Happy Blog For Choice Day

A government that serves women’s interest must acknowledge that it is a women’s right to decide for herself if and when to bear children. Without this right our sexuality, morality and citizenship are automatically constrained.

Americans can’t count on the Supremes to protect our reproductive rights. If there was any question after the appointment of Roberts and Alito, Gonzales vs. Chart et al. made that abundantly clear. The court okayed the federal abortion ban on the grounds that: we need to protect women from decisions they might regret, and besides, abortion is yucky.* To me, the decision was a wake up call: the continued legality of reproductive health care from abortion to birth control depends on our ability to elect pro-choice candidates.

Here’s the catch: we can’t just vote pro-choice and live happily ever after. Reproductive rights are a necessary but not sufficient condition for reproductive justice. 35 years after Roe v. Wade legal abortion is still a practical impossibility if you live hours from the nearest abortion provider in a state with mandatory waiting periods. Simillarly, to a woman who lacks money for food, daycare and healthcare parenting can become a non-option. We must work for a world in which all women can access comprehensive reproductive health care as well as the resources necessary to parent. In this atmosphere of reproductive justice reproductive rights can achieve their full significance.

*This was the wisdom of Kennedy---- our new swing vote!

Does Picking the Lesser of the Evils Count as a Luxury?

Last week, a self-assured, politically-savy colleague sprung the following idea on me: Financially well-off Americans us have the luxury of voting based on social issues, but for the rest of the country choosing a candidate is a matter of economics. I’ve been mulling it over ever since.

First of all, which vote will improve my economic well-being? According to the GOP mantra, Democrats may be “Tax and Spend Liberals,” but the way I see it, the other option is Spend Don’t Tax Conservatives. I have a hard time seeing politicians who throw money at pet projects like the war in Iraq and abstinence only sex-ed with out regard for their efficacy, or the billions in debt foisted on the next generation, as the fiscally conservative option. If there were a group of candidates who’d make quality health care affordable, I’d vote that ticket in a heartbeat, and consider it the economically responsible thing to do. Alas, the option just isn’t there right now.

And then there are the “social issues.” There isn’t much to get excited about here either. The Dems may be pro-choice, but they get squeamish when it comes down to the nitty gritty (partial birth abortion ban anyone?), and aren’t motivated to take on (and get rid of) abstinence only education. They say they are pro-equality, but they can’t get behind gay marriage. They participate in pride parades, but their willingness to chop the T out of ENDA reveals a discomfort with queerness. The list goes on. It doesn’t feel great to get behind democratic candidates when they have such a weak record on social issues. Gems like Huckabee, however, remind me that I’d be crazy to do otherwise.

What do you think?

Words Aren't Everything, But They Do Matter

I was mean today. For no apparent reason I referred to someone short as “that midget girl.” It spilled out of her mouth in place of a proper name. A friend called me on my snarky ways with a swift retort: “that was so politically incorrect.” Point taken: I shouldn’t have said what I said. It was mean. Politically incorrect though? Ugh. That phrase makes my skin crawl. I also dislike its sister, politically correct (PC).

Here’s the definition of politically correct: n Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.

Let me be clear: it’s not the definition of political correctness that makes me queasy. What irks me is how Americans use, and react to the word.

The way I see it, we frame actions as PC to diffuse their significance. This hit home last month as I talked to a student about her new “action hero” t-shirt, part of a college sponsored anti-racism, sexism, violence effort. The student eagerly volunteered that she’d gone out of her way and waited in line for the coveted garment, so I asked her what it was about. “Oh, just some PC stuff” she replied breezily. End of conversation.

Last I checked, diminishing any of the “isms” mentioned on the “action-hero” shirt is vital work. Work that allows previously excluded people to participate safely, and comfortably in the public sphere. Work that benefits society as a whole. When we label a cause PC, however, it is reduced to just being PC-- the only reason to take it up is to hew to a party line. Then we are able to dismiss it without thought.

