Diatribes by Joah

Guest Post: An Open Letter to Baby Boomers

I've packed my bags and I'm headed to Seattle and Vancouver for a few days as part of my great American city tour with Althea - so far we've done Austin, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and, of course, D.C. - and to run a half marathon as part of the North Face Endurance Challenge. Wish me luck!

In the meantime, read this brilliant piece from my good friend Joe. He may be on the other side of the political aisle from me at times, but he's one of the few 20-somethings I listen to and deeply respect for his knowledge of current events in politics. Read on...

***

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BABY BOOMERS

Dear Baby Boomers,

    Please stop ruining our presidential elections. 

Respectfully,

Everyone else

***

While that is an over-simplification of my guest “diatribe,” it is the basic gist: every four years, the baby boomers use the presidential election as a forum to re-litigate the battles of the 1960s.   

Thanks in part to the sage punditry of our national media, every four years we participate in a national discussion that enlightens us about the lives and values of our presidential candidates.  We get a glimpse into these candidates so we can make an informed choice on Election Day.  Let’s see if I can summarize what I have learned about the candidates from the elections I have been old enough to follow...

Communist draft-dodger Bill Clinton organized hippie anti-war rallies in between smoking pot and visiting the Soviet Union while John Kerry faked his medals of honor and spit on his fellow Vietnam veterans.  “Goldwater Girl” turned radical liberal antiwar activist Hillary Clinton split summers campaigning for pacifist Eugene McCarthy and running the Wellesley chapter of college republicans.  Dick Cheney cowardly “deferred” the Vietnam draft (FIVE TIMES) while aristocrat George H.W. Bush got his spoiled, serial underachieving son a free ride in the Texas Air National Guard.  His grateful son was subsequently too busy with drinking binges and coke benders to show up.  John McCain was tortured.  Bob Dole is really, really old.  The end.   

The 1960s was a rough decade.  We all saw Forrest Gump.  We get it. 

For better or worse, individuals who both shaped (as foot soldiers) and were shaped by the 1960s have dominated the last several election cycles.  From one perspective, traditional American culture degenerated into anti-American, orgiastic displays of hallucinogenic-induced flag-burning.  Privileged radical students seized college administrative buildings while our entire social order turned upside down.  From the other perspective, the unjust and untenable status quo was broken.  The Civil Rights movement culminated.  Liberation thrived.  A healthy enthusiasm to challenge authority emerged.  The Warren Court pushed too far—or not far enough.  And somewhere all those events gave Jenny AIDS. 

My intention is not to trivialize the accomplishments of the baby boomers (e.g. the Civil Rights Movement).  Nor is it to demean their sacrifices and the pain they endured—from the marcher who fought police beatings and injustice with nonviolence to the Vietnam veteran who proudly served his country only to come home and be called a “baby killer.”  The sixties were an implosion of culture and counterculture; it was the inevitable eruption of the old American order.  Its triumphs and failures still resonate today.  Its backlashes are many.

But herein lays my resentment towards the baby boomers.  These events occurred forty years ago.  Yet, the same divisions, the same polarization, and the same players continue to fight the same forty-year old battles.  And those who lived through that decade continue to dominate American political discourse today. 

I mentioned Forrest Gump earlier intentionally.  It is undeniable that Tom Hanks’ role as Forrest Gump allowed viewers to see those passionate and unclear events through a lens of clarity and dispassion.  His simple yet brilliantly anti-ideological nature managed to take at least some of the partisan sting out of those polarizing historical events.  In the end, you could almost view the birth of him and Jenny’s son, Forrest Jr., as a sort of reconciliation between the so-called “radicals” and the so-called “silent majority.” 

Forrest Junior would fictitiously grow up unshaken by the divisions of the 1960s as a product of his own generation.  With all the talk this year of breaking barriers (whether racial, gender, or even age), for me, the most remarkable and least discussed barrier being broken is the generational barrier.  Barack Obama is the first viable post-baby boomer, post-1960s presidential candidate.  To some extent, I see his rise as “generational politics” as opposed to the oft-repeated “identity politics” mantra.  Yes, women and African Americans largely make up Clinton and Obama’s respective core constituencies.  But, a gross distinction among age groups has also surfaced.  Most recently, in North Carolina, Obama won voters under 40 by about 30 points.  Clinton won voters sixty and older—those who remember the 1960s—by roughly the same margin.  Indiana mirrored that disparity less dramatically. 

