-gerrywomander-redrawing the lines

On the Failures of Privacy

2009-06-10T11:09:00.004-04:00

In 1993, President Clinton signed into law a legislative compromise on allowing gays to serve in the military as long as they served in silence about their sexuality. This policy, known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass (or, DADT), has led to the dismissal of numerous servicemembers and an ongoing legal and political headache. Recently, twelve service-members who were dismissed under DADT filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the military's now sixteen-year-old policy banning gays serving openly.

The case, Pietrangelo v. Gates, No. 08-824, charges that DADT violates both the First and Fifth amendments (and, by extension, the Fourteenth (see Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)), by abridging individuals' freedom of speech and rights to due process. Additionally, the plantiffs invoked the much-heralded (by pro-gay activists) Lawrence v. Texas (2003) decision that declared state laws against sodomy as unconstitutional under rights to privacy. Presumably, the hope in Pietrangelo v. Gates was to use the Lawrence precedent to establish the constitutionally-protected privacy of the "homosexual acts" with which DADT is so concerned (see the infamous Section 654), and therefore conclude that a policy abridging said acts is also unconstitutional.

Seems workable.

But on Monday, 8 June 2009, the Supreme Court tossed out this challenge altogether. The explanation for this action illustrates perfectly the failure of Lawrence v. Texas to be anything more than a marginal shift for the larger gay rights movement. The Court declared Texas' ban on sodomy to be unconstitutional because it violated an individual's (or a couple's) right to privacy. However, this justification has limited the scope of the decision's reach; only those actions and behaviors performed in the privacy of one's home are those currently protected under Lawrence. The right to be public is still far from our reach.

So when the Supreme Court considered this recent challenge to DADT, and particularly the Lawrence precedent, it should be no surprise that the Court refused to even hear arguments. Indeed, in the words of the court: "...The challenge fails because this Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), 'did not identify a protected liberty interest in all forms and manner of sexual intimacy.'" It most certainly didn't; it identified a protected right to privacy, not a protected liberty of expression or being. The "forms of [sexual] conduct" outlined in DADT are therefore "expressly excluded" from that which was recognized in Lawrence.

Until the queer community can garner legitimate and legally-protected access to the public sphere - and freedom of expression therein - this supposed protection under rights to privacy will continue to fall stunningly short of pushing the movement forward.

On Silence

2009-04-17T08:57:00.001-04:00

***Note: This is a [shortened] reposting of my good friend Theo's blog from 2005 about the Day of Silence. I've tried several times now, and just can't say it any better.***

"As some of you may or may not know, today is the "National Day of Silence," which is where you are not supposed to talk to show solidarity to those who have been the victims of hate crimes against gay people. It is a big deal across the nation for many people. I, for one, can't stand it.

"I hardly think that refusing to talk shows any sort of support for the queer rights movement, rather I think it is a counterproductive event. This is mostly because those who oppress queer people would like nothing more than for queers to be silent. From a Foucauldian perspective, not talking about something is what takes power away from it. People like Jesse Helms actually do more for the queer rights movement by talking about it, because talking about it gives it power.

"...I guess it's because by talking about other sexualities, it calls into question the "fixedness" of heterosexuality. If, as Judith Butler posits, heterosexuality (and I paraphrase here) continuously tries to reproduce itself and fails, this is most brought out when other sexualities are brought out. Queerness is the failure of straightness to be the only sexuality. I, and I hope at least most other queer people, don't view myself as agnostic towards heterosexuality; it's just another point on the continuum of sexuality.

"Thus comes the practical part of this blog, I think that it is important to talk, not be silent. [Homophobic people are] scared, and thus angry, because they don't understand that gender bending and same-sex desire do not exist to threaten opposite-sex desire. The only way to fix this is to open up a dialogue. This is a movement that must be done by queers of all sexualities (and yes, I include heterosexuals in that)...

"...So rather than be silent today, why don't you change someone's mind? Start a conversation that will go on for more than just one day."

On Luxuries

2009-04-05T11:02:00.009-04:00

Then again, marriage equality seems such a luxury in the face of news like this: six gay men have been murdered in Iraq, in what seems a roar of religious violence.

