All the Privilege I Cannot See

Image Courtesy of MAX

I can’t seem to get Alex Edelman’s Just for Us out of my head. I keep digging beneath the comic surface of his sometimes naïve, always humorous, wonderings about whether this fair skinned Orthodox Jewish man-child is actually white.

One particular bit, towards the end of the show, resonates strong. The day after Alex has been kicked out of the white supremacist meeting, in a bravado solo enactment of both sides of a telephone conversation, Alex’s friend calls him out. Of course Alex is white. The whole episode is the height of white privilege: to assume that you, a Jew, could walk into a meeting of white supremacists and think, “This will probably be fine.”

The line, delivered in a sing-song voice with a flip of the wrist, is hysterical. But the serious undertone lingers. That so often, privilege is more than simply having more of everything. It’s all that we take for granted. All the bennie’s we can’t even see.

I live at the top of the food chain: a healthy, affluent, educated, white male. I know, I know, officially I can claim membership in a minority. But I think being gay doesn’t quite count because, most often, I get to decide whether to play the gay card. So it doesn’t carry the same oppressive weight as being Black or Brown or female or disabled, or any other minority status that reveals itself before the first introduction is made.

I’m not about to crash a white supremacist meeting anytime soon. But I could. In fact, there are very few places I can’t go. For over twenty years I designed health care facilities all over the country. I went into emergency departments, ICUs, and operating suites to take photos or measurements or observe processes. Not once—never once—did anyone, in any hospital, ever question me or my purpose. I was polite; I’d introduce myself to the unit secretary, explain my mission. But dozens of other people saw this non-employee walking around supposedly secure areas without any idea of my purpose, yet no one ever bothered to question. Because I looked like I belonged. I did it for years before I realized: Wow! Not everyone gets this privilege.

Over time I became more aware of the privilege I cannot see. I was ‘woke’ before it was a thing, and I still find it usefully humbling to appreciate what’s easily taken for granted, even as ‘woke’ has been cancelled, or pronounced dead, or whatever.

Image Courtesy NBC Sports Boston

Last month my daughter—a huge Celtics fan—was all excited that the March 18 game had been televised by an all-female team of broadcasters as part of Female Empowerment Month. “That is so awesome. For girls to see these women doing the whole thing. I never saw anything like that.

I was floored by her intensity. Anyone who knows Abby knows she is a tornado of empowerment. I’ve never had the slightest doubt that she’s capable of anything—and she knows it. The whole, “children need to see themselves reflected in positions of influence” argument always rang hollow in me. Until I heard Abby explain how meaningful it was to her to see women broadcast a game she had always, always, seen delivered by men. Duh. Of course I never thought it was a big deal to see role models who looked like me. Because they always did.

I don’t buy that the way to accept all we cannot see is by trying to experience others’ realities. I’m never going to know what it feels like to be transgender or disabled, to be obese, or addicted, or date-raped. It would be disingenuous of me to pretend. What I can do is to hear people’s stories, and give credence to the challenges they encounter. And if a person says they’ve been discriminated against, or that they feel oppressed, or they feel blessed, I must take them at their word.

Which brings me to an odd paradox of bias in my personal empathy. The more divergent a person is from me, by whatever psycho-social-economic profile, the greater understanding I offer, the more I accept their difficulties as described. I would never contest the tale of a transgender Native American or a Haitian immigrant. I accept their stories as their truth. But the more a person mirrors my own life and experience, the less compassion I extend. I know a healthy, college-educated, middle-aged, white, gay guy who stopped working at age fifty, miscalculated his retirement needs, and has ended up in public housing. Certainly not the first—or last—person to ever do such a thing. Yet, I don’t feel empathy for him. Rather, I feel anger. Because, hell, if I managed to hold my nose to the grindstone long enough to keep off the dole, why can’t he? It’s cruel of me, I know. I don’t enjoy being righteous and unforgiving. But for a guy with so many of my same privileges to be—lazy—sticks in my craw. The label ‘freeloader’ festers on my lips.

Perhaps I’ve overshot the mark, holding more empathy for lives I cannot fathom over those I can easily compare. Alas, such is the ongoing challenge of our world, whether writ large or small. For our society, to get to the point that having an all-female broadcast team is no big deal; to actually get to the point that we don’t even need to have ‘Female Empowerment Month.’ For me personally, to bring all the privilege I cannot see into the light, to question constantly what and how I think of others, and to squelch the instinct to judge, in the spiral pursuit of trying to be a more generous human.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Alex Edelman: Just for Us

All images taken from Theatrical Program and MAX trailer

You haven’t seen comedian Alex Edelman’s MAX special, Just for Us? You must.

I first read about Alex a few years ago, in a profile of the Brookline-born comedian, so when his special appeared in my MAX queue, I hit play. For ninety minutes, I howled. Next night, I watched it again, and I laughed tears. This weekend, I watched it a third time, and roared all over again. He is simply the funniest stand-up comedian I’ve ever seen.

