Curiously, I am finding myself in the holiday spirit.
Perhaps I’m cheerful and holidayish because my work days are looking shorter, and the end is in sight. I will go home at 5:00pm and eat my dinner with my handsome Head Chef, and whisper to my dog, and watch a movie or play a video game. I will walk through my garden before the sun goes down, and it will be good.
I’ve even started to voluntarily play the Hip Holidays and other seasonal music in our collection. Mind you, this is as significant a step as when I first fail to object when Head Chef puts on his holiday favorites on Thanksgiving morning. Indeed, I myself have chosen the “Holiday” genre for iTunes to use on my computer’s Party Shuffle. And I have done so more than once.
I am ready for Christmas. And I don’t mean shopping. I am ready inside, and that is where it really counts.
As for my shopping, I never really started. Distant family – even Boulanger – have shamed me by sending something, but I have sent nothing. Far-away friends whom I miss almost daily will get nothing, too.
But I miss them all right now, so very much, and I think they know. And when I see them again, we’ll hug and smile, and it will be just like yesterday. We’ll be older, fatter, thinner, and almost certainly a little greyer, but our hands will touch and we’ll talk, and it will feel like home.
I am also ready to laugh and enjoy. The video game we play sports peculiar Christmas iconography at this time of year, but calls it by a different name. And yet, rather than fuss about how similar to Christmas it is, I busy myself preparing gingerbread cookies to present to Greatfather Winter.
And then Sean sent me this, which I marveled and laughed at. Such a feat of technical mastery could only be achieved by a lighting special fx artist of great skill. I am amused to think of a fictional collapse of the broadway, rock, and other stage show industries that leaves such accomplished and comedic people with equipment and spare time on their hands. Kudos for their remarkable humor through these hard times.
On Christmas morning we’ll be up the mountain at Friturier’s house overlooking Honolulu on what will no doubt be a sunny and beautiful day. We’ll be in shorts and flip-flops, drinking gin fizzes and eating fatty foods, and living life on Friturier’s terms. Which is to say, living today as if tomorrow was of no consequence. Laughing loudly as if everyone should hear, and enjoying our island family from way out in the middle of the ocean and up on top of the world.
These can be difficult times and they can be good times, worthy of being had.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Extremists That Lose
They will wail. Oh, and they will howl. They may even boycott Ford Motor Company after all. But in the end, they lost because American businesses know that the bigotry, hate, and lies peddled by the American Family Association are bad for business. And when they forget, like Microsoft did before them, we’re here – their customers and employees – to remind them.
That’s right. Ford has rescinded their agreement with the AFA. On every single point. Every one.
You may commence consideration of a Ford Motor Company brand for your next automobile purchase. In fact, if you wrote your local dealership a letter telling them you were disgusted by their headquarters’ decision last week, you might send them another to let them know you’ve changed your mind. Just like they did.
Because fairness should be rewarded. And forgiveness, as they say, is divine.
But to the AFA and their ilk, I say: You're fighting for the wrong things. You will continue to lose, over and over again, and become more and more marginalized. You will lose because you're trying to hurt people, and we were all told as children that trying to hurt people is wrong. No one likes a playground meany.
That’s right. Ford has rescinded their agreement with the AFA. On every single point. Every one.
You may commence consideration of a Ford Motor Company brand for your next automobile purchase. In fact, if you wrote your local dealership a letter telling them you were disgusted by their headquarters’ decision last week, you might send them another to let them know you’ve changed your mind. Just like they did.
Because fairness should be rewarded. And forgiveness, as they say, is divine.
But to the AFA and their ilk, I say: You're fighting for the wrong things. You will continue to lose, over and over again, and become more and more marginalized. You will lose because you're trying to hurt people, and we were all told as children that trying to hurt people is wrong. No one likes a playground meany.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Do Something, Something Small
From: Why, the Pastry Chef, of course!
To: sales@honoluluford.com
Subject: Not Visiting Ford Dealers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_19521_24179854.1134070088953"
Just wanted to leave a short note with you.
I drive two aging vehicles that will be replaced over the next two years. Due to Ford Motor Company's negotiation with the American Family Association and Ford's resulting new anti-gay policies, I will not be visiting lots that sell Ford Motor Company brands. I have too many other choices that support American values to drive a vehicle made by companies associated with hate and bigotry.
It hurts me to know that local people have to suffer for the bigotry of your headquarters, but I cannot in good conscience patronize Ford Motor Company with its current policies in place.