For those of us with boomer fatigue, we finally have someone without the baggage of the 1960s.  One could, and many will, argue that he has baggage by association.  He has known and associated with some polemical baby boomers in his life.  But so far, in a language indecipherable to the baby boomers, he has been able to brush the “dirt off his shoulders”.  Baby boomers should take note that “swift boating” a candidate with the words of someone the candidate happened to live by or went to church with is much less effective than doing so with the candidate’s own words.

I have a larger point—although I am a supporter, this diatribe is not an Obama commercial.  Regardless of who wins this year, this process of generational change is beginning.  While Obama is the first viable post-1960’s candidate, he certainly will not be the last.  As a new generation of leaders—whether from generation X, Y, Z, pi?—begin to take center stage, we can take comfort in the fact the baby boomers’ time is running out.  The time for rehashing 1960s-era melodrama every four years is coming to an end.  The time for “swift-boating” and forty-year old grudges dominating the political agenda is coming to an end.  It may or may not end this election cycle but the end is near. 

People who are skeptical of Obama’s lofty rhetoric often ask “what kind of change will he bring?”  That’s an easy one: generational change.  And if not Obama, then someone else soon because those of us, under 40, unencumbered by the 1960s, thirsty for honest discourse and political progress, are emerging as a potent political demographic.  We may be cynical about the present but we are hopeful for the future.

A future governed by the offspring of Forrest Gump and Jenny.

Joe Scro was born in 1982.

Guest Post: Off the Court and Into the Bank

I would like to start by thanking Joah for the opportunity to offer my perspective.  I wish you the best of luck with Real Role Models, my man, and all of your future endeavors.  Joah and I met back on the UT campus through the Texas Basketball program while he worked in the media relations office and I was a manager-turned-walk on for the team. We enjoyed Texas’ Final Four run in ’03 and spent a lot of time with some of the players who played a role in making Texas a perennial power in college basketball.

We have continued our friendship since those days.  After a brief stint with Nike, I started running a company dedicated to financial advising for athletes and other clients.  In my line of work, I have the opportunity to work with great friends and family on a daily basis and remain fairly connected to the sports world. I will try and be as specific as possible, but in the interest of confidentiality to some of my clients, I must speak in fairly general terms.  The following are some answers to questions Joah posed to me.

What Is One Thing Sports Fans May Not Know About Pro Athletes?

Sports are largely entertainment to us and it may seem like phenomenally lucrative fun for today's athletes, but it's an ACTUAL job!  Many people would argue they work harder and are paid far less than athletes in general and  while this may be true in certain cases, the physical and mental work a lot of athletes endure is quite time consuming and requires certain sacrifices much like any profession.  The most successful athletes don't really have an "off-season" when you factor in what they need to do during the time when the season isn't in full swing.  Of course there is time for vacation and fun, but not as much as most would imagine.

Why Is Working In Your Industry Fun?

I love my job.  The combination of quite a few factors has led me to love it.  I get to work with clients who were friends (and continue to be great friends) long before they became clients.  I am faced with different situations and challenges on a daily basis which keeps me motivated.  I enjoy helping people whenever I can, whether it's an athlete friend, family member, or the like.  I believe that's what being in a service industry like this is all about.

Any Why is it Difficult?

The sports world becomes a difficult business environment at times.  Athletes are constantly approached with private business opportunities because many assume they have access to large pools of cash.  They also have a lot of different obligations off the court.  Many make community appearances representing their respective leagues AND on their own.  Marketing dollars are a great perk in the industry but also mean additional professional obligations.  I am glad we aren't in the business of juggling these athletes' schedules.  There are times when you'll try to reach an individual and hold extensive discussions about a variety of business topics and you may not always be able to reach them.  I have learned to be patient in business and in my everyday life.  It pays off.

How Are College/Pro Sports Changing?