Technically, Alex doesn’t do stand-up. It’s more run-around-in-circles. The guy is one nervous nebbish, who rates the Guinness Book of World Records for most miles of anxious pacing across a single stage. He’s disorienting at first, but once you get lulled into his motion, you’re entranced.

In this moment, with the Middle East more fraught than ever, it’s tough to imagine how a comedy skit whose overarching scenario is a Jew crashing a meeting of white supremacists could land well. Yet somehow it does. Part of the charm, for me, is the exquisite structure of the piece. Something that becomes clearer on second and third viewings. Yes, Alex Edelman does go to a meeting of white supremacists in Queens. Yes, he infiltrates them with naïve bravado. Yes, he gets outed as a Jew. And yes, his rom-com fantasy with an alluring neo-Nazi woman goes down in flames. But in between these bizarre plot points, he touches on gorillas who use sign language, Prince Harry’s cocaine habit, the ridiculous Olympic sport ‘skeleton,’ and Donny Osmond’s star turn on Broadway. There are so many detours, so deliciously woven, that we simply waft over the improbability of the main event. Alex triumphs in creating something completely Jewish that transcends the ugly politics of our moment. And also manages to tie all the inane elements into a satisfying, still humorous, ending.

Just for Us includes plenty of silly trivia; the man tells us straight out his affection for bad jokes and then revels in how much he gets us to laugh at them. Still, like all good comedians these days, Alex manages to infuse his jokes with social commentary. But unlike Hannah Gadsby or Mark Moran, or the uber-relevant Trevor Noah, Alex Edelman never lets his politics overshadow his primary objective: to land the joke.

Underlying the structure of the show is the fundamental question: is a Jewish person white? My first reaction is, of course. And yet, Alex clarifies that Jews are certainly not as white as, say, Boston Brahmins (who get their call-out during the monologue). Certainly, white supremacists don’t consider Jews to be white. The Nazi’s despised Brown and Black people; they killed homosexuals and gypsies simply for existing; but the genocide they leveled against Jews has earned its own name in history: The Holocaust.

Ouch! That last sentence is much too heavy for a puff piece on Alex Edelman. And yet, that truth exists beneath his buoyant hysterics.

Watch Just For Us. It is so much funnier than I am.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Building Our Way to Equity: A Convenient Fallacy

Over the last dozen years or so, I’ve watched my small, wealthy, city of Cambridge MA grapple with how to create a more resilient and equitable community. How to provide more affordable housing. How to encourage more sustainable transportation. And the response to these problems is always the same: build. Build more bike lanes, separate them from cars, raise pedestrian crosswalks. Build more housing, mandate affordable units. Build. Build. Build.

New bike lanes with granite dividers make Huron Ave less flexible

We spend millions ripping up and realigning streets to enhance our bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. Yet the relationship between vehicle drivers, cyclists and pedestrians remains tense, and a local pedestrian or cyclist still gets killed every year. Why? Because we’re trying to build our way out of the problem instead of addressing the behavioral changes that would actually create a safer cit

We are all-in on spending money for pedestrian ‘improvements,’ but we don’t actually enforce the rules that will make pedestrians safe. Since Cambridge adopted Vision Zero in 2016, the city speed limit has been reduced to 20 miles per hour. Hand-held phone use is prohibited while driving. But I’ve never seen those laws enforced. Recently, I entered the crosswalk on Concord Ave. State law requires a vehicle to stop before any pedestrian in the cross walk. But no law can protect me from two tons of velocitized steel, and so when I stepped off the curb and signaled intent to cross, I hesitated to ensure the approaching car actually stopped. A Lexus streamed through, at more than twenty miles per hour, the driver chatting and holding her phone. Regardless what the law says, if I’d exercised my right-of-way, I’d be dead.

New residential construction at Alewife, courtesy BLDUP

Our build, build, build approach to housing is even more disingenuous. More new housing units were built in Cambridge in the decade of 2010-2020 than any time since the 1920’s; thousands of condos; millions of square feet of new construction. Our population increased—some—but the new units did not absorb the increased demand, nor come anywhere close to meeting our future demand. Add in the reality that, unless a dwelling unit in Cambridge is subsidized, it’s unaffordable to anyone without a top income.

How is it that we can build so much and not dent housing demand? Because family sizes are shrinking, so we have fewer people in each dwelling unit. Because the city has long history of two and three family dwellings, many of which are now being converted into singles. Because the city has restrictive zoning that makes ancillary dwellings difficult. Because we limit congregate living. Because we are unwilling to upset any aspect of the status quo—i.e. current homeowners and voters—in order to achieve broader objectives.

Park Ave with two-families turned into singles or demolished for new single family houses

The Cambridge City Council is a dedicated and responsive body—usually. Yet when I wrote to each of my councilors and outlined five ways we could both increase the city’s population and provide more housing opportunities by better utilizing our existing housing stock, not one of them even responded. New housing units bring in additional tax revenue without threatening their constituents, but rethinking our existing stock to shelter more people without new construction upsets existing, entrenched, Cambridge residents without bringing in any new revenue. Viable, sustainable change for our city: dead on arrival.