With Regrets,
Why, The Pastry Chef, of course!
Pauoa, O`ahu.
To: sales@honoluluford.com
Subject: Not Visiting Ford Dealers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_19521_24179854.1134070088953"
Just wanted to leave a short note with you.
I drive two aging vehicles that will be replaced over the next two years. Due to Ford Motor Company's negotiation with the American Family Association and Ford's resulting new anti-gay policies, I will not be visiting lots that sell Ford Motor Company brands. I have too many other choices that support American values to drive a vehicle made by companies associated with hate and bigotry.
It hurts me to know that local people have to suffer for the bigotry of your headquarters, but I cannot in good conscience patronize Ford Motor Company with its current policies in place.
With Regrets,
Why, The Pastry Chef, of course!
Pauoa, O`ahu.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Ford: A Coward For The Modern Age Part I
John Aravosis of AmericaBlog is making a loud noise about Ford Motor Company’s decision to stop advertising some of its brands in gay publications. And while I’d like to acknowledge that it’s basically his job to blow things out of proportion, it is a big deal. Just not for the reasons John has cited.
First and foremost, even though I am deeply distrusting of large corporate entities, I do believe that it’s strictly a business decision on the part of Ford. They were facing a boycott from the American Family Association (I will not link to them). They are closing several assembly plants in the US, and they have horribly sagging demand for their products. Combined with the high cost of advertising and the potential for even more loss of sales, they ran the numbers.
I don’t mean to minimize the importance of the company’s Aryan-supremacist past, as that should never be forgotten. Rather, I’m suggesting that Ford Motor Company did what many mega-corps would do these days. Faced with market impact, they ran the numbers against their demographics. They compared revenues from sales to gays and lesbians to sales from conservatives, and evaluated the impact of a boycott against the impact of a gay backlash should they pull their advertising.
Obviously, the gay market is smaller. At least for the Jaguar and Land Rover brands. But not for Volvo, which will continue to advertise in gay publications.
What I find shocking is that Ford Motor Company actually had what it has called “a constructive dialogue” with the American Family Association (AFA). This is the really big deal, because it can be effortlessly equated with entering negotiations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Taliban. No responsible corporation would acknowledge negotiating with either of these entities, yet Ford has admitted it. And they may have set a dangerous precedent in doing so.
The AFA knows that American auto makers are suffering hard times and it needs symbols of political success resulting from its strategies. Its attempts to boycott major corporate businesses usually fail because the businesses are strong and don’t really suffer. Too many failures might weaken the AFA’s support and reduce its political power. In light of this, the AFA got smart. It seized on Ford – an American icon – at a moment of weakness and threatened to hurt it further. It was a lose/lose scenario for Ford, but it was an opportunity for a badly needed success for the ruthless, dogged AFA.
Frankly, it was a brilliant move on the part of the AFA from a strategic perspective. Based on the success of their Ford effort, I’m sure we can expect to see the AFA watching American markets for weakness, and threatening other boycotts in vertical markets where they can have an impact. This could signal a huge change for the AFA and other hate groups like them, and could reap even bigger rewards for them elsewhere.
First and foremost, even though I am deeply distrusting of large corporate entities, I do believe that it’s strictly a business decision on the part of Ford. They were facing a boycott from the American Family Association (I will not link to them). They are closing several assembly plants in the US, and they have horribly sagging demand for their products. Combined with the high cost of advertising and the potential for even more loss of sales, they ran the numbers.
I don’t mean to minimize the importance of the company’s Aryan-supremacist past, as that should never be forgotten. Rather, I’m suggesting that Ford Motor Company did what many mega-corps would do these days. Faced with market impact, they ran the numbers against their demographics. They compared revenues from sales to gays and lesbians to sales from conservatives, and evaluated the impact of a boycott against the impact of a gay backlash should they pull their advertising.
Obviously, the gay market is smaller. At least for the Jaguar and Land Rover brands. But not for Volvo, which will continue to advertise in gay publications.
What I find shocking is that Ford Motor Company actually had what it has called “a constructive dialogue” with the American Family Association (AFA). This is the really big deal, because it can be effortlessly equated with entering negotiations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Taliban. No responsible corporation would acknowledge negotiating with either of these entities, yet Ford has admitted it. And they may have set a dangerous precedent in doing so.