Similarly, we call things politically incorrect to make bigotry, harassment, disrespect, just plain meanness more palatable. Those are all words whose meaning we understand, and take seriously. Labeling an action harassment, or mean, for that matter, condemns the perpetrator, and acknowledges the damage it does. Labeling an action politically incorrect does neither. Instead, it suggests the only harm in the action is that it is unpopular, and the worst damage it does is insult an over-sensitive, un-specified other. In some circles, it even gives the perpetrator a rogue-ish charm.

When seen in this light, the model of political (in)correctness is a barrier, not an aid, to social change. That’s why it makes me cringe. I wish I understood why the phrase holds such transformative power. Many ideas follow other orthodoxies without becoming one dimensional. Any thoughts?

For now though, I’ll just keep coming up with other ways to talk about progressive causes I care about. It isn’t hard. While many things worth doing are also PC, few things are worth doing because they are PC.

What I Wouldn't Do With My Spare Millions

(WIWDWMSM for those of you who prefer acronyms)

When I was in MD recently, messages like these were a noticeable presence. They piqued my curiosity.Marriage works? Heck, bank robbery “works” if your aim is to get sacks of cash. Lots of things work, but I don’t see them floating around the city on the sides of buses.

Oh, right, it’s a message about talking about sex, and relationships. I was confused.

It turns out this ad campaign is all about ending teen pregnancy. Which promoting marriage will do, of course. If kids know magical marriage is they will forget about sex, and wait around dreamily for prince charming to propose. Unless they are guys---wouldn’t want them turning out homos--- the guys will stop thinking about sex and start acting responsibly virile. I am so happy I was exposed to this effective, hard hitting campaign. Can’t wait to go get that marriage license.

*****End Sarcasm*****

This is the oddest abstinence until marriage campaign I have ever seen. If you think sex should be reserved for husband-wife procreative uses, just come out and say it. If you care about preventing teen pregnancy, skip the abstinence only message. It doesn’t work. Instead, give kids actual information about sexual health, birth control, and building healthy relationships. If you care about ending poverty, building health families, which the adds certainly hint at, work for better education, day care, health care, anything. Stop wasting money on inane billboards.

It is tempting to poke holes in the message for pages: does marriage alone cause the promised goodies, or are the two just correlated? What if the baby’s dad is a lying sack of sh—t abuser? Does marriage work then? What about same-sex couples who want to get married, but can’t? Instead I will assume the campaign’s shortcomings are obvious and stop now.

Couldn't Have Said it Better Myself

"In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her."

-Kathy Pollitt (from an interview with Deboarah Solomon, NYT Magazine 9/23/07)

Hang onto your Uteruses, Ladies

Or is it uteri?
A district judge in Illinois blocked the opening of the Aurora Planned Parenthood facility. Read all about it at Feministing, 'cuz I have to go to work. Here is my initial thought though, when it comes to womens health, Americans, judges included, feel increasingly free to act based on their own discomfort, not based on legal precedent or what's good for public health. Shameful & Scary.

Leave it to the Professionals

I’m tempted to write about Fred Thompson’s Actor/President campaign ads, but I’m too tired to pull off strident and witty, so we’ll let that alone for now.

My eyelids are another tempting topic. You see, they are quite sunburned. Something tells me though, that the post would only interest readers who are both:
1) exhausted to the point of delirium
2) Me

This Friday I’ll let the professionals handle blogging. Visit RH reality check for a painful yet informative video on why the Global Gag Rule is deadly. The Senate voted to repeal the law last night. George “I’m all about freedom, for people who share my ideology” W. Bush will veto the repeal, so get ready to give him hell. Actually, get ready to give your congressman hell, chances they’d override the veto may be slim, but chances Lame Duck W. will do anything are non-existent. That’s for another day though, right now it’s Friday, relax, sip a beer, enjoy life.

Progress

As John Stewart put it, liberal politicians tie themselves in knots “trying to reassure the gay community how much they support them, while reassuring the rest of the country that they don’t completely support them.” Around here, it’s playing out like this: the leadership in the legislature has convened a commission to asses public attitudes about marriage equality. It’s an oh-so transparent attempt to put off a vote on marriage equality until after the 2008 election. Politicians aren’t going to alienate the homophobes by introducing marriage legislation right before an election. The commission lets them look like they are doing something for us without actually doing something for us, and risking their seats in the process. This might be a baby step in the right direction, maybe. Forgive me for suspending my gratitude until something actually happens.