I am a fan of the rule forcing high school players to attend at least one year of college before they can declare for the NBA Draft.  I recently read they are even trying to tweak some of the age rulings.  There are always pros and cons to any new rulings.  Over the last few years, it seems we are seeing NCAA Men's Basketball positively affected by this.  However, if you are a college coach who tries to recruit the best talent every year, you are constantly faced with trying to change your roster to fill the gaps departing superstar freshmen (as we expect with a lot of the guys you probably watched during this year’s tournament) leave all while remaining competitive.  Some fans have a tough time keeping up with these changes as well, so there could be even more benefit to increasing this age limit by one or two more years.  And although I talk a lot about basketball, but I keep a close watch on baseball, football, tennis, soccer and other sports.  I think fans are going to demand more honesty in regards to every professional sports league when you take into account the scandals that have arisen in the past few years.

How Will Changes Affect the Business of Sports?

It seems to me like fans want to be closer to their favorite sports than ever.  I think fans will continue to be granted more and more access with so many evolving methods of delivering information on teams, players and franchises.  Let’s just hope we don’t see teams or leagues striking over the availability of sports related web content like we recently saw with the Hollywood writers strike!  There’s much more to say on this matter, but maybe at a later time…

Who Is Managing Their Career the “Right” Way?

All of my clients are extremely dedicated to their careers AND their families.  In my opinion, this balance is my kind of positive lifestyle.  They see unique opportunities to create generational wealth and help a lot of different people along their paths to success.  The willingness to listen to what we have to say and recommend accompanied by the ability to learn from non-sports related "wins" and "losses" has been what makes me proud of each and every one of my athlete clients.  It doesn't take each young athlete long to realize the window of athletic opportunity isn't wide open forever.  Long-term planning in the face of the early financial success has been important to each of them.

How Do You Spend Your Time?

I like to stay extremely accessible.  My days are not very rigid as far as a schedule is concerned.  While I do go into an office from about 9am-6pm Monday-Friday, that doesn't necessarily mean I won't be handling different issues and business opportunities outside of those hours.  I like to keep a close eye on the numbers for each of my clients who command a monthly budget.  Each season and each fiscal year, we take the time to review the numbers and see where we hit or missed. I review any private equity opportunity that may pass across the desk of any of our clients to summarize the financial risks and rewards involved with the proposed investment.  We assist many clients with the purchase and sale of real estate, vehicles, and more.  We keep each client as organized as possible for tax season.  On top of these activities, a good portion of my week is spent managing client relations along with the day-to-day operations of our business.

Adam Gracely leads a financial management firm based in Houston. He counts professional athletes among his clients.

Guest Post: “I’d like a Queer Sandwich. Hold the T!” Senator Ted Kennedy

In recent weeks, I've heard and read quite a bit about the gay rights legislation Congress is currently considering. It's piqued my interest because it's put Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy in bad stead with some long-time allies. That said, I ventured out to find someone who has a more thorough understanding of the impending bill and gay rights issues. Please read on...

*****

Senator Kennedy, of Massachusetts, introduced legislation into the Senate that would extend federal employment non-discrimination laws to gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans.  Twenty states, the District of Columbia and a whole host of local and city governments already hold similar laws.  This move comes after the U.S. House passed similar legislation written by openly gay representative, Barney Frank, another Democrat from Massachusetts.

But wait a second, GLB…?  Something’s missing!  Ah, that hard consonant T that punctuates this amorphous queer catchall.  Both of these bills leave out Transgender individuals, i.e., all Americans whose gender identity does not match the simple Male or Female designation assigned at birth after a brief glance at their outward genitalia.  These people classify themselves with this identity for a multitude of reasons.  Some are genetically neither male nor female (Chromosomally they can be XXY, XYY, XXX, X).  This is as common as 1 in 1,000 births.  Other individuals believe that there outward sexual organs do not correspond with the sex they know they are.  Many of these will work to rectify this problem, through dressing styles, using hormone therapy and surgery until their outward appearance matches the sex they feel they are.  Still, another group does not agree with the masculine and feminine binary gender roles.  They see this, along with biological sex distinction, as a fluid spectrum with a multitude of gender roles and sex distinctions in which we can move freely.  Think, just a hundred years ago, a woman wearing pants would be seen as a sexual pervert and could be arrested for posing as a man.  But these fluid gender roles have changed, allowing women to freely wear pants, jeans and a whole host of two legged garments.

