I find this endlessly entertaining. I wish I was this guy. I'm glad I'm not this guy. Poor Jim Backus.

We still haven't found much of any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been loudly, lonesomely decrying the implications: that Saddam Hussein's imminent threat to our safety was chimerical; that the much-touted rationale of pre-emption now looks much more like bullying; and that our leaders either are deceivers or grotesque incompetents.

So where's the rest of the outrage? Why aren't more people upset about this?

Fact is, our Coalition of the Willing (thank you, Palau) won the war, and it was a popular war. Americans don't want to hear about the missing WMDs, especially now that summer's here and "America's Most Talented Kid" is proving more suspenseful than the Battle of Tikrit. As things now stand, people just aren't going to get mad.

This could become an Iran-Contra-scale scandal, though, if Americans come to regret the war. But that will happen only if things change--in, for example, one or more of the following scenarios. I list them in escalating order of the likelihood that they will stir up some Yankee gumption.

1. There's lots more terrorism. That is, despite our sacking Saddam Hussein, who, to hear the administration tell it, was directly responsible for 9/11. Actually, this scenario would play directly into the Bushies' hands, and they would probably not hesitate to invade more countries and further enrich Halliburton.

2. Global pique finally filters its way Stateside. Also unlikely to change Americans' minds--after all, eight zillion people protesting before the war barely registered over here. The only thing I can imagine having any effect is if the British parliament has a vote of no confidence in Tony Blair and calls for early elections, and Blair is ousted. Britons do appear to be altogether less credulous than Americans about the war rationale. But if Blair got zapped, would Americans care?

3. American casualties continue to mount in Iraq. The quagmire scenario, and it appears this could actually happen--American soldiers still are getting shot at regularly, and an amnesty program for heavy weapons so far has failed to spur many Iraqis to turn in their rocket launchers. If things start to get worse, Bush--who either lied or blundered us into this--might finally have some 'splaining to do.

When I was in fourth grade (this would be about 1980) the fad among my cohort was digital watches that played songs--tinny, monophonic but definitely recognizable versions of favorite ditties.

The most popular selection--this being Nashville--was of course "Dixie." My watch played "Dixie." I recognize that this is roughly akin to having a digital watch that plays "Glorious Seventeenth of April," the national anthem of Democratic Kampuchea (the Khmer Rouge regime), but hey: I just wanted to fit in.

One day my friend Tommy was describing another watch: one that, he said, played "Hey Jude." I was just on the cusp of pop-culture consciousness at the time and must not have known "Hey Jude" by name. Because what I heard him say was "Hey You," which I assumed meant the Pink Floyd song then in heavy rotation on AOR.

I'd like to think there's a digital watch somewhere that plays "Hey You" ("out there in the cold, getting lonely, getting old," etc.).

I read about the antics of Todd Jones, the Colorado Rockies relief pitcher who said of the prospect of an openly gay baseball player, "I wouldn't want a gay guy being around me. It's got nothing to do with being scared. That's the problem: All these people say he's got all these rights. Yeah, he's got rights or whatever, but he shouldn't be walking around proud."

So I pointed the browser--as they used to say--to denverpost.com, and read this column about the Jones phenomenon by Post sports columnist Mark Kiszla.

Rankled, I contacted him. Our exchange follows.

I never heard back from him about my last response. I guess that means I win!

I'm just upset I never said, "I dare you to print this letter."

***

From: Kenneth Burns
To: mkiszla@denverpost.com
Sent: 5/1/2003 10:21 PM
Subject: Odd Jones

In your May 1 column you write, "Straining to find a ! shade of gray in a heated debate framed by gay activists and the religious right, [Todd] Jones admitted to discomfort at the prospect of being naked in the presence of an overtly homosexual teammate."

Your argument is not original; in fact, I've heard it from so many antagonists of gays in professional sports--and the military--that it grows grows wearisome.

Hopefully the standard defense will sink in at some point, and we can move on. To wit:

* Gays have long participated in professional sports. Just ask Billy Bean, Esera Tualo, or Dave Kopay. So most, probably all, former
teammates of Billy Bean, Esera Tualo, and Dave Kopay have showered with a gay teammate. If these teammates suffered such crushing discomfort
upon learning they showered with a gay man, why aren't they talking about it?

* Most players, period, have probably already showered with gay teammates--closeted teammates, as you note. Do you really think the proper response to Todd Jones' anxiety is for closeted, gay players to remain closeted? Do you think that's fair? Sensible? In these increasingly open times, workable?