In case you were wondering why marriage equality is necessary, even in states with civil unions, here’s one more reason: Until we have marriage rights, unscrupulous sorts will wiggle out of granting benefits to LGBTQ spouses at every available opportunity. Look at Vermont, the first state in the union to grant civil unions. By law, these unions, not incidentally only available to same sex couples, provide all the benefits that the state gives to married couples. But wait, even in friendly Vermont this doesn’t always pan out. One example, the Corporate Tax department refuses to acknowledge civil unions, thus subjecting same-sex spouses to tax penalties that married hetero couples don’t face. Bottom line, in this way, and in many others, the separate status of civil unions has not led to full equality.

In My Dreams

Foiled Again!

Geeze louise, is it me, or is the public library getting more prudish? I have this really snappy image to post, but can't view it. Why? Because it contains the word sex! Geeze lousie, that is one harsh filter. There are plenty of boring ways to use the word sex: biological sex, sex-ed, sex in missionary position-- you get the picture.

The quandry is this: I can't get too mad that would be biting the hand that feeds (my mind), provides me with internet, and is a constant source of nice librarians bearing good book recommendations.

Sometimes the Left Side of the Aisle is Right-on:

The GOP’s assault on Women’s rights, civil liberties, the environment, etc got you down? As Rep Henry Waxman pointed out last week, don’t take it personally “Bush has also declared war on the Enlightenment.”

A Great Start to the Week

My dad always says don’t buy fish on a Monday because odds are low it will be fresh. I can be slow to admit when the guy is right. It’s true though, buying sushi yesterday, in a sketchy restaurant, hours from any body of water hospitable to tuna no less, was not a recipe for gastrointestinal bliss. Ugh.

(caution, not-so original rant ahead).

Speaking of things that make me nauseous, Bush, for the zillionth time, played the fear card, saying we need to follow his Iraq policy “for the sake of our children & grandchildren.” Whenever he invokes the future, or family, I reach for the barf bag. W, buddy, global warming will harm future generations, so will your limits on stem cell research, erosion of women’s reproductive health options, &, more broadly, lack of attention to the health care crisis. The only thing staler than this war is W’s smug bullshit.

Supremely Unproductive Jurisprudence

For the briefest second after John Roberts became Chief Justice of the United States I thought “he’s young, which sucks in general, but at least that means we can put to rest worries of having a Chief Justice named Antonin Scalia.” Now that we’ve seen his court in action the thought is NO consolation.

The substance of the school integration decision alone was enough to make Friday’s NY times depressing. On top of it all, the image plastered front in center on the first page gave me the willies. It was a picture of the supremes, grouped according to their votes in the case, and the majority looked right spry compared to the dissenters. One can’t deny it, the neo-cons will leave a legacy.

I am not a legal scholar, or a historian, but a few thoughts inspired by the school integration case:

• Juan Williams has an interesting analysis of the situation. Basically it’s that getting rid of de jure segregation neither got rid of de facto segregation, nor closed the achievement gap between students of color and white students, so we should stop focusing on racial integration, and start focusing on improving all schools, so every kid gets a good education. Yes, every kid should get a good education, but is his idea realistic? We Americans still harbor lots of race and class prejudice, and the successful among us tend to believe society is a meritocracy. Given this climate, I can’t see school reform happening equally across the board, and it doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that those students who get the short shrift will mostly be poor and/or minorities. Not rocket science, just a reality-based hunch.
• My favorite quotation in Friday's coverage was from a Columbia law professor who worked on Brown: “Following Brown that was massive resistance. This is essentially the rebirth of massive resistance in a more acceptable form” (NYT, 6/29/07).
• I’m not going to re-hash why “color-blindness” is mostly just in practice a way to ignore racism. Take a look at Lesboprof for that, and a compelling reaction to the decision.
• Let’s all keep in mind that ending de jure segregation hasn’t lead to much integration. 53 years after Brown “70% of black students attend schools that are 2/3 black & Hispanic” & “the average while student attends a school that is 80% white” (NY times 6/29/07). Maybe that suggests we haven’t given it enough time. Maybe the socioeconomic, and “white people are afraid of black people” factors that keep us sorted by color will go away, albeit slowly, if we continue business as usual. What I tend to think it suggests is that us white people, yes, myself included, need to acknowledge that we are still benefiting from racism, and work with the entire nation (nope, not just folks who look like us) to change that. Note to the supremes: pretending that law and society are color blind does not count. In the end we will all benefit.