We will never build our way to an equitable society as long as the general needs of the many take a backseat to the wealthy few. As long as the rich and entitled find favor with the City of Cambridge; as long as they can motor as they please, unhindered, and turn two and three family houses into grand singles, as long as the clout of money trumps the lip service of fairness, we’ll never achieve the equitable society we proclaim to want.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

This Earth Day: Do Something that Hurts…Until it Feels Good

Ask any person if they are sustainable and the answer is a resounding, “Yes.” After all, we’re all good people, and we want to save the earth, so we do our part. This one recycles beer cans. That one installs a set-back thermostat. The other guy rode the subway last week. Hooray! We’re all sustainable!

Of course, the accurate response to the question is, “No.” Since there is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes “sustainable” we are all free to interpret it as we like. Yet by any meaningful measure, none of us live sustainable lives, giving more to our planet than we extract from it.

Almost a decade ago, in an after-midnight conversation more reminiscent of college than middle age, an inspiring Quaker said to me. “The only real measure of what we offer each other, and our planet, is how much sacrifice it entails. Giving up meat if you’re a vegetarian is meaningless. Taking your own bag to the grocery store is little more than a gesture. To do something meaningful demands that we make real change in how we live. The act of sacrifice heightens our consciousness, and acknowledges our appropriate place within the circle of life.”

Allen, a transportation consultant who lives in Portland, Maine, decided to give up flying; no easy feat in a society where people are accustomed to traveling great distances quickly. Some of Allen’s clients were wary of his ‘no-fly’ decision. He became an early adopter of virtual presentations, years before the pandemic and zoom. And if he decided to go to a meeting or conference beyond the Northeast in person, he adapted to accommodate days of travel.

Allen knew the environmental benefits of his commitment wouldn’t be noticeable until the number of non-flyers scaled up. But he found immediate, personal upsides. He learned to schedule his time more generously. He became all-around less hurried. Allen’s life got simpler.

I met Allen in May 2015, on the second day of what eventually spun into a fourteen-month, 20,000+-mile bicycle ride to every state in the continental US. He was my first warmshowers host, the first of many folks who challenged me about how I lived, even as I was living a life very different from most Americans.

Along the journey, in Nebraska, I gave up my two-coke-a-day habit. In California I decided to longer purchase or cook meat. When I got home I decided to see how long I could last without a car; still haven’t bought one. I turned off the heat in my bedroom on winter nights and added a comforter. I stopped using the gas dryer; I hang my laundry out to dry.

Each time I tweaked my life to accord with an environmental objective, my mind sizzled with objections. That I needed the bubbles and the caffeine; that I would crave hamburgers; that I was too busy to take the bus; that I’d catch a winter cold; that New England doesn’t offer enough sunny days to dry clothes.

But every time, over time, my objections withered and I came to appreciate—make that enjoy—a new pattern of my life. These days, I reserve cokes for marathon cycling trips, and they taste so much sweeter than when I downed them every day. I don’t miss hamburgers or steak at all, though sometimes, in a heavy-meat-on-the menu restaurant, I’ll order chicken and savor every bite. I get a lot of reading done waiting for the bus, and have become completely enamored with our commuter trains. I hate sleeping in a room that’s hot, and love the fresh scent of my clothes.

Nevertheless, when I tote the bins of trash and recycle and compost and garden trimmings to the curb each week, I display to all the world the evidence of my still-unsustainable life.

And so I keep looking for ways to tread more lightly on this earth. I haven’t made Allen’s sacrifice to forego flying completely, but I don’t fly distances under 1000 miles. Which means that New York, DC, even Chicago, now lie a bus or train-ride away in my mind. Last year I started a new, somewhat unsavory, environmental endeavor. I use my urine as fertilizer. It takes time to collect, ferment, and distribute. It was a hassle when I started. Now it’s just part of my routine. Meanwhile, our water bills have gone down, and my gardens are flourishing.

I don’t know what cockamamie sustainability practice I’ll normalize in my future, but I’m no longer put off by the prospect of, “that will be too hard,” or “that won’t make any difference.” As one in eight billion, I now my statistical contribution to extending our life on this planet is seconds, at best. But each individual’s seconds saved from extinction can multiply to minutes, hours, even years.

Meanwhile, every time I do something that hurts in service to the planet, I find that the hurt dissolves pretty quick, and is replaced by the satisfaction that maybe I’m doing something useful. And that something feels fine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Simple Beauty of Following Right-of-Way

It’s Spring! The weather is warming, the cyclists are swarming, and motorists are alert to us everywhere.

As a guy whose primary means of transport for over fifty years has been my bicycle, I appreciate how turf battles over pavement take a breather this time of year. Perhaps, with so many cyclists filling the bike lanes, it’s difficult for drivers to begrudge us the blacktop that spooled empty through the winter. Perhaps it’s simply that improving weather improves everyone’s mood.

Still, the ongoing tension between cyclists and drivers—and how we share pavement—persists.

In theory, everyone loves cyclists. Urban descendants of cowboys, pedalers are free-spirits in fresh air; integrating fitness and honoring the environment as we go about our day.