Two gay men were killed in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, a local official said on Saturday, and police said they had found the bodies of four more after clerics urged a crackdown on a perceived spread of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is prohibited almost everywhere in the Middle East, but conditions have become especially dangerous for gays and lesbians in Iraq since the rise of religious militias after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein six years ago.
"...They were sexual deviants. Their tribes killed them to restore their family honor," a Sadr City official who declined to be named said.
The police source who declined to be named said the bodies of four gay men were unearthed in Sadr City on March 25, each bearing a sign reading "pervert" in Arabic on their chests.

As incredibly exciting as Friday was with the news of Iowa (and Vermont), this news should remind us that marriage is not the final frontier of the gay rights movement. This news should remind us that lives are still at risk, every single day. This news should remind us of the importance of hate crimes legislation and governmental attention at every level to violence against minorities. Last year, a California man used a "Yes on Prop 8" sign to beat a gay man. The irony of beating a gay person with a marriage campaign sign is stunning - we cannot let ourselves be distracted from the wars that are still being fought all over the world: the wars for our right to exist.

Decriminalizing homosexuality, although powerful and necessary, doesn't even begin to adequately engage in this fight. It's the fundamental groundwork and the recognition that this war is already being waged, but it cannot be the only step made by the global community. More has to be done. These lives won't be the last we lose.

----
Let us also remember that these hate crimes don't only happen abroad. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports at least eleven separate incidents of hate crimes against the glbt community within the first three months of this year. These included death and poison threats against eleven Seattle gay bars, a gay woman beaten in Minneapolis, two gay men who were assaulted with glass bottles and box cutters in New York, a gay veteran murdered in Pennsylvania, a radio host calling for violence against transwomen, and two gay men who were beaten unconscious in Oregon. These are only the ones that have been reported. Actual numbers of hate crimes committed against any minority are unknown and underreported.

Marriage Is So Gay

2009-04-03T10:29:00.007-04:00

Today, two exciting stories came across the wire - the Vermont legislature passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriages, and the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

In 1999, Vermont passed a law allowing recognition of same-sex couples through civil unions, although only to state residents. The law was the first of its kind. This new bill, if signed into law, would invalidate the current state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman, thus offering same-sex couples the full rights and status under the law. The Vermont bill is additionally exciting because it marks the first time that a state's legislature has taken on marriage equality without any previous action in the state's court system. This could help push the national rhetoric away from the idea of "activist judges" being the driving force of marriage equality, and towards a visibly more populist or democratic image of the advance of gay marriage.

The Senate passed the bill 26-4, and the House passed 95-52. Unfortunately, Gov. Jim Douglas (R) has promised to veto the legislation, saying that the civil unions bill is sufficient. Two-thirds majority of both houses is required to overturn a veto, but the House currently does not have the numbers to do so. The bill will go to Gov. Douglas next week.

Iowa law also restricted marriage to one man and one woman. Until today. The State Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision arguing that the ban violated the equal protection clauses of the state constitution. This is especially good news because of the legal precedent it continues, which establishes the gay community as a social group at risk of discrimination and potentially subject to differential treatment under the law. Doing so heightens legal attention to legislation that would specifically affect the community - a concept known as strict scrutiny. Iowa's decision evokes similar legal reasoning by referencing equal protection. These decisions build a new body of jurisprudence from which future cases can advance the causes of marriage equality.

It's a good day.

----
PS.
California's Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ultimate decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage despite the above Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage, later this year. Marriage is otherwise currently recognized only in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Quick Hit: Americorps Expansion

2009-03-16T15:51:00.002-04:00

In step with the President's ongoing calls to national service, Congress is focusing this week on significant expansions to the Americorps Program, originally founded by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The proposed changes would more than triple the volunteer-based corps and increase the education stipend to approximately $5,000 (about the size of a Pell Grant) for those who complete their service.

On One-Way Relationships

2009-01-28T23:30:00.004-05:00

Back to business as usual, I suppose.

After numerous steps taken by President Obama and the Democrats toward the middle, to say nothing of impressive concessions, not a single House Republican voted in favor of the economic stimulus package. Furthermore, eleven Democrats joined Republican ranks in working against the bill.

It's not that I expect Democrats to just fall in line, simply due to party allegiance. It's not that I expect Republicans to give away legislation either. But given the considerable concessions that Obama made - particularly on family planning financing for low-income families - it's either incredibly disrespectful or incredibly shrewd on behalf of the Republicans. Or both. Disrespectful that not a single Republican can meet Obama somewhere in the middle on a bill that is already one-third composed of tax cuts, and shrewd that they still managed to get hardline party matters of limiting sexual autonomy removed from a bill that would pass even without their support. Hopefully the Senate won't cave so easily to unreciprocated bipartisanship.

