Just after midnight last night, I pre-ordered the next volume in George R.R. Martin‘s .A Song of Ice and Fire, A Dance with Dragons. And while my criticism of the works has increased since I first blogged about this fantasy cycle, my enjoyment has not lessened. That said, these books differ from the other great fantasy cycles I’ve read in their absence of defining relationships. To be sure, there are relationships, but each seems limited to a particular volume, sometimes limited even to a series of chapters.

One character falls in love with another, either to see his feelings consummated or remain unrequited, yet certain to see the beloved perish shortly after the love was declared or otherwise acknowledged.  We see a growing sympathy develop between two seemingly opposed characters, only to have them part company, likely never to see each other again, even as each has helped transform the other.

It seems that in good fiction (and yes, this is good fiction, far more readable and offering more insight into human nature that much literary fiction) as in great movies, there is always a defining relationship, oftentimes several. In Star Wars, we see the mentor-mentee relationship between Obi-Wan and Luke Skywalker as as well as his fraternal relationships with Princess Leia and Han Solo, the latter bond which causes the space smuggler to come back and help our hero destroy the Death Star. (Indeed, one friend believes it the absence of just such a character (Solo) which accounts for the weakness of the prequels; I believe that it’s also the absence of the hero’s relationship to a character like Han that makes Anakin Skywalker far less compelling than his son.)

Indeed, once director Francis Ford Coppola has established the character of Don Corleone character in The Godfather, the movie only really gets going when he notices the absence of his son Michael as the family poses for the requisite wedding picture. “Where’s Michael?” he asks, “we’re not taking the picture without Michael.” Later, when, through the blinds, he sees his son arrive at the reception, we know there is something significant about this relationship.  And it is that relationship which will define Michael’s journey in the film. (more…)

To those who study history, it becomes annoying when contemporary writers, considering the sexual proclivities of great men from other eras, rush to label as “gay” any figure from the past who once enjoyed sexual relations with members of his own sex.   In the process, they both blind themselves to evidence that that individual also enjoyed sexual relations with the opposite sex and to the mores of his time.

The notion that our sexuality is fixed in one direction is relatively recent one.  Many in other cultures, particularly in the ancient Mediterranean world, even where different-sex married couples were a defining institution, accepted — and often celebrated — men’s attraction to their same-sex fellows.  They saw sexuality as more fluid than we do today. We are guilty of presentism, interpreting historical events in light of modern notions, when we ignore that fluidity.

Perhaps, the greatest example of this presentist worldview is how all too many treat Alexander the Great.  He had to be “gay,” they claim because he and Hephaestion were lovers.  And, to be sure, some historians, eager to show that no great man could have sexual proclivities toward his own sex, write off allegations of his same-sex relations as historians’ embellishments or perhaps just metaphorical descriptions of intense emotional bonds forged in the heat of battle.

In his biography, Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness (a book which explains what its subtitle describes), Guy Maclean Rogers addresses the ambiguous nature of Alexander’s sexuality:

But modern sexual categories such as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” cannot be usefully applied to describe the sexuality of Alexander.  He belonged to a culture in which the erotic impulse (eros) was not necessarily assumed to be confined to feelings or acts directed to either men or women that, if they were consummated, thereby placed individuals in one category or the other.  Rather than striving to fix Alexander within one modern sexual camp or another, it is far more illuminating to examine the evidence for the trajectory of the erotic impulses he acted upon. (more…)

Twenty years ago, when liberal interest groups were trying to derail the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, they trotted out a former employee of the distinguished jurist who alleged that that good man once complained about some pubic hairs on a can of Coke and even claimed to be an aficionado of pornographic films featuring a performer whose stage name was similar to that of a famous priate. Such comments supposedly made him guilty of sexual harassment. In the highest of dudgeon, a handful of angry feminist Congresswomen (none of whom would later criticize Bill Clinton for allegedly raping a woman) marched across Capitol Hill, demanding the Senate look into these foul deeds.

If Mr. Weiner did indeed send the tweet (as his recent obfuscations suggest he did) and had acknowledged as much, conservatives would have been wise to leave him alone and ask that liberals show similar respect when they learn of the minor transgressions of conservative Congressmen.

At least since the Thomas hearings, Democrats — and their interest group allies — determined to defeat conservatives at all costs, have engaged in the politics of personal destruction.  When they uncover stories about the minor transgressions of a conservative lawmaker or public official, a compliant media helps them broadcast their findings to a broader audience.  Until the rise of the new media, conservatives muckrakers uncovering similar information about Democratic officials have not found as ready a megaphone.

That this story became news has more to do with the door that Democrats, most notably the chairman in 1991 of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened when they invited Miss Hill to testify before said committee, than it does with conservative delight in mocking the sanctimonious New York Democrat.

If there Mr. Weiner’s twitter were indeed hacked, the story should die until an investigation into the hacking were complete.  That Mr. Weiner felt the need to obfuscate suggests he is well aware that today even minor transgressions can significantly impact a Congressman’s career.  And for that, he shouldn’t be blaming conservative bloggers or Republican politicians, but wonder why his fellow Democrats were so quick to raise such a ruckus about a law professor’s allegation that her one-time boss once engaged in poddy talk. (more…)

From the AP:

A sharp dive in private job growth and a continued slowdown in the manufacturing sector combined to send the Dow Jones industrial average down more than 200 points Wednesday, its biggest drop since early March. Treasury bond prices rose to their highest level of the year as traders placed a larger value on safer investments.

Doubts about the economy’s strength that built throughout May were compounded by a pair of reports that were weaker than investors expected. . . .

And private employers added just 38,000 jobs in May, down from 177,000 in April, according to payroll processor ADP. Analysts had expected 180,000 new jobs.

Wait, wasn’t the “so-called stimulus” supposed to juice job growth? Looking forward to the 2012 campaign, Jennifer Rubin writes:

The president can’t merely attack his opponent or George W. Bush as he did last time; he’s going to need a record of accomplishment on the issues voters care most about. And unless the economy turns around very quickly, that’s going to be a very large problem.

Via Ann Althouse, I just learned of Gallup’s 2011 Values and Beliefs poll:

That blogress asks her readers, “What surprises you the most here?” Well, I’m no longer surprised that nearly 3 in 5 Americans find gay relationships morally acceptable. It corresponds with the numbers we’ve seen in Pew and Gallup surveys on state recognition of same-sex civil unions. The changes is social attitudes I blogged about here are very real.

What surprised me was the moral issue on which there is there greatest concord in America, marital fidelity. It seems my “gut feeling” about monogamy is more than just a visceral reaction, but something with which more than 90% of my fellow Americans can relate. And it’s something to bear in mind when we’re talking about state recognition of same-sex marriage.

I always wondered why Anderson Cooper got more attention than Don Lemon.  The former always looks like he’s trying really, really, REALLY hard to be a serious news anchor, adopting his best Walter Cronkite/Edward R. Murrow pose while the latter just seems like a nice guy delivering the news.  He actually has the audacity to smile every now and again.

I had meant to blog earlier about the latter coming out, but spaced it.  It seems he also has an interesting story to tell:

In the two-plus weeks since Don Lemon announced he is gay in tandem with the release of his new memoir, ‘Transparent,’ the CNN anchor has received both kudos and criticism.

The praise is geared toward the courage it took to openly embrace his homosexuality as a public figure. The criticism lies mainly with the language Lemon used in his announcement. Lemon told the ‘New York Times’, where the news of his announcement first broke: “It’s quite different for an African-American male…It’s about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You’re taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine. In the black community they think you can pray the gay away.” Lemon also mentioned black women specifically, expressing his concern “that black women will say the same things [about me being gay] as they do about how black men should be dating black women.

This is actually a book I might read.  Lemon seems the most telegenic of the CNN anchors and reporters; most seem out of place delivering and commenting on the news.

I hope for Lemon’s continued success — and not just because he comes across as such a nice guy, but also because it would signal that Americans recognize that one’s sexuality doesn’t compromise one’s objectivity in the newsroom.

Perhaps he’ll become for TV journalism what Ellen has become for day-time talk shows.  And we’ll see that one’s sexuality is increasingly incidental to one’s success.

Posting the video below, an editor at Breitbart.Tv quipped, “The simplest questions still go unanswered.” Just watch this for yourself; it’s an unbelievable exercise in obfuscation.

All the Democrat needs to do is to say, “Look, yeah, I tweeted out that picture. It was a dumb thing to do. I should have known better.” Some on my side of the political aisle might not let it go.  The late night comics would crack a few jokes, bur other than that the story would blow over.  He would continue to retain his seat in Congress and his influence within his party’s caucus.

But, while he tells the various reporters that they’re there to ask the questions, he’s there to answer them, he, well, he doesn’t answer any of them, offering instead some prepared hypothetical about a heckler at a speech with 45,000 in the audience (probably about 45 times the size of the largest audience that Democrat ever drew.)

“Weiner’s response,” Ed Morrissey writes, “seems odd under the circumstances“: (more…)