In fact, drivers hate proximity to actual cyclists. Folks encased in massive, powerful, potentially destructive vehicles get nervous around nimble, vulnerable bicycles. They’re uncertain how we’re going to move, yet keen to the knowledge that pressing their pedal foot too hard could kill us. Meanwhile, the libertine impulse in many cyclists induces us to run stoplights, weave lanes, and travel in the wrong direction. Thereby validating driver’s suspicions.

Easing tensions between cyclists and motor vehicle drivers involves rethinking our relationship in both directions.

Cyclists: reframe your view of the road. Instead of approaching an intersection by figuring, “I can dash across before that guy hits me,” consider, “Will accelerating distress the oncoming driver?” Every time you reconsider an impulsive burst by acknowledging its effect on others, you will cycle more prudently.

Drivers: treat us like any other vehicle on the road. Give us space. Slow down. Don’t honk unless we are doing something wrong. When you have right-of-way, take it, carefully. When you don’t have right-of-way: yield.

The rules of our roads are quite simple: stay right; pass left; obey signals and signs; yield to oncoming traffic before making turns. When everyone—in every form of vehicle—obeys these rules, traffic flows smoother and safer.

During this benevolent time of year, I find many motorists abandon these basic rules in dealing with cyclists. Instead of following right-of-way protocol, they go into auto-yield. Perhaps they are trying to be nice. Perhaps they just want us gone. Regardless, the result creates increased frustration for everyone.

Often, when I slide toward the middle of a multi-lane road, slow down, and put out my arm to indicate a left turn, a well-intentioned oncoming driver slows, stops, and waves me on. Unfortunately, they’ve just blocked my view of any vehicle coming up on their right. So, I don’t move. I wave them on. They signal back, more emphatically. Then they get aggravated, sometimes even roll their window and decry my ungratefulness. Meanwhile, I’m straddling my bike in the middle of the road. Vulnerable, to be sure, but in less danger than crossing the yellow line without determining all is clear. Which I can’t do until the well-intentioned driver moves out of the way. Thus, another cyclist/motorist interaction turns sour.

Drivers, please, know that treating a cyclist as an exception to the rules of right-of-way worsens the dichotomy between us. Grant us the full rights-of-way enjoyed by other vehicles (which happens to be the law in Massachusetts and every other state). But also exercise the right-of-way when it is yours. We occupy different vehicles, but our anomalies do not require special consideration.

Cyclists, please. Know that the rules of the road apply to us as well as motorists. These rules may seem onerous for the light and agile creatures we are, but the same rules have to apply to every vehicle on the road.

When we all follow right-of-way, taking and yielding our due, we grant each other the highest form of mutual respect.

Posted in Bicycling | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Wanted: Our Joseph Welch in 2024

Joseph Welch may not be a household name, but on June 9, 1954, the Boston attorney made an invaluable contribution to our nation’s democracy when he uttered the famous words, “Have you no sense of decency sir?” Overnight, the McCarthy era came to an end.

Joseph Welch (left) and Joseph McCarthy courtesy Bettmann/Getty Images

Joseph McCarthy, Senator from Wisconsin, soared to public attention in 1950 when he alleged that hundreds of communists had infiltrated the State Department and other federal agencies. His anti-communist campaign struck the heart of Cold War America’s fears. In 1953 McCarthy became Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a platform that provided him singular focus on alleged communists. In both public and private hearings, He accused hundreds, called scores of witnesses, alienated the democratic members of the committee to the point they all resigned, and called impromptu or remote hearings that made it difficult for even his Republican peers to attend. McCarthy often held hearings solo, along with his trusty council, infamous attorney Roy Cohn.

In 1954 McCarthy picked a fight with the US Army, charging them with lax security at a top-secret facility. The army countered that McCarthy had requested preferential draft treatment for one of his aides. Joseph Welch represented the army during thirty days of publicly televised hearings. Before Watergate. Before Ira-Contra. Before Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Before Benghazi. Before Kavanaugh, Cohen, and Mueller.

Joseph McCarthy and Roy Cohn, courtesy YouTube

On Day 30, with his back against the wall facing a deadline to produce the 130 names of purported communists, McCarthy accused Attorney Welch’s associate, Fred Fisher, of belonging to the National Lawyers Guild, the legal arm of the Communist Party. It was a familiar McCarthy ploy—to distract deadlines and facts by planting fear with more accusations. But Joseph Welch did not respond by crumbling.

Joseph Welch knew that Fred Fisher had belonged to the National lawyers Guild in his youth. He and Fred had predetermined that Fred should not be involved in this hearing. But McCarthy’s out-of-left-field accusation on national television infuriated Welch to rise above legalese with an emotional plea that changed the mindset of our nation:

Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. … Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad…

When McCarthy doubled down with more attacks on Fisher, Welch plunged his rhetorical blow:

Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild … Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

The parallels between June 1954 and today are uncanny.

First there is the obvious: that after Roy Cohn cut his fangs on Joseph McCarthy, he became a prominent advisor to Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and Roy Cohn, courtesy The New Yorker

Second, there is the strategic. Just like McCarthy, Trump is long on accusation and heavy on invoking fear. When pressed, his response is always: double down, deny, and reaccuse at a higher level.