Obama ended the global gag rule in our foreign policy. If only we could end it in our own country.

On January 20, 2009

2009-01-26T21:07:00.002-05:00

I was there.

After two long hours of walking all over DC early in the morning, another three hours of standing in the bitter cold, and eight long years of divisionist politics and a seemingly interminable winter in America, I - and millions others - watched as Obama took the oath of office.

I don't want to be trite about this. But the sounds make it difficult. The sound of three million exuberant people roaring from the Lincoln Memorial all the way to the Capitol, and then the sound of the same three million falling eerily silent to listen the words of one man make it difficult to describe that day without some tired euphemism of long awaited vindication or renewed sense of spirit. It seemed the want for redemption was so thick in the air, it was practically tangible.

I can still feel it. A sense of urgency, to get down to the extraordinary business of rebuilding our country alongside our president.

The great work begins.

On Keith Olbermann's Greatness

2008-11-11T13:40:00.002-05:00

On Target Audiences

2008-11-09T21:29:00.006-05:00

Just noticing...

Masculine, gendered set of commercials shown during a viewing of Saving Private Ryan on TNT, a Sunday evening, 9 Nov 2008. Men narrating ads for pizza/steak restaurants, sports, action movies, etc.

Cici's Pizza; male actor and narrator.
NFL/flat screen television
Outback Steakhouse; male narrator.
UPS; male actor and narrator.
Vonage (phone company); both male and female actors, male narrator.
heating/AC company; a woman asking her snoozing, football-watching husband if he's comfortable or needs anything ; male narrator.
Rosetta Stone; featuring Michael Phelps; male narrator
Blue Ray, featuring Hellboy, Batman, Wanted, and other action movies; male narrator.

Female-gendered commercials - for the women watching with their husbands? Women in traditional roles: cleaning/household chores, teaching young children, and indulging in chocolate (while still counting calories).

Scrubbing Bubbles bathroom cleaner; female actor and narrator.
overactive bladder medication; female actor as an elementary school teacher.
Warm Delights Minis; female actors and narrators, employing feminist rhetoric of freedom of choice, contrasting with body-conscious low-calorie descriptors.

Carrion Bag Plugs

2008-09-14T12:55:00.000-04:00

Hey all. Just some links to my more recent posts at my joint blog, Carrion Bag.

From a few weeks ago, this is my review of the 2006 film Brick, which follows in the tradition of film noir but in modern contexts. Loved it, hope you do too.

From yesterday, a slightly angry rant about Sarah Palin's own fans being the ones actually creating or contributing to the sexist portrayal of her.

Be well.

On Lloyd Bentsen

2008-09-12T11:50:00.005-04:00

As I thought might happen, Senator Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, and now Sen. McCain has chosen Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his vice presidential nominee. In the days since her incendiary - albeit politically magnificent - acceptance speech at the RNC, the public and has seemed to embrace her. Even more than that, the popular media seems to see her as "the new feminist." (I'll try not to comment on the gross injustice that description does to actual feminism.) At her present pace, she may just be the key to securing another four years (or more) of Republican presidency. She may even become president herself.

The disappointing part of all this is that Palin is, in fact, quite the anticlimactic choice. I had hoped while writing that McCain would choose a woman would result in someone like Kay Hutchinson, the senior senator from Texas who has served in government since 1990 and is consistent with McCain's streak of maverick-esque party independence. Such a choice would have demonstrated actual respect for the governance of America, in that the person second-in-command of the nation was chosen based on her capability to do so, rather than her strategic value in campaign season. Such a choice would have demonstrated actual respect for women, in that McCain would have thought voters capable of discerning the difference between a woman with actual political qualifications and experience, and a woman simply standing in her place hoping that voters won't notice the stark contrast. Such a choice would have demonstrated feminism, not tokenism.

In this election season, I hoped for something along the lines of West Wing's final season, wherein the two candidates agree to set aside the politics of politics (as much as realistically possible) and then genuinely engage each other on the issues throughout the campaign. I hoped to see the same fundamental respect for the American people and the democratic process, but instead I (and all of us) must endure policy positions and vice presidential picks based purely on party strong-arming and the same old political games. So I am left to hope for a series of moments like the following, wherein people realize the superficiality of the "change" and "qualification" presented by Palin:

Gov. Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton. You are no Kay Hutchinson, and you are certainly no Harry Truman. Do not presume to compare yourself. I hope the rest of America realizes this before election day.