Friday Night at the Movies

I kicked off the weekend by watching The Future of Food, a documentary about GM (genetically modified) food. It was the Simpson’s Tomacco episode minus Bart, Homer, and a happy ending. Depressing stuff, but worth watching.

I went to the screening wary of our (the USA’s) current food system for a myriad of non-GM reasons. That’s a whole ‘nother post. Heck, I was even wary of GM foods specifically. Cross-pollination and the spread of seeds is effectively impossible to control, so once we release GM plants there is no going back. That reason alone had me solidly behind safety studies, and labeling GM products as such.

What I hadn’t yet wrapped my mind around was how shortsighted and thuggish GM companies are in their pursuit of profit. On the one hand, Montsanto sues farmers who are the unwitting growers of their crops due to seed spread, cross-pollination, etc. How farmers can avoid that? I am not sure. As long as there are birds, humans, wind, seeds & pollen will spread. Adding to that threat is the fact that agricultural areas are chock full of Montsanto test plots, but farmers can’t know whether they are near one. That’s proprietary information. On the other hand, they are inserting terminator genes into their product. Plants with these genes don’t reproduce. That is a huge threat to the food supply, and renders ludicrous claims that GM companies are trying to end world hunger. What they are really trying to do is make farmers, and in turn eaters completely dependent on their product.

In a similar spirit of sly greed, Montsanto patents plants. Ordinary old plants, not just ones with designer genes. They didn’t invent the plant. They didn’t discover the plant. If they are the first to the patent office though, the variety is theirs, and if you are growing it you have to pay up. No one patented sarcasm yet---race you to the US Patent & Trademark Office.

In case you were wondering, here’s why the movie picks on Montsanto so much: with “roughly 90 percent of GE soy, cotton and canola seed markets and has a large piece of the corn seed market” they are the biggest game in town.” Moreover, they are mighty cozy with the US gov’t Don’t worry, Dems too, its fair and balanced.

I wanted to run straight from the movie to the farm stand. My craving for local veggies, was tempered by the prevasiveness of GM foods. If its organic you know its not GM, but that’s about it. I really don’t know whether the family farm down the road is GM free. Chances are better there than at the supermarket though, and at least that produce hasn’t taken a fossil fuel powered journey around the world before it hits my stomach.

Speaking of Greenhouse Gases

Michael Griffin, a NASA big wig was interviewed on NPR this morning. Was there a Bush goon waiting in the wings to exile Griffin if he uttered anything politically inconvenient? Griffin was so cautious and obfuscatory when the conversation turned to global warming that you’ll have to forgive me for imagining as much.

Two things he said particularly irritated my sense of reality. First off, “I am not sure it is fair to say [global] warming is a problem me must wrestle with (sic). To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate.” This after he acknowledged the scientific consensus that global warming exists, and homo sapiens activity is driving it. Global demand for fossil fuel is increasing. In so far as our excess emissions contribute to the rising mercury, as long as this trend continues all signs point to continued global warming. Put aside whether the current climate is optimal or not. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that our societies are adapted to the current climate, so as the climate changes we will have to do things differently. Plants are already migrating towards the poles, and native Alaskans, beleagured by melting permafrost in the other direction. These are just two examples. Whether you are a shipping tycoon hoping for newly navigable trans-arctic routes, or a farmer worrying about desertification, climate change is “a matter requiring a solution”—a problem. At this point, pretending otherwise is a stale argument.

