“He veers to the right, then to the left, stomping as he goes, doing a special kind of walk, trying to anchor the soles of his feet to the pavement, so he won’t fall or stumble and look like a prat. A drunk myself, drunk right now, I know that walk. So I follow him, just one of dozens of figures walking home through Stromovka Park either from the expat bars to the west, or the drum ‘n’ bass smoking bar to the south. In my head I see a satellite image of what we must look like: Little black ants swarming in the sodium light then funneling into the cloudy dark. I follow him not because he’s cute, because I don’t know that yet, and I’ve seen a few hot young dudes on this same path already, but because he walks like me, and I imagine the familiar, pissed-on loneliness in his gut, sloshing around with all that beer, feels as full up as mine.”—Alms | rick powell writes
Journalist Jo Becker has a new book out on the marriage equality movement. The revolution began, it appears, in 2008. And its Rosa Parks was a man you would be forgiven for knowing nothing about, C…
Rick Powell's insight:
"Of course it also raises a core question about Griffin. This book obviously reflects his own view of himself as the Rosa Parks of this movement. And that marks him as an extreme outlier in it. One thing that has characterized the marriage equality movement from the get-go has been a collective decision to give credit widely and broadly for a movement that began in the grass roots and succeeded because of some key figures but also thanks to tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, who stood up for equality in places far less welcoming than executive suites in San Francisco. No single individual has decided to claim personal credit for all this until now – let alone smear, insult and write out of history the vast coalition that made this possible. I’ve long supported Griffin’s welcome attempt to shift HRC from apathy to action on marriage. But the idea that he can now be hailed as the uniquely indispensable figure and all his predecessors and critical allies mocked as irrelevant is grotesque. He is in that sense a harbinger of something genuinely new. He has decided to coopt all the work done before him and alongside him as something he uniquely achieved by himself."
A conversation with Leslie Jamison, author of The Empathy Exams
Rick Powell's insight:
Well, part of what she says is right and part of what says is wrong. Short Term 12 is manipulative because the kids are ciphers. The change happens within and to the caregivers while the kids are the catalysts. They’re interchangeable. Their particulars don’t matter. All that matters is that they’re fucked up. So Jamison isn’t being particularly emotionally intelligent in this case. Short Term 12 isn’t troublesome because it wants us to feel for the caregivers, the adults. They deserve some sympathy, too. It’s troublesome because of the things it doesn’t want us to think about. The problem isn’t sentimentality. The problem is dishonesty.