There is a lot of fighting and bickering within the gay community that the most invisible of their brethren are getting the shaft with this exclusive legislation.  Both sides draw parallels to previous struggles for civil rights within the United States. 

Who can forget Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s, Susan B Anthony’s and the other Suffragettes’ frustration when they spent decades of their life to struggling for abolition.  When these White women succeeded in helping end slavery, they assumed that this movement’s momentum would turn to their fight for equality and the right to vote.  But prominent abolitionist leaders, both black and white, told them, not now, this is not your struggle.

Who can forget Bayard Rustin, architect of the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.’s right hand man.  When this openly gay black man implored Dr. King to use this energy to start a struggle for gay rights, Dr. King told him not now.  More than “not now,” Rustin was forced into the shadows to become a silent partner in this civil rights struggle.

Yes, through hindsight, we can see the error in these actions, but before we are too judgmental, we must understand the context.  Abolition had built itself by showing the savage nature of slavery, and thus was able to get the sympathy of such a large amount of Americans.  Compared to this, the struggles of middle class white women were seen as frivolous.  (“Why would a woman want to vote, she’s just going to vote for whom her husband tells her.”)  With the civil rights struggle, Dr. King used the Christian moral context in the US to garner sympathy.  Conservatives knew this tactic so tried to Rustin’s homosexuality to undermine this.  An undercover FBI agent stooped so low as to take a picture of Rustin reviewing the day’s events next to King in a bath tub. The agent tried to use this to prove an affair between Rustin and King.  To save the Christian sympathy of the movement, Bayard Rustin was forced into the shadows, destroying all hopes to address homosexuality in the civil rights struggle.

Senator Kennedy believes that it is already and uphill battle to get the sixty votes in Senate to stop Republicans from tacking on all sorts of undesirable provisions to this GLB bill.  With the slim chance that this will pass, President Bush has already promised a veto.  His reasoning is that this will infringe upon the freedom of speech of individuals, organizations and churches. 

To give a parallel for this argument, Bob Jones University, that ivory tower of Southern Fundamentalist education, agreed to allow black students to enroll only in 1975.  With this, the university made a law prohibiting interracial dating on campus.  The IRS stepped in and retroactively revoked the University’s tax exempt status for not comply with civil rights clauses protecting against such discrimination among organizations receiving tax benefits or other government support.  This is a fascinating case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, BJU (come on, BJ… U?) argued that it met all other tax exempt criteria, but that the school’s policy was based on religious beliefs that “God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage. ”  Newly-minted President Ronald Reagan tried to have the case dropped in 1982, but political pressure forced him to reinstate the case.  The Supreme Court decided against the University, forcing BJU (giggles) to repay millions of dollars in taxes.  BJU kept the policy and forfeited their non-profit status until 2000, when the policy dropped amid media uproar during a visit by then presidential candidate George W. Bush.

With his veto, Bush wishes to stir fear about a vast gay conspiracy that will silence and censor anyone or any church that would try to speak out against behavior that is ‘sinful.’  Keep in mind that this same Christian Bible is vehemently pro-slavery, anti-Jew and anti-Women.  Huh, interesting that not too many Americans hear aggressively racist and misogynistic rhetoric at their Churches on Sunday mornings anymore. Times and temperaments have changed.  These churches are still free to preach what they wish, they have the freedom of speech to do so, but they would no longer have the ability to claim coveted tax exemption status, which is keeping many churches in the high price, hot ticket real estate locations.

Is this the end of the argument?  Should transgender advocates and allies just grumble about this unfair exclusion?  Should a bill that is a pipe dream and likely to be vetoed become the ax to splinter the gay rights movement?  Hells NO!  Like I tell my lovely Lesbian roommate when she returns from a radical feminist book reading and roller-skating convention: “Can you PLEASE think outside the BOX?”

In this instance, Transgender advocates are falling into the typical political pitfall, assuming that their rights can only be gained through popular vote or legislative action.  But it wasn’t the popular will of the people who brought down Jim Crow Segregation; it was a little girl from Kansas and all nine justices of the Supreme Court. 