* Anyone who has showered regularly at a public gym or health club has almost definitely showered with gays and lesbians, open and closeted. Can you cite any lasting damage that has resulted?

Professional sports and the military are the last bastions of institutionalized, anti-gay bigotry in this society. I say to them: grow up. Some players' mentalities remain, as you note, stuck in eighth grade; that doesn't mean they should stay there.



From: "Kiszla, Mark"
To: "'Kenneth Burns '"
Subject: RE: Odd Jones
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 07:57:08 -0600

Hi Kenneth:

Thanks for writing. I agree with virtually every point you make in this e-mail.

But a point of clarification: The argument that you decry as unoriginal and uneducated was made by Jones, not me.

But, in Jones' defense, I do happen to believe there is a little 8th-grade insecurity about our sexuality in most of us, gay or straight, myself included. It is an issue a bit more complicated that simply growing up. My experience as son and a father has been that "Oh, grow up'' leads to more confrontation, rather than any meaningful resolution to the problem. Perhaps you have been luckier in your personal use of the phrase.

Take care,
Mark Kiszla


From: Kenneth Burns
To: Kiszla, Mark
Sent: 5/2/2003 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Odd Jones

I understand the 8th-grade apologia, but I imagine Jones' salary is a little higher than an 8th grader's. Can we not then expect a little better from him? With all respect, Jones doesn't need journalists to make excuses for him; what he said would get him fired from sensible corporations.

"Grow up" is, of course, a rhetorical flourish, one inspired by my feelings of powerlessness and anger. But I do think "grow up" can mean one thing to a sullen adolescent, quite another thing to a putatively responsible adult who's only behaving like a sullen adolescent.

k



From: "Kiszla, Mark"
To: "'Kenneth Burns '"
Subject: RE: Odd Jones
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:41:28 -0600

Ken:
I admire you [sic] steadfast refusal to acknowledge any other point of view, and your apparent commitment to thinking that anybody who is not 100 percent in favor of your righteous ideas must somehow be 100 percent against you. I acknowledge you might be 100 percent right and I might be 100 percent wrong. I find it's easier to live that way.

But, after dealing with star athletes for 25 years, my impression is salary has got nothing to do with maturity or ethics or insight, whether it is a relief pitcher or an Enron exec we are taling about. To expect anything else is terribly naive. Jones is not the CEO of a major company, so perhaps you would sleep better if you more properly viewed him as closer in intellectual importance to an eighth grader. And Jones was right about one thing: Keep your sexual tastes to yourself, or we all might feel differently about you, fair or not. You could ask Woody Allen. Or Marv Albert. Or any of a number of other celebrities who have seen what gets them through the night become public.

Take care,
Mark Kiszla



Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kenneth Burns" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Odd Jones
To: "Kiszla, Mark"

"Kiszla, Mark" wrote:
And Jones was right about one thing: Keep your sexual tastes to yourself, or we all might feel differently about you, fair or not. You could ask Woody Allen. Or Marv Albert. Or any of a number of other celebrities who have seen what gets them through the night become public.

Does this mean you think that gay people shouldn't live openly? That I shouldn't feel free to mention my boyfriend--my sexual taste, to use your phrase--as publicly as a straight man would mention his wife or girlfriend? Just curious.

Adieu, Kohl's

I'm a little sad the Kohl's on East Wash closed, not (unlike some of the other Kohl's) to be replaced. That's my old 'hood. I used to live at Victory Arms apartments across the street, and Kohl's was where I did all my grocery shopping. I liked the people who worked there. I liked the deli counter. I liked to look at Men's Workout magazine (rrrr) in the magazine rack. Now it's all gone.

That's a strange, troubled neighborhood. Maybe it will improve after Cathy Dethmers opens her new nightclub there.

Where's everyone around there going to buy groceries now? Maybe they'll get wise and take the bus down to the Willy St. Co-op. Nothing like a little transitional produce to take your mind off the unfair realities of late capitalism.

Pedal steel

Spotted in a gay Nashville chat room.

I dug out an old MAD magazine last night. I used to have a bunch of these, but the collection seems to have dwindled down to this one, from April 1968.

I think this was an especially fruitful period for MAD, which was anti-establishment when anti-establishment wasn't cool; and this issue, the cover of which sees Alfred E. Neuman bedecked in flowers and love beads, is as scathing about hippiedom as it is everything else.

This issue also has no small amount of feeble shtick, but then that was always true of MAD. Still, there's something comforting in knowing that even as we grew older and came to favor more sophisticated satire, MAD stayed (and stays) about the same.

Here's an excerpt from the April 1968 issue that I found particularly hilarious.