Third, there is the clash that so-called saviors of the common folk stir up against the educated elite with their established institutions. McCarthy began his allegations against the State Department and took his last stand against a Harvard grad. Trump supposedly battles the ‘Deep State’ (though Federal employment grew under his Presidency) and any Ivy-league school (though Trump attended one).

Finally, is the reality that neither Joseph McCarthy nor Donald Trump has any sense of decency. McCarthy used the term ‘communist’ to demean other human beings. Trump uses blunter words: Nazi, vermin, rapists.

But the most important, and stupefying, parallel between 1954 is not between McCarthy and Trump. It is between us—then—and us—now. How have we, as a nation, allowed these two men to capture our attention, and hold it, spellbound? In the early 1950’s Joseph McCarthy made headline news again and again. In our own era, we have allowed Trump to dominate our media for over a decade. The result of bestowing this influence upon him is that we have become meaner, more divisive, more tribal, more prejudiced, less informed, and more skeptical.

In the early 1950’s McCarthy’s communist accusations fed into our national anxieties, and exacerbated them. In the 2010’s and 2020’s Trump’s dark vision of a dangerous world that requires a strongman leader with unlimited authority, feeds our own fear that the world is too complicated for something as naïve as democracy. Besides, democracy requires real effort on the part of every citizen to succeed, while a strongman promises to relieve us that load, without numerating the many freedoms we will lose in the process.

Yet, in 1954, a relatively unknown, unelected citizen was able to halt Joseph McCarthy in his tracks. By June 7, 1954 McCarthyism was dead. McCarthy was sanctioned by the Senate, ostracized by his party, and ignored by the Press.

Who is willing—and able—to do that today? Republicans elected to high positions in the past: George H.W. Bush, Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, have come out against Trump, to little apparent effect. Jack Smith’s indictments don’t appear to nudge Trump’s popularity. Nor E. Jean Carroll’s successful suit; nor Judge Engoron’s required bonds, not even Trump’s inability to raise the cash he’s so often boasted about in order to pay the bonds.

We Americans have received more than enough warnings—and evidence—to stop the disaster of Donald Trump and turn the man away. And yet we don’t do so.

One hallmark of the MAGA creed is that it harkens to a better time in America. That time, fantasy though it may be, is usually the 1950’s, a period of unprecedented national identity, economic growth, and international dominance: if you were a white man. What the MAGA-folk never invoke is that during that same decade the American populace woke up—quick—from a dangerous illusion, and righted their course.

Joseph Welch on the cover of LIFE Magazine June 26, 1954

I say we emulate the 1950’s all over again. Snap out of our fascination with Donald Trump. Ignore him. Censor him. Maybe even him send him to jail. But please, please, don’t elect him.

Mr. Welch 2024: we are waiting for you to bring us to our senses.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Election 2024: Taking Sides

The Awkward Pose takes its name from a yoga pose in which the feet rest flat on the floor while the knees, hips, and shoulders are all bent at ninety-degrees. It ought to be an easy position to hold, since both feet are planted firm. Yet, the awkward pose is devilishly difficult. The blog’s byline, “Seeking Balance in a World of Opposing Tension,” affirms my objective to seek the center of gravity by exploring issues through multiple perspectives. I believe that’s what conscientious living requires.

We are seven months away from a presidential election between two old white guys we’ve all seen lots of already. Regular readers know that my politics aren’t difficult to discern, yet I strive to vent both sides of any issue, and have never ‘officially’ supported a particular party or candidate.

Unfortunately, in this election the two candidates cannot be measured by simply weighing their various enunciations, past successes, or proposed programs. This year, I have to take sides.

Joe Biden and Donald Trump, courtesy ABC News

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are remarkably different candidates. Since each has already served as our President, we know each man’s style of governing. Each articulates a distinct vision for our nation. Each offers a specific agenda for how to chart our future. I believe that the Democrats have some good policy positions, and some poor ones. Ditto the Republicans. Personal policy preferences alone would not entice me take a public stand in this election.

However, anyone who casts their vote in November based on Trump’s or Biden’s position on abortion, inflation, Gaza, Tik Tok, Ukraine, or immigration isn’t paying full attention. There is only one truly important issue in this election: the future of our representative democracy. One candidate supports us continuing to struggle through the American experiment. One candidate wants to stop it: right here, right now, with himself at the helm.

Joe Biden is, frankly, boring. He just goes about his job, getting a whole lot more done than most of us ever thought possible. I don’t like everything he’s done, but I appreciate his focus on bipartisanship and that he governs within the established guidelines of our Republic.

Donald Trump is endlessly fascinating. The master manipulator has captured our rapt attention for over a decade. Some of us love him. Some of us love to hate him. No one is neutral on the subject of Donald Trump. He says so many things, in so many ways, using such simple words, that we can all pick and choose what we hear. And what I hear rings alarms. Calling citizens who stormed our Capital heroes. Claiming unprecedented executive privilege for his role in January 6. Belittling legitimate indictments against him as a “witch hunt.” Condemning immigrants as “vermin.” Stating that he, and only he, can lead America out of a darkness that only he defines. Proclaiming that he will not be a dictator when reelected, “Other than on Day One.”