For Transgender advocates, their savoir may come in the form of a twenty-five-year veteran of the US Army and aspiring librarian, Diane Schroer.  Diane had applied for and accepted a position with the Library of Congress to be the Senior Terrorism Research Analyst.  Right before beginning the position, she took her boss out to lunch and casually mentioned that she was in the process of transitioning the outward appearance of her sex and that it might be better for everyone if, when she started the job, she was referred to as female and by the name Diane.  The next day, Diane was called, told she wasn’t ‘a good fit’ and fired.  She brought her claim to the ACLU who then formulated a suit against the Library of Congress.  The lawsuit charges that the Library of Congress unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against sex discrimination. 

The Library of Congress moved to dismiss the case, claiming that this Title VII does not protect Transgender individuals.  The District Court ruled to dismiss the claims of the Library of Congress and continue forward with Schroer’s discrimination case.  The court noted that sex may not be a cut and dry matter of chromosomes and that there are many "factual complexities that underlie human sexual identity. These complexities stem from real variations in how the different components of biological sexuality -- chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, and neurological -- interact with each other, and in turn, with social, psychological, and legal conceptions of gender. "   Title VII also deals with perception of sex and conforming to sexual gender roles.  Title VII has been used in the past to protect women who are deemed to be ‘too masculine’ and men who are deemed to be ‘too feminine.’  The court noted that "Title VII is violated when an employer discriminates against any employee, transsexual or not, because he or she has failed to act or appear sufficiently masculine or feminine enough for an employer."  This case is still in the process, so please go to the ACLU’s website to support Diane Schroer’s case click here.  I encourage each of you help with this case however you can.

Gender roles are a fluid and dynamic.  The courts are beginning to realize this reality.  As this continues, this has the possibility to give Transgender individuals more legal protections.  But don’t think for an instant that Transgender people have an easier battle towards equality.  One must only remember 15 year-old Lawrence King who two months ago was tragically shot by a student in his junior high school for coming to school dressed ‘effeminately.’   The majority of transgender people are still listed as mentally ill by the American Psychiatric Association, which labels these individuals as suffering from Gender Identity Disorder.  To the Transgender community and allies, we need to fight this psychiatric label, we need to find loopholes and we need to think outside of the box!

Kevin M. has more than 10 years of gay experience, learning by living as a sexual minority in Maine, DC and South Africa. He has spent two years working at a GLBT health center, working along side, under and for the betterment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals.

Guest Post: When Handed Lemons, Make Big Apples

This is the first of what is expected to become a weekly guest posting here at Diatribes. This one comes from a good friend who lives in New York where it turns out working in journalism can be journal-worthy.

*****

It’s 11:15 p.m. I just got home from the opera with girlfriends (Puccini’s Edgar) and have settled down to write 1,000 words on the magazine industry for my friend Joah. Seeing the opera for free is one of the media’s many perks. A friend once said that journalism was invented so that geeks would get invited to parties and converse with the popular crowd. It’s true. That and well, the whole watchdog thing. But back to perks. I’ve shaken hands with the 80th richest man in the world (George Soros), flown to Miami business class to review a 4-star resort, and have never bought a single shampoo, conditioner, or cosmetic product since I moved to New York three years ago (no, I’m not on a bathing strike; I just snag $80 moisturizers from the beauty closet).

Before you call foul and question my journalistic integrity, consider this: $32,000 initial salary. That’s what I made my first year here. No, scratch that. I couldn’t get a job for eight months, so that’s what I made once someone hired me full-time. Before that, I worked part-time in a prominent Chelsea photo studio for a man who would continually sexually harass me (once, he licked my back while I was typing a memo) for six months. I’m not proud of it, but I did meet Fergie my first day and continually met magazine editors on photo shoots. Once I got out of there (and yes, I considered suing but paying legal fees was out of my budget), I freelanced for about a month at a national fashion magazine but budget cuts landed me jobless again. So, I packed up and headed to California and Vegas to ignore reality for a few weeks. That was followed by Christmas, and by February, I had found permanent employment at a national men’s magazine.