Later Griffin accuses folks who want to deal with global warming of arrogance and wanting to decide “which climate is best for all human beings.” Demagogues of all stripes play this card. They call the opposition an alienated elite who wants to rule the average joe, all in order to imply their side stands up for the common man. But what an odd time to pull that trick! Americans, roughly 5% of the worlds population, didn’t consult the rest of the world before bingeing on fossil fuels. We have already played a disproportionate role in altering the world’s climate. It is hard to acknowledge that global warming has an anthropogenic component and ignore that. Griffin’s claim just draws more attention to our arrogance.

If you want to learn more about denial, listen to Griffin’s interview. If you want to learn about Global Warming check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Bullies

Last week some asshole(s?) vandalized RU12, the queer community center. My initial reaction to the news was anger and confusion. Why do something like that? Throwing bricks through a window in the dead of night suggests cowardice. Throwing them hard enough to break windows and damage the interior of the building on their way down suggests a really strong arm, or some mechanical advantage. Perhaps I assume the destructiveness indicates insecurity on the part of the perpetrator because I’d only resort to violence if physically threatened. In the end, there is no reasonable reason to do something like that. I won’t try to find one.

But I will be angry. It pisses me off that the folks who work in the center can’t feel safe. It pisses me off that RU12 has to divert time and money from their work at building community and keeping queers safe to clean up after such jerks. It pisses me off that there needs to be a concerted effort to keep queers safe in the first place.

Saturday, Bill O’Reilly cornered Bill Lippert (a state legislator) in the statehouse and proceeded to act like, well, a school yard bully. Ostensibly, the ambush was because Lippert doesn’t back Jessica’s Law, a mandatory minimum for sex offenders. A glance at Lippert’s legislative legacy, however, reveals (shockingly) that he is as ready to throw the book at sex offenders as the next guy. So why the vitriol?

Not surprisingly, Lippert is a lightning rod for slime balls. Personalities like O’Reilly are motivated by ratings. Apparently some people get off on watching their acolytes sling accusations of moral degeneracy at, well, anyone to the left of Reagan. That Lippert is a gay man who *gasp* works for gay rights just adds to the fun.

Yup, you guessed it: I am still pissed off. Why is it still okay to lash out at people who seem different? I know I am not alone in my anger at these incidents. Clearly, however, such actions are still accepted by some. Otherwise they would have stopped long ago.

You could say there is a silver lining. Such blatant hostility startles homos like me,
people who have happened into a safe bubble in which they can be (almost) as queer as they please without fear of retribution. Maybe it even angers us to the point of action. But is that really a silver lining? I’d like to believe that the Bill Lipperts and RU12s of the world don’t need to be harmed for me to be motivated.

a little self righteous indignation, if you please

According to this week’s Advocate cover story, Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama are both completely comfortable with gays (I’d give a direct quotation, but I couldn’t bring my cheap-ass self to purchase the magazine). . Okay. Note to self: when you, Barack & Hillary are at a cocktail party, it is okay to chat. Your flaming dyke-ness won’t make them uncomfortable.

What exactly does it mean to be “comfortable with gay people” anyway? On a social/familial level it means A LOT to me. I would be devastated if the people I love and respect most saw the fact I’m queer as reason to stop loving and respecting me back. On a political & governmental level comfort is not enough.

Theoretically I care whether politicians are comfortable with gay people, because theoretically such comfort could lead to equal rights. Lets not hold our breaths though. Plenty of straight people, politicians and voters alike, are comfortable with us, but last I checked there is still a federal defense of marriage act (DOMA) on the books, trans people can be fired for being trans, and “don’t ask don’t tell” hasn’t gone away. Loads of straight people may be comfortable with us in that nebulous “It okay I’ll still be your friend way” but a large number of them are also comfortable with us as second class citizens.

What troubles me even more, is that the aforementioned laws/policies only keep LGBTQ people from embracing mainstream institutions. How is that so radical? When these things are so hard to achieve, its difficult to envision a nation where equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of citizenship extends to the queerer of us. When folks are threatened by a man in a dress, and DOMAs are passing right and left, it is going to be an uphill battle. I suppose Hillary and Barack’s comfort is better than nothing, but its 2007, by now we deserve better.