Trump has no intention of governing within the established guidelines of our Republic, and if we give him the chance, he will subvert them to his own pleasing.

I am a longtime fan of John Adams: patriot; statesman; US President; and author of the Massachusetts Constitution (which became the blueprint for our Federal Constitution). Adams’ most famous dictum is a simple one: we are a nation of laws, and not men.

In this election, we are presented with one candidate, Joe Biden, who serves the ideal that we are a nation of laws. Whereas Donald Trump wants to turn the United States into a country run by one man.

If Donald Trump is elected President in 2024, there is a measurable chance that it will be the last ‘real’ election held in this nation for some time.

This November, vote to preserve democracy.

Vote for Joe Biden.

Posted in United States | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In Memoriam 69: Phil Saviano

I recently turned 69, a prophetic age for me, as three dear friends of mine died at that age. This month, I am posting a memorial to each of them, as they are all still very much alive in my spirit.

Judy Collins and Phil Saviano at Harvard Coop in 1991

Phil Saviano is the most famous person I’ve ever known. He may not be Beyoncé famous, but he’s been featured on the cover of USA Today, profiled in newspapers and magazines, and was a key character in the film Spotlight, portrayed by actor Neal Huff. When Phil died, on November 28, 2021, he received full obituaries in The Boston Globe and The New York Times. Phil’s fame came from being a survivor of clergy abuse, who became a pivotal source in uncovering the clergy abuse scandal in Boston’s Archdiocese in the early 2000’s.

My relationship with Phil had nothing to do with any of that. We met in 1995, via a personal ad in Bay Windows, Boston’s gay rag. The old-fashioned kind of personal, in which I mailed a letter to a numbered box via US Post Office to an ad entitled: SMOKEY BAR MAN. Only after I’d finished my reply, did I realize that the personal was listed under the heading: POSITIVE ATTITUDES. What did it matter that this guy had HIV and I hate smokey bars: I liked his ad.

A few days later I got a call from a fellow who explained mine was the best letter he’d received, as it had no misspellings. Hardly a ringing endorsement. However, a few minutes into our conversation I learned that Phil was a Judy Collins fan, and since Wildflowers was the first album I’d ever received, Judy Collins linked us. We decided to meet.

I realized Phil was expert at personal ad first dates when he suggested we take a walk along Newbury Street. A public space; no dinner commitment; our encounter could last as long—or short—as chemistry dictated. By the time we reached the end of Newbury, it was clear that our romantic chemistry was nil. But our friendship potential high.

Over the next two decades Phil and I were second-tier friends. Never best buds, never completely out of touch. He came to our house for Thanksgiving and other group occasions—my children particularly liked this guy who wasn’t what they considered, “way gay.” Phil had quirky tastes. He introduced me to Jacques, Boston’s seedy drag bar. We went to amusement parks—the guy loved roller coasters. Once he took me to a Judy Collins concert, where I met Judy backstage. Turns out Phil was not simply a Judy Collins fan: he was the ultimate fan. He had been Judy’s New England concert promoter for years; he was her personal friend; he attended her wedding.

What we didn’t do was conventional friend stuff, like going out to dinner. Phil had contracted HIV in 1984, full blown AIDS shortly thereafter. At the time, he was given six months to live. More than ten years later, we met shortly after he recovered from a near-death hospitalization. Understandably, Phil was uber conscious of infection. He ate simply, mostly at home. He couldn’t hold a regular job, but ran a Oaxacan handicraft import business from his house. During Christmas season, I helped him process, package, and ship orders.

In October 2000, Phil invited me on a buying trip, during a period that encompassed Day of the Dead celebrations. We spent nine days in Mexico City, Puebla, Oaxaca, and surrounding villages; travelling second class buses; hitching rides; meeting artisans, visiting midnight cemeteries. The trip provided me with a first-hand view of central Mexico, but also a fresh perspective on Phil. This guy, so germ-phobic in the US, travelled casually, joyfully in Mexico. Phil knew a cohort of wood carvers and tinsmiths who created wonderful objects for him. They spoke little English, Phil spoke no Spanish. Yet they enjoyed long-standing, mutually profitable relationships. To me, Phil was an artichoke. More exotic than a mere onion, yet composed of layer upon layer that would never resolve into one simple core.

Phil could read people precisely. One day, over lunch, he laughed when I told a date-gone-bad story. “Why do you bother with that?” He said. “You live in your head.” I was perplexed, until I realized that he was right, and that his insight was offered without judgement. Rather, as neutral observation. Twenty years of therapy never provided me such a singular insight. Phil’s words triggered an essential turning point in my self-understanding. I do live in my head. And I’ve become quite fond of the place.

Yet, Phil kept a distance from others. The man was damnably independent. Although he was mostly healthy during the time we knew each other, years of toxic AIDS cocktails took their toll. His kidneys were shot. I knew he was in line for a transplant—sometime—but only learned about the actual operation from an article in The Globe. When I went to visit him in the hospital, he seemed happy to see me, but no way would Phil have told me of the operation in advance.