They told me that it was what I could make of it. I could either be a receptionist as the previous girl had been or I could apply myself and end up with a writing gig. This turned out to be tougher than expected and was my first run-in with the very real glass ceiling that I had once thought fabled. After countless attempts of pitching, I’ll admit, some mediocre ideas but mostly good ones, I was jaded, disgruntled even. One day, I looked around in the archive (where I spent many hours as I was asked to copy articles for various editors) and noticed that there hadn’t been a female editor in a decade. The last one had gone on to a women’s title and since her departure, girls only held assistant positions like mine and never advanced. Knowing this softened the rejection a bit. It wasn’t personal. This was a sexist institution. But the men I worked with seemed genuine and fun. I was never sexually harassed as I had been at my last job but was liked by all, but still, not respected as a journalist. No, I was the assistant who made copies and got the mail. I was actually so good at this (not like it takes much skill), that I was done with work by 1 or 2 p.m. and spent the rest of my day reading The New York Times and political blogs online wondering if my coworkers knew I graduated with two degrees and a French minor from a prominent university.

This research came in handy when they hired a Web editor. All the magazines were doing it. A new trend emerged and everyone claimed the Internet was the future! Better create your own Web presence than let other sites swallow your readership. It was this threat that gave me my best friend there. Although the guys were sweet, it was a bit of a boys’ club. I ate lunch alone and didn’t quite sip whiskeys with everyone after work. Enter the Web editor. All the other guys considered him a nuisance at first. He wore designer kicks and forwarded funny, although grotesque, e-mails. Plus, he was just a genuinely happy guy—not the serious editor that most of them were. I liked him from the start. The no-frills Web geek and I became pals. He taught me how to write for dot-coms, and I amassed clips—both on the site and in the magazine. It’s true that media is like high school. It’s very small; everybody knows everybody. But more importantly, if one guy thinks you’re cool, then others follow like sheep. Once the online editor gave me a chance, my pitches weren’t discarded but read, and if they weren’t up to par, I was given feedback instead of simply ignored. Things were looking up until a lunch with our interns.

At the end of each season, the magazine’s editor-in-chief would take the interns out to lunch as a thank-you and also as a Q&A session. Nothing was off limits. On this particular day, we had a bold intern who asked the question that had plagued my mind all year, “Do you believe in female editors at a male magazine?” I expected him to look at her and spout the whole “you can do anything you set your mind to” speech I was given on the day I was hired. Instead, he calmly said, “No. I don’t think Kate White (editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan) would want a man telling a woman what to do.” Nail. On. Coffin. That was it. Tomorrow I would make it my job to look for a new job.

It took a few months to find one. I completed multiple edit tests, which are judges of skill level unique to each magazine. The way it works is you apply for a job that you either hear of through word-of-mouth or via a website. If you really want an interview, you’ll find a contact at the publication to vouch for you, otherwise your resume will never make it to the top of the stack. Case in point, O, The Oprah Magazine listed an entry-level job opening, and within a day, they had already received over 200 applications. With all these journalism schools spitting out graduates by the thousands, there simply isn’t enough supply to meet the demand. If you are lucky enough to get an interview and they like you, then comes the edit test. It usually consists of editing an article or two and brainstorming about five story ideas, although I recently encountered one draconian test asking for a 1,000-word critique of the publication. And if you make it past this, then they’ll e-mail you a congratulatory note and talk salary. But if not, there’s no “Sorry, but thanks for trying” in your inbox. It’s not that the editors are callous; it’s just that they don’t have time to e-mail hundreds of rejection letters.

Finding a magazine editor gig is a crapshoot. You might be passed over because the boss’ niece’s friend also applied or because you went to J-School in a flyover state while some NYU alum racked up five national magazine internships during undergrad. It’s completely random and you shouldn’t take it personal. So I didn’t. And now I’m at a new publication, which after seven months of working there, am ready to leave. Is it the 10 people that they laid off last month and low office morale? Or the coworker that thinks she’s God’s gift to publishing? Possibly. Or is it because the media are never satisfied?

Last week, Amy Gross, the editor-in-chief of the aforementioned O, The Oprah Magazine, resigned telling the New York Post, “I've been at the same job for eight years. That's longer than I've ever been at any job.”

--Name withheld (because as I mentioned it’s a tiny industry that loves dirty laundry)