On "Burden"

2008-09-03T21:42:00.003-04:00

The national conventions of the two major parties in American politics have been an absolute adventure this year. I have much to say about the DNC, but more about that later. I have much to say about the choice of Sarah Palin, but more about that later.

Gov. Palin hasn't even spoken yet, and already Wednesday night of the GOP convention has begun to reveal the true character of the Republican party.

The choice of speakers tonight for the RNC seems very fitting. Two women preceded Gov. Sarah Palin, keeping in not-so-subtle theme with "Hey look, we have women too." Interestingly enough, these women were both CEOs of major corporations (Meg Whitman, formerly of E-bay, and Carly Fiorina, formerly of Hewlett Packard) and are now McCain advisers. Perhaps this was to keep in step with displaying images of powerful and engaging women in attempts to attract Hillary voters - who apparently only aligned with her for her anatomy and will just as quickly align with Palin, a diametric opposite. The fact that these women are both advisers to McCain in fact makes an even stronger statement that the GOP is truly the party of corporations rather than of the working class. Rather than seeking women of color, women of low income, or - god forbid - women of "alternative lifestyles," McCain relies on the transparent diversity of white women of privilege and big business.

However, what I have found most disturbing this evening is the blatant references to America's "burden" when it comes to the pursuit of freedom. Both Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney have mentioned this tonight. I find this troubling because of the historical linkage of the concept of burden to colonialism and manifest destiny. The writers of Sociological Images define this linkage:

This is just another manfestation of an old colonial belief, the white man’s burden, or the belief that white men had to take care of the rest of the world’s people because they were incapable of taking care of themselves.

We freed Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein because the Iraqis couldn't do it themselves, oppressed as they were. This doesn't only apply to Republican foreign policy, however. Here at home, it seems we must take care of women, because they are incapable of making their own reproductive choices. It seems we must take care of heterosexual marriage, because the majority of married Americans are incapable of maintaining the strength and validity of their own relationship when threatened by the homosexual menace.

And now, as Mike Huckabee and the Republicans try to claim the Civil Rights movement as their own while in the same breath villifying people on welfare and government programs - and making the not-so-subtle references that McCain has already shouldered America's and freedom's burden through his POW experience - I will sign off. Before I get too frustrated to form complete sentences.

On McCain's Chance at Victory

2008-08-18T21:40:00.004-04:00

Lately I find myself spending a lot of time wondering who will be the vice presidential candidates for both parties. I worry about their stance on issues; I worry about their political performance, both in the past and in the coming months. Mostly I worry about strategy.

I'd love to say that strategy shouldn't matter in this choosing - that the politics of politics shouldn't come before the potential candidate's record, beliefs, and integrity.

But it does.

If Barack missteps in his VP selection, McCain could easily run away with the race.

Obama needs to (and will) choose his running mate before McCain. Despite their markedly different campaigns, beliefs, and overall messages, the difference in the polls is only marginal. Obama needs a strong and distinctive running mate to clarify his competency and complement his strengths and weaknesses, but he also needs to declare this partner soon to generate the additional media buzz and free publicity that will solidify a workable lead in the polls.

More importantly, Obama needs to choose a woman. From a purely strategic standpoint, he must choose a female running mate to secure a competitive position in November. Although Sen. Joe Biden, a New England liberal with extensive foreign policy experience, and Sen. Evan Bayh, a fly-over moderate from the Armed Services committee, would do well to assuage fears of Obama's "inexperience," a female candidate would be the best choice to both maintain a consistent message of change and complement Obama. Mind you, I'm not arguing for choosing a woman for the sake of choosing a woman; she must be as fit to assume the Office of the Presidency as Sen. Obama himself.

If he doesn't select a woman, it places McCain in a strategic position with the ability to win undecided moderates, women, and former Hillary supporters. If Obama doesn't, then McCain could choose a woman, certainly defying current expectations. This would signal to voters (perhaps falsely) a return to the maverick, bipartisan image of his earlier days. Undecideds could move to McCain's camp to follow this "progressive," loosely-identified Republican and his female VP. The move could quickly steal the spotlight away from Obama and allow McCain to win the election on the backs of the center, rather than the traditional strategy of drumming up the far right Republican base through vilification of minorities.