The AFA knows that American auto makers are suffering hard times and it needs symbols of political success resulting from its strategies. Its attempts to boycott major corporate businesses usually fail because the businesses are strong and don’t really suffer. Too many failures might weaken the AFA’s support and reduce its political power. In light of this, the AFA got smart. It seized on Ford – an American icon – at a moment of weakness and threatened to hurt it further. It was a lose/lose scenario for Ford, but it was an opportunity for a badly needed success for the ruthless, dogged AFA.
Frankly, it was a brilliant move on the part of the AFA from a strategic perspective. Based on the success of their Ford effort, I’m sure we can expect to see the AFA watching American markets for weakness, and threatening other boycotts in vertical markets where they can have an impact. This could signal a huge change for the AFA and other hate groups like them, and could reap even bigger rewards for them elsewhere.
Ford: A Coward For The Modern Age Part II
Unfortunately for Ford, it was in a bind. Doubtlessly, Ford will lose a great deal of business over their choice to end gay-friendly advertising for the Jaguar and Land Rover brands. They will lose market share to Subaru and others who stand out more sharply in these publications. But they stood to lose even more if the AFA enacted their boycott.
Faced with this choice, Ford chose the path that they predicted would hurt them the least. But when considering whether to harbor animosity toward them, we must consider that their choice to advertise in gay and lesbian publications was never an act of charity. They were by no means obligated to do so, and did only because they saw it as a means to generate sales revenue. Faced with a weak market for their products and a boycott from a powerful political entity, they had to review their activities as a corporation. And due to financial weakness, they probably needed to trim their advertising budget anyway.
But since the Volvo brand is still advertising in The Advocate, we can deduce that, rather than being a blanket statement against homosexual consumers, the change to their other brand advertising is a purely business decision. I can’t speak for every gay man out there, but Jaguar and Land Rover really aren’t attractive brands to me anyway, while Volvo is. If revenue from the gay and lesbian market was low to begin with, it makes basic business sense to either cut back advertising for those brands, or to do something radically different. Faced with the possibility of a boycott, they made the safer choice.
And while I don’t blame them, I will say this:
Head Chef and I want a new high-efficiency commuter car like the Toyota Prius, and we need a truck for our home remodeling projects. If Ford had chosen to be a responsible global automotive player and had put more resources into competing in the low-emissions market, we might hold them in consideration. But they didn’t. They pandered to gluttony, and now they’re left holding the SUV bag.
If Ford had stood up for principle over profit, Head Chef, I, and countless others would have considered them an honorable business that does the right thing even if it hurts. If they had announced a bold new marketing move for the Jaguar and Land Rover brands to coincide with their rejection of the AFA’s demands, we might have considered a Ford truck. But they didn’t.
And finally, if Ford had chosen not to negotiate with the AFA at all, Head Chef, I, and countless others might have equated them with those who stand up for freedom instead of those who fight it, like the Taliban and the Ku Klux Klan. We might have equated them with old-America values like honor and courage instead of new-America values like fear and greed. And we might have stepped foot on one of their lots. But that won’t happen now.
Because ultimately, image does matter. And I’d rather be seen driving a vehicle that symbolized enterprise and tenacious freedom rather than one that symbolizes weakness, cowardice, and by association - hate. I know it’s superficial, but I just like what freedom says about me.
Faced with this choice, Ford chose the path that they predicted would hurt them the least. But when considering whether to harbor animosity toward them, we must consider that their choice to advertise in gay and lesbian publications was never an act of charity. They were by no means obligated to do so, and did only because they saw it as a means to generate sales revenue. Faced with a weak market for their products and a boycott from a powerful political entity, they had to review their activities as a corporation. And due to financial weakness, they probably needed to trim their advertising budget anyway.
But since the Volvo brand is still advertising in The Advocate, we can deduce that, rather than being a blanket statement against homosexual consumers, the change to their other brand advertising is a purely business decision. I can’t speak for every gay man out there, but Jaguar and Land Rover really aren’t attractive brands to me anyway, while Volvo is. If revenue from the gay and lesbian market was low to begin with, it makes basic business sense to either cut back advertising for those brands, or to do something radically different. Faced with the possibility of a boycott, they made the safer choice.
And while I don’t blame them, I will say this:
Head Chef and I want a new high-efficiency commuter car like the Toyota Prius, and we need a truck for our home remodeling projects. If Ford had chosen to be a responsible global automotive player and had put more resources into competing in the low-emissions market, we might hold them in consideration. But they didn’t. They pandered to gluttony, and now they’re left holding the SUV bag.