Phil and kidney donor Susan Pavlak

In fact, a few years later, when he hit sixty and laughed that after a quarter century of AIDS, he’d forgotten to save for retirement, Phil explained in earnest. “When my time comes, I’ll be all right. I have a few tight friends and my family.” I read between the lines. I was not among the select group; I would not be with Phil at the end.

And that’s what came to pass. I had little contact with Phil over the last years of his life. I found out he died just like everyone else, through the media blitz he would have savored. While the world remembered a hero who’d been abused at age twelve, spent more than half his life enduring AIDS, and initiated an unprecedented accounting of the Catholic Church, I was content with my memories of a good friend, who triumphed every moment of the thirty-six years he exceeded his prognosis. On his own terms.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

In Memoriam 69: Bob Botterio

I recently turned 69, a prophetic age for me, as three dear friends of mine died at that age. This month, I am posting a memorial to each of them, as they are all still very much alive in my spirit.

Bob at the beach in 2020

I met Bob Botterio on a cold, grey Saturday night in November of 1996, as a Nor’easter lifted off of Provincetown during Single Men’s Weekend. My first solo weekend away as a gay man. The dreary day had been enlivened by all manner of workshops: i.e. opportunities for gay singles to connect. I’d ventured into “Coming Out of a Long Relationship” with trepidation. After all, my long relationship had been with a woman. Yet my circumstances were welcome among a wide array of relationships: disconsolate men whose partners had died of AIDS, guilty men who’d left when their partners contracted the disease; angry men who’d been dumped; bewildered men who’d left their partners but found little solace in independence. The session triggered so much emotion, clusters of us continued conversation over group dinners, and later along misty, puddled streets. About ten p.m., talked out yet still eager to hear every story, I found myself alone with one other stray guy.

Bob Botterio’s partner of eighteen years came home one day, announced them over, and moved out. Like me, Bob was unable to simply cut his losses and move on. In my case, because I was raising two children with my ex-wife. In Bob’s, because he and Tim ran a business together. Revivals was a high-end design and home restoration company in Arlington, the next town over from mine.

Bob and I launched a peculiar relationship. He was handsome, hunky, confident, and funny. Therefore, I was smitten. But he: was angry. I’d arrive at his immaculately restored home dizzy with romantic notions, only to find Alanis Morrisette cranked up to eleven, with Bob pounding around the place yelling:

And I’m here
To remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It’s not fair
To deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you
Oughta know

Clearly, we were coming from different places. Eventually, my crush subsided and the possibility of friendship emerged. But it took years to stick. Once, maybe twice a year, one of us would call the other and we would take an afternoon stroll through an historic neighborhood. In between, I might see Bob at a theater or a club, always with some handsome A-lister well beyond my league. Bob lost twenty pounds, maybe more. Became a gym rat. Lived with one long-term boyfriend, then another. Nice guys, but they were never Tim. I understood how that went.

In his late fifties, Bob resigned himself to being single, sold his fabulous house, and moved into a rather ordinary condo building full of old people. Until he gutted, renovated, and made the new place fabulous too. I was always struck by the dichotomy: I was the extensively-trained, competent architect, yet formally untrained Bob’s design sense eclipsed mine. The guy had a gift; everything he touched turned beautiful. Shortly after Bob’s modernist aerie was complete and his life made simple, disaster struck. As if the fates forewarned him of what was in store.

One day, around 2010, Facebook rolled a post across my screen from someone I didn’t know. Lorraine Scalone posted “Bob is recuperating in the hospital.” The infinite wisdom of Facebook’s algorithm made a connection between Bob’s sister and me.

I have a cardinal rule: when someone I know is in the hospital, I visit. I cycled to see Bob in a rehab facility. Bad news. The previous New Year’s Eve, while dancing, Bob felt dizzy. Too dizzy. In short order, doctors discovered a tumor at the base of his skull. An eight-hour operation removed the blockage, but afterwards he got an infection in the brain-blood-barrier. When I arrived, Bob was barely conscious, completely disoriented.

Eventually, he recovered enough to undergo a second operation, to clean out the infectious mess, and survive another round of rehab. Improvement was slow, as was the realization that his life was permanently changed. No more Revivals. No more chairing Arlington’s Historic Commission. Bob still had plenty of life left: his winning smile, his sense of humor, his intimate recall of the past. But he was frustrated by the present: being heavy, alone, confused in the moment.

Bob’s recuperation coincided with my retirement, so I had plenty of time on my hands. We practiced yoga on this rooftop garden. I joined his gym where he needed a workout buddy. We enjoyed simple summer dinners on his balcony, which overlooked glorious sunsets and distant skyline views. We tapped remarkably congruent childhood memories of growing up in metro New York, even as we’d played distinctly different roles in our families. Bob was the eldest grandson of a tight Italian clan, most favored in every respect, whereas I was a tag-along kid, often overlooked. I marveled at one particular T-shirt that Lorraine gave Bob during his convalescence: I AM KIND OF A BIG DEAL. I could never wear such a thing, and yet Bob could—did—without irony.