It would be a compelling campaign.

Of course, all of this could be wrong. Barack could choose Biden or Bayh, and McCain could follow up with Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty, or even Mitt Romney. And then we'd just be back to more of the same. Which wouldn't surprise me.

On Politics, Sex, and the Politics of Sex

2008-08-11T23:58:00.005-04:00

Surely most of you have heard by now about the admitted extramarital affair of former Senator and both VP and presidential candidate John Edwards.

I admit to some disappointment in the man. I also believe that he acted quite hypocritically engaging in this behavior while still speaking often on the strength of his marriage and value of his family - to say nothing of his remarks regarding President Clinton's "remarkable disrespect of his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership..." with respect to Clinton's involvement with Lewinski. The bloggers of Feministe talk about these points quite eloquently.

Nonetheless, I find myself quickly dismissing this news for two reasons. First, this so-called scandal only detracts attention from more important happenings. Russia and Georgia are on the brink of war, and it's getting worse by the minute. World records are being broken by the fistful in the Beijing Olympics. A new car is in the works that runs on compressed air with a potential mileage of 106 miles per gallon. A global summit is taking place in Mexico City on the ongoing AIDS epidemic, which is now nearing thirty years, thirty million victims, and thirty-three million more currently infected. The attention paid Edwards (including this unread blog entry) far outweighs the consideration given to any of these and other far more relevant matters at hand.

Secondly, this seems (to me at least) not really about John Edwards. It is less indicative of the moral fiber of politicians or the cynical predictability of inspirational figures in the spotlight, but rather of our society's discomfort with and distance from a realistic understanding and acceptance of sex and sexuality. I think I can safely say most of society believes sex is a private matter, not to be discussed or displayed in public in any fashion. Indeed, many of those who consider themselves gay-friendly or -neutral adopt a stance of "Just keep it in the bedroom and out of my face."

When sex and sexuality are confined to the bedrooms (and closets), knowledge ebbs. Ignorance grows.

We become surprised at the reality of an individual's sexuality. Expecting adherence to codes of normalcy and tradition, we are dismayed to find sex occurring outside of the idealized context of heterosexual marriage, and especially by those we admire and esteem as beyond reproach and corruption. We are disappointed by his inability to control his actions, and we may even wonder what this could mean about our own behavior, or that of our spouse or partner. We publicize this man's failings in monogamy, and we make a spectacle of his sexuality, all the while continuing to tell ourselves sex is a private matter.

When sex is demonized and hidden, it becomes synonymous with corruption and those bereft of morality. The methods and performance of the most basic and imperative human experience becomes the (faulty) basis for which everyone - not just John Edwards - is judged, understood, and labeled in our society.

On Directives: Imitation, Replication, and Wall-E

2008-08-05T20:35:00.002-04:00

So I think it's time for me to chime in on Wall-E.

I've seen the film twice now in theaters, much to the dismay of my grad student wallet. I loved it from the moment "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" from Hello, Dolly echoed through the digitized streets of a desolate version of New York City. The recognition of the skyscrapers as no more than buildings made of compressed garbage and cultural remnants began a long series of stunning visual commentaries on our seeming direction. And, speaking from a geek's perspective, the allusions to 2001: A Space Odyssey only made the movie that much better in the canon of sci-fi flicks.

But if I may, I'd like to explore the more subtle suggestions of the film when it comes to gender.

I should first say that I very much appreciate the creation of Wall-E and Eve as, for the most part, androgynous characters. Granted, Wall-E is noticeably mechanical and angular - traditionally masculine associations - while Eve is smooth and curvy. Also, Wall-E's electronic "voice" operates at a lower frequency than Eve's. Nonetheless, after carefully watching the film, the robots never use any gendered pronouns or language toward one another. The robots not only remain androgynous, but they also defy traditional gender stereotypes at various points. As The Pop Perspective points out, Eve was the one to carry a weapon and exhibit violence, while Wall-E was the (literally) starry-eyed dreamer and lover. In fact, we only read them as male or female because that is the first categorization our minds make upon encountering a new individual. We look for anything, any small attribute (like the ones I listed above) to give us a hint of sex. But these robots are without sex - we have assigned them an arbitrary sex in our minds. A queer couple, to say the least.

However, my favorite part about this film may in fact be that, in numerous ways, the actions of Wall-E and other characters only serve to confirm Judith Butler's suggestions that gender, and all the acts of coupling, friendship, and the very ways we relate interpersonally on any level, are imitative. The film presents us with a world devoid of humans, where Wall-E is the last remaining garbage compacting robot. Although he is without human companionship, he is not without human ritual. As the action progresses, we watch Wall-E discover the intricacies of humanity through various cultural remnants like Hello, Dolly. It is here, in societal representations of love stories and relationships, that Wall-E learns about holding hands, about companionship, about how "it only takes a moment to be loved your whole life long." When Eve comes along, Wall-E has a chance to imitate these devices. One wonders how Wall-E would have interacted with Eve had he not discovered these cultural productions that taught him, like all the rest of us, how men and women relate to each other and view the world.

Furthermore, Wall-E shows us that these imitative rituals are indeed perpetuated through society and media. This, of course, is not surprising. Most people (I hope) are aware of the power of media to simultaneously reflect and reproduce cultural values, thus creating the classic question, "Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?" Wall-E inherits these romantic rituals through Hello, Dolly, just as the captain of the ship later learns how to live on Earth from pictures and writings stored in the ship's database. Our society and its values are continually replicated and passed down through these rituals and cultural productions.

This movie, when considering these points, leaves me wondering how we would recreate ourselves if given a blank slate. If we'd been in Wall-E's position, except without the Barbara Streisand and Michael Crawford, what brave new world could we invent?

2008-07-24T19:06:00.001-04:00

Hey all, sorry for the hiatus. (Oh precious few of you who read me.) Here's the links to my two recent posts at the other blog.

The first is about the absurdity of a comic book released as campaign material for an Oklahoma politician, depicting some horrific portrayals of gays and liberals, to say nothing of horrific grammar and spelling.

The second is about the peculiarities and ironies of a book I recently discovered entitled Bedroom Secrets of an Ex-Lesbian, which purports to act as a Christian guide for men to "extracting the elusive female orgasm."

Enjoy. More posts to come.

On Ethanol

2008-07-17T19:36:00.002-04:00

Ethanol, an alternative fuel source derived from corn (and also other crops), is a powerful tool for strengthening the American farming industry and its working class families who have long suffered from the growth of corporate farms and decreasing food prices. According to the National Corn Growers’ Association,

Ethanol plants have helped rejuvenate rural communities across the country by creating high-paying jobs, boosting local tax revenues and creating partnership opportunities for local businesses. Additionally, ethanol helps the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and displacing the harmful additive MTBE from reformulated gasoline.

Ethanol is also an extremely viable alternative to foreign oil, as America has a rich domestic corn crop and numerous policies already in place paving the way for future, broader legislation and ethanol production.

However, corn-based ethanol has several problems. Aside from presenting significantly lower fuel mileage when used in large concentrations (like E85) and yielding far less fuel per acre than sugarcane or other ethanols, corn ethanol is potentially hazardous to the long-term stability of food prices and the health of the poor.

The economy and food markets would suffer under the weight of the demands of sudden ethanol requirements. Such policy requirements of ethanol minimums in fuel would place an extraordinary demand on the corn market for higher production. As demand for corn increases, suppliers are able to charge more for their product, driving up the value and price of corn. These mandates also encourage farmers to focus their resources on growing corn and not on other crops like wheat or soybeans. Because these crops then grow scarcer, their prices also increase. Significant and sudden expansions in ethanol production would cause all these food staples to increase in price, making food increasingly expensive. This would take an especially harmful toll on the ability of working class Americans to provide adequate food for their families and to maintain a healthy lifestyle and remain productive in the workplace.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, even with the most-optimistic energy return to investment, the amount of ethanol necessary to replace current U.S. petroleum use alone would require about 75% of all arable land on the entire world, with no ethanol for other countries or land enough to grow food for humans and animals.

In summary, although corn-based ethanol is highly viable for further legislation, promising for Midwestern farmers and the farm industry (and important to rural voters), it is fundamentally a short term fix and not a long term solution. It must be developed in tandem with numerous other alternative energy programs, and not as the only long-term solution, or else even greater problems could result for the economy, food prices, and the working class.