If Ford had stood up for principle over profit, Head Chef, I, and countless others would have considered them an honorable business that does the right thing even if it hurts. If they had announced a bold new marketing move for the Jaguar and Land Rover brands to coincide with their rejection of the AFA’s demands, we might have considered a Ford truck. But they didn’t.
And finally, if Ford had chosen not to negotiate with the AFA at all, Head Chef, I, and countless others might have equated them with those who stand up for freedom instead of those who fight it, like the Taliban and the Ku Klux Klan. We might have equated them with old-America values like honor and courage instead of new-America values like fear and greed. And we might have stepped foot on one of their lots. But that won’t happen now.
Because ultimately, image does matter. And I’d rather be seen driving a vehicle that symbolized enterprise and tenacious freedom rather than one that symbolizes weakness, cowardice, and by association - hate. I know it’s superficial, but I just like what freedom says about me.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Potter Schmotter
I am desperate to see Brokeback Mountain.
It’s just a movie, and it’s certainly not my story. And yet, it can’t help but be my story.
I have read everything I can find about the film, watched the trailer a dozen times, and I actually check rottentomatoes on a daily basis, looking for affirmation. "Yes it is a good film," I want to hear them say.
Please, let it be a good film.
See, I believe in this movie. Not just because Ang Lee has directed the other most beautiful film ever, but because when I read "Love Is A Force Of Nature" in that context the hair on my neck stands up, and I can tell that even my skin agrees. Ignoring the toil and sacrifice that relationships take, love is the thing.
It’s the thing that matters, that leaves its aura like a residue on mountain paths, in buildings, songs, and on yesterday’s shirt. Have you ever felt it in a place you've never been before? That the place had been blessed by love?
There are three things I need from Brokeback Mountain. I need to it be the story it is purported to be; a love between two men that is beautiful and complex and tragic, as love often is. I need it to make me feel. To make me cry the way movies are supposed to when you relate to the characters. And I need it to show the world – or at least the willing – that I'm not so different or aberrant after all.
I read a hopeful review that said this film is so powerful that it could change our national dialogue about what it is to be gay. And I longed for it to be true.
But I worry that, in the public's eye, no amount of Ang Lee's mastery can legitimize this as anything other than a gay film. The most I can hope is that it’s a sleeper hit – critically acclaimed to such a degree that cinema buffs see it even if they’re uneasy about the subject matter. That women go to see it, as the studio is hoping, and maybe they see themselves in one of these men, loving someone impossible.
Maybe they feel that ache in their chest, the ache they remember as a longing for someone they cannot have. Maybe, in this way, they relate. Because that could change everything.
But I'm not counting on it.
It’s just a movie, and it’s certainly not my story. And yet, it can’t help but be my story.
I have read everything I can find about the film, watched the trailer a dozen times, and I actually check rottentomatoes on a daily basis, looking for affirmation. "Yes it is a good film," I want to hear them say.
Please, let it be a good film.
See, I believe in this movie. Not just because Ang Lee has directed the other most beautiful film ever, but because when I read "Love Is A Force Of Nature" in that context the hair on my neck stands up, and I can tell that even my skin agrees. Ignoring the toil and sacrifice that relationships take, love is the thing.
It’s the thing that matters, that leaves its aura like a residue on mountain paths, in buildings, songs, and on yesterday’s shirt. Have you ever felt it in a place you've never been before? That the place had been blessed by love?
There are three things I need from Brokeback Mountain. I need to it be the story it is purported to be; a love between two men that is beautiful and complex and tragic, as love often is. I need it to make me feel. To make me cry the way movies are supposed to when you relate to the characters. And I need it to show the world – or at least the willing – that I'm not so different or aberrant after all.
I read a hopeful review that said this film is so powerful that it could change our national dialogue about what it is to be gay. And I longed for it to be true.
But I worry that, in the public's eye, no amount of Ang Lee's mastery can legitimize this as anything other than a gay film. The most I can hope is that it’s a sleeper hit – critically acclaimed to such a degree that cinema buffs see it even if they’re uneasy about the subject matter. That women go to see it, as the studio is hoping, and maybe they see themselves in one of these men, loving someone impossible.
Maybe they feel that ache in their chest, the ache they remember as a longing for someone they cannot have. Maybe, in this way, they relate. Because that could change everything.
But I'm not counting on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)