During the years after Bob’s brain trauma we spent more and more time together. Many folks thought we were a couple; Bob wanted us to be a couple. But that never felt right to me. I couldn’t commit to being his life partner, but I could commit to being his companion, and when need be, his caretaker.

Bob was insistent on living independently, though I shamed him into getting an emergency call button. Still, his balance got worse; he fell too often. His memory became too patchy. In March 2020, Bob had a major setback. I visited him in Spaulding Rehab several times, where he’d charmed a bevy of nurses into special treatment. The guy exuded glamour still. The day Bob was set for release was the first day of COVID lockdown. He went to a nursing facility where no one could visit. I’d cycle over and chat with him thorough the exterior window, but he was so confused, I doubt he knew me. Eventually, Lorraine got permission to transfer him to Long Island. After she picked him up, she drove to his condo, where about fifty local friends greeted Bob in the parking lot, all of us masked and distanced. Like so many events during COVID, it was a well-intentioned gesture, yet a pitifully insufficient goodbye to such a glorious man. Bob died on March 2, 2021. Age 69.

Tree planted in honor of Bob in front of the Whittemore Robbins House in Arlington, which he helped restore
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

In Memoriam 69: Richard Ortner

I recently turned 69, a prophetic age for me, as three dear friends of mine died at that age. This month, I am posting a memorial to each of them, as they are all still very much alive in my spirit.

Richard Ortner, courtesy of The Boston Conservatory at Berklee School of Music

Ryan Landry and the Gold Dust Orphans are a unique Boston phenomenon. For years, Gold Dust parodies of classic books, plays, and films were staged at Machine, in the basement of the leather bar Ramrod. ‘Nuff said. Gold Dust Orphan productions were high-culture events within Boston’s gay community. The challenge for me, in the early 00’s, was that, in addition to being a gay man about town, I was raising a pair of children. Sometimes, being a good parent conflicted with the scene.

On one particular Friday night I was hoping to see Who’s Afraid of the Virgin Mary? But I couldn’t do my gay thing until I served my children dinner and ferried them to their respective teenage events. By the time I arrived at Machine (curtain time 10 p.m.—the gay world runs late), the show was sold out. I put my name on a waiting list. In the event that folks didn’t show, they’d slip me in where they could. As if I were just another orphan.

Ten minutes before show time, I heard my name and was escorted to a prime seat: third row center; next to this very Newton-looking couple. A short, stocky, very Jewish and very put together man with a knock-out blonde wife. The show began. Hilarious. At intermission we chatted. I begin to doubt my preconceptions. Perhaps not a couple. He hedged about his work. Although she was definitely from Newton.

Act Two. Gold Dust Orphans loosened inhibitions. After a grand guffaw and much applause, I let my hand drop onto my neighbor’s knee. He leaned over and whispered, “You can just leave that there.” One thing you gotta give us credit for: gay men are efficient communicators.

End of play. Final Bows. Tremendous Applause. Ryan Landry silences the crowd. “I want to acknowledge a few very special people with us tonight. Richard Ortner, President of The Boston Conservatory.” Spotlight on my neighbor.

That is the true story of how I met Richard Ortner. From that point on, our friendship became deeper, and increasingly vanilla.

Richard Ortner was one savvy arts administrator. In 1998, After a long tenure with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Richard was tapped to be President of The Boston Conservatory (full obituary). During his nineteen-year tenure at TBC, Richard added two new buildings to an urban campus that had not been expanded in decades. He solidified the conservatory’s three principal arenas: theater, music, and dance, and engineered the unusual, yet successful, integration of The Boston Conservatory into its much larger neighbor, Berklee College of Music.

My relationship with Richard had nothing to do with TBC, directly, though we saw countless programs together, and he motivated my ongoing support for the school. Richard loved the full immersion into the world of the arts that TBC provided, but he also recognized the futility of trying to run an independent conservatory with only 650 students. He knew some sort of merger was inevitable, and crafted a plan, with President Roger Brown of Berklee, that holds a special status for the Conservatory to this day.

Richard was a gregarious extrovert who could easily have been a politician. When we attended an opening at The Conservatory, I marveled at how he worked the crowd, always including me as appropriate, although I have little stomach for cocktail events.

What I remember more dearly are our dinners together, evening meals at his condo with a city lights view, or weekends in the Berkshires, where he had a charming, humble, second home. We talked books and music and theater without end.

It was during one of those dinners that Richard mentioned, offhand, that he’d been having some chest pain and had an appointment to see a doctor the following week. That visit yielded a diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Richard battled it with his usual upbeat self. He signed on for every treatment, every surgery. He spent weeks on end in Mass General, sometimes planned in advance, too often emergency admissions. After a year of intensivity, he called it quits on aggressive treatment and retired to his apartment, surrounded by a healthy array of pain meds and a few good friends. My housemate and I spent Richard’s last night there together. Talking, laughing, watching a bad movie. Richard wasn’t eating, hardly even drinking. At the time, none of us knew it was our last night. It was just another good one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment