All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans’ lack of language and cultural understanding. Our [Baghdad] embassy of 1,000 has 33 Arabic speakers, just six of whom are at the level of fluency. In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage. There are still far too few Arab language–proficient military and civilian officers in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. mission.

– Iraq Study Group Report, p92 (emphasis added)

Six people in the embassy can speak the language. Six. I sure hope they’re all straight…

But the GAO also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.

– Army dismisses gay Arabic linguist, AP (via MSNBC, emphasis added)

Look at that slogan: “Paying a higher rate of attention.” That made me scoff. Oh sure, I thought. How like marketing: to promise some intangible/immeasurable quality, some perceived difference. Rather than paying a higher rate of interest, which costs money, they just give empty slogans.

Except then I remembered why I like my (Chicago) bank:

(Also available in lesbian!)

Sometimes I suppose it’s just a matter of using the right slogan:

Oh, by the way, about that address:

I’m sure it won’t come as a surprise that there is no “Elaine Place” in New York City. But I wonder if there was an Elaine involved in the production of the ad… I remember a time when I was putting together some ads for a magazine, and the sample address I used was “Perkins Lane”.

You gotta leave your mark somehow…

Fortunately, my friends have stepped into the breech, and I’ve been getting some good e-mail on the subject. I hope they don’t mind if I quote them here.

First is Pech, who makes the following observation:

So, on more than one occasion I’ve seen the equation shown in the pic [above]. And I have to say I just love it, it’s too perfect. It simultaneously points out the stupidity and ignorance of the religious right, but undermines their point as well.

In this society we hold to the idea that men and women are equal, applying rules of simple math, if man + woman = marriage, AND man = woman therefore man + man = marriage, and also woman + woman = marriage.

Joel then sent me this positively Swiftian forward:

Citizen -
Right now there is an issue that is ripping our country apart. It is an issue where one side derides the status quo as nothing more than institutionalized discrimination, while the other side considers it essential to their way of life. If action is not taken on this issue, it is clear that a court will eventually make a decision that will overturn the status quo. When such a decision is handed down it is possible that the rift caused by this issue will threaten the very fabric of our Union. For this reason, action – Constitutional action – is the only option.

In times like these, I turn to our most precious of documents and ask, “What would our Founding Fathers do?” I believe that the answer is clear. When faced with an issue this powerful, this disruptive, this important, they would craft a compromise. This is why, after carefully reading through the Constitution, I am proposing an Amendment that allows gays to 3/5ths marry.

The 3/5ths marriage would give gays 3/5ths of the rights of a straight couple. When a gay person dies, their partner will only be able to inherit 3/5ths of the estate (the extra 2/5ths can go to the government to make up some for some of the tax money lost due to the abolition of the estate tax). Gay couples will only be able to file taxes 60% jointly. If a gay person is in the hospital, their gay partner can be with them for 36 minutes of each hour. And so on.

Both sides will be able to accept this compromise. It will allow gays to marry, but it will clearly establish that the United States considers straight marriage to be superior. Since straight marriage will be 166% as beneficial as gay marriage, it may even cause some gay people to reconsider and opt for traditional straight marriage.

Please, forward this message to your friends and your local media and insist that they contact their Senators and Representatives and let them know that: “3/5ths unions will save our Union!”

Nicely done, guys.

Based on the experience, I do have a little tip for some of the gay boys out there:

• If you feel confident enough to jump up on the stage and dance in front of the crowd, you go on with your bad self.
• However, if you feel the need to jump on stage, turn your back to the room, and use the mirror to watch yourself dance in front of the crowd, maybe it’s time to rein it in a bit.

And by “a bit”, I mean “a lot.”

That picture, a 1982 release, actually began with a warning:

(These stills are from The Celluloid Closet a documentary in which Making Love screenwriter reveals an incoming studio head at Fox referred to the film as “a goddamned faggot picture.” What was that about “proud to present” and “applaud its courage” again?)

For example, who would have guessed that Jackass: The Movie would have ever appeared in any book with “Must-See” in its name?

‘Twas none other than the J.C.Penney Big & Tall catalog:

Does that guy’s face look familiar? I swear it’s Josh Wald, previously leered at featured in these pages.

Well, I’m here to tell you, folks, I can think of few things more depressing than seeing this achingly hot, tattooed skater boy transformed into proud papa of the Faux family.

OK, that’s not true. Of course I can think of things more depressing. For example, at least it’s not “The Lean Team”:

Such was the case today, when I was on Londonist and encountered this fellow on their home page:

I guessed wrong with him, as you can tell by the “With a: Woman” line (not to be confused with the charming Britishism further down: “Fags: Never”.)

So why do I even mention this? Because if you take a look at this bloke’s profession, you’ll find it’s “Fashion Photo Retoucher.” Fair enough; someone needs to make sure that Lindsay Lohan looks less like, as B puts it, “an emaciated monkey.”

But with that in mind, take a look at this photo again. Is it not terrible? He seems like a good looking guy, yet here there’s one red eye and one blown out by the flash, an uncomfortable shine to the forehead, greasy hair, and let’s not forget the random chick down in the corner (seems to me there’s nothing but downside to including another woman in a personals photo.)

Why would a professional retoucher choose this photo to represent himself? It’s like saying this woman’s a cosmetologist…