’t for Me Me Me then it’s not worth it.

(With slight edits to remove the SGN’s forced capitalization of “gay” and “lesbian”.)

The SGN doesn’t have the two articles referred to on their web site, but here are links to them elsewhere:

Click here for Jason Fleetwood-Boldt’s “Gay Marriage Isn’t Necessarily The Next Step for the Queer Nation” (from Fleetwood-Boldt’s own website).  [No longer available online]

Click here for Hasting Wymann’s “Gay marriage: Gain or pain?” (courtesy of the archives of the Texas Triangle).  [No longer available online]

---

Updated on September 7, 2010

The SGN archive now only goes back to 2005.
Jason Fleetwood-Boldt’s website is defunct.
The Texas Triangle (and its archives) is defunct.

Boy, you can’t get a historical trace on this stuff at all!

Letter of Comment — Monorails and Furries

I’ve now added the text of my “Dear Glenn” letter to the previous Letterhack item.

I might as well dig up the two other letters I had published in recent months while I’m at it…

• In the November 1, 2002 issue of the Seattle Gay News, I had a letter in favor of the then-pending vote on the Seattle Monorail (online archives apparently only go back to February 2005 these days, so I can't link to it anymore).  The gist of the letter was that Seattle needs rapid transit badly, and while the small initial monorail system won’t solve Seattle’s traffic problems (nothing will do that), it will help keep things from getting worse.
• I admit it.  I have written to Dan Savage’s “Savage Love” column and had the letter published.  No, that wasn’t my letter about <your favorite kinky fetish here>.  Instead, I tried taking Dan to task for his, um, savaging of “furries” in this column (August 8, 2002).  My letter was heavily edited (and I didn’t save the e-mailed original to compare against); he cut half the letter, and perhaps appropriately, half the signature acronym.  That shouldn’t be a surprise, as everyone looks like an idiot in Dan’s columns.  My letter was published in this column (first letter; August 22, 2002).

Not all of my letters get published, mind you, but I think I have a good hit percentage, something over .500.

---

Updated on June 26, 2010

Removed a dead link and added explanation, updated other links.

Updated on September 7, 2010
 

Letter of Comment — To Meet People, You Have to Meet People

Every now and then, I write letters of comment to various places.  (I used to have a long list of where I had written to and which had been published.  Gave that up long ago.)  This week, I managed to have two of them published:

Regarding this article in The Stranger about a school shooting several years ago, I wrote a letter which got printed, titled “Yanked by the Nose.”  (You’ll find it 2/3 of the way down this page.)

Regarding a letter in the “Dear Glenn” advice column in the Seattle Gay News, I sent in a letter about people joining organizations in order to meet people, which he printed.  The column doesn’t seem to be online regularly, so here’s what I wrote (it was slightly edited in the printed form):

Glenn,

Reading Ivan’s letter in the Feb 28 column, I was struck by something which might be worthy of repeating/running a column on/etc.

Ivan spoke of having joined several local groups in the past in search of relationships and/or friends.  We’re often told this by friends: “You need to go out and join a group to meet someone.”  There’s definite truth in that, but it often seems to get misinterpreted.

First, anyone who is joining a club or doing volunteering or things like that in order to find a boyfriend is bound to get disappointed.  With few exceptions, hooking people up in longterm monogamous relationships isn’t the mission of these groups.  They are usually social groups or fundraising groups; you might well expect to meet people (some of whom might have potential for dating), but being upset that you don’t end up in a relationship from the groups is problematic.

Second, these things take time.  I can’t speak for Ivan, of course, but I’ve seen people who join a group, come to a couple events, don’t get what their misset expectations wanted, and then drop out, all in a couple weeks.  Or I’ve seen people decide to take up sports activities: they take a couple short lessons, aren’t instantly experts, aren’t being continually asked to dance or winning races or whatever, and they stop coming, before they’ve really had a chance to meet people and grow into the new activity.  We’ve been led to demand immediate gratification, and to “change the channel” when we don’t get it.

Third, you get out of these groups what you put into them.  This is especially true with the social groups he mentioned (many of which in the gay community are aligned along sports or sexual fetish lines).  If you’re in a running club, you’ve got to go running to meet the people who run, to hang out with them, and to get to know them.  If you join a leather club, you’ve got to have an interest in leather and some of the associated sex activities, you have to go to their group functions, and you have to dive in there and meet people.  You don’t have to step up to a board position right off the bat, but you can bet there are tasks you could volunteer to help with.  If you aren’t being active in the group, the group won’t be active around you.

Thanks for doing your great columns, Glenn.

At least one person (Hi, Tom) knew that it was me who had written the letter, despite it only being signed in the paper with my first name.

---

Updated on March 12, 2003

Updated on September 7, 2010