For Butler Tells Me So

2008-07-13T23:15:00.003-04:00

On my other blog, there's been a discussion about the intersections of homosexuality and Christianity in film. I posted this entry, "For Butler Tells Me So," in regards to a limitation of the recent film For the Bible Tells Me So.

(It's actually a post based on a paper I wrote recently, which is of course more in depth and theoretical. Leave a comment if you'd like to read the actual paper.)

On A Free Country

2008-07-09T14:13:00.005-04:00

I used to be a big fan of July Fourth. Hometown parades and visible politicians, local fairs and fried food booths. We even have live music at the local park's bandshell all day until an incredible fireworks show that lasts upwards of half an hour. The holiday always gave me a fuzzy, feel-good sense about our country, if only for the sheer kitsch of it all. It used to galvanize me into pride on behalf of our country and all the good that it stands for.

In recent years, though, I've grown away from the holiday. I still feel that affection, but now it's more in a longing, nostalgic sense. I've come to realize my status as a second-class citizen, and it makes it a little more difficult to believe so blindly in a country that simply does not do the same for me. (Understand, I do love my country, very much. I just have a hard time choosing to overlook the many problems we also face.)

Anyway, I was reminded of all this over the weekend's annual celebrations. On Saturday, July 5th, I went to a gay prom. These are hosted all over the country at various times of the year, offering queer youth and allies a safe space to enjoy the rite of passage of Prom with whomever they choose and in a dress and style they choose.

It was really an exciting sight - almost three hundred queer youth in a place specifically for them, wrapped in acceptance and the promise that soon this prom (and other similarly designated queer spaces) will not be the only place they can be themselves without fear of retribution or violence. The energy was infectious, and I couldn't stop smiling. I felt hopeful.

My date (A.) and I, perhaps the oldest people there other than the chaperones, went to a nice restaurant afterwards for espresso and gelato. We sat outside, enjoying the unseasonably cool July night and talking about the prom.

"FAGGOT."

I dropped my spoon loudly onto the plate and looked across the patio at a group of eight or so forty-somethings, whose table was littered with empty bottles of imports and cigar butts. The man who'd said it looked my way as I stared back, visibly angry.

I try to go by the one-strike rule, really. Let someone say it once, because I don't know what the context is - they could be saying "Faggot is such a horrible word." It's possible. I hope.

So I didn't say anything, just stared him down until he broke eye contact sheepishly. But then someone else at the table said it. And someone else. And someone else. The first man looked at his friend and said "Now's not the place," motioning subtly toward us. The second man looked at us, then looked back to his friend and said loudly, "You know, I've never really given a fuck about offending people."

Now that I'd given pretty much every person at the table a strike (and realized the uselessness of my own rule), I felt stuck. I had to say something. But there were eight of them. Mostly men, and drunk at that. There were only two of us - young, gay women who had far less in their pocketbooks and therefore probably worth far less to the restaurant. I resigned myself to the reality of the situation, and spoke with a manager. She apologized, moved us to a new table of our choice, gave us everything we'd ordered on the house, and asked if we'd like her to speak with the other table. We told her she didn't need to, again admitting their upper hand as considerably more affluent, and thanked her for what support she was able to give, considering the circumstances.

This was unbearably demeaning. We'd just left this safe space of prom, believing once again in the chance that things were getting better for us. Not thirty minutes later, here we were. Moving tables to allow ignorant people to continue their bigotry uninterrupted. A. noted that if they'd been using the "n" word, they most likely would have been asked to leave, regardless of how much they'd been spending. (Perhaps not, but again, I hope.) She was so unnerved that she was visibly shaking. We thanked the manager once more and then walked to the table. I watched the very first man's face fall as we approached. Their laughter halted.

Sparing the details, A. and I both said simply and calmly that we were offended and hoped they'd be more sensitive in the future. A woman at the table offered, rather indignantly: "Well, our gay friends use those words more than we do. And after all, it's a free country."

We left. I felt like a failure. How many millions of things could I have said instead? How about, "Your gay friends? Do you call them fags too? To their faces, or just behind their back?" How about, "You're right, it is a free country, which means I should be able to go out for an evening without being forced to put up with your ignorant, drunken homophobia." Mostly, I wanted to tell them that this is what gay prom was partly about - to protect those kids, for just one night, from this reality.

In the few days since then, I've realized that we did what we could. We said something in a situation where we were completely powerless. But I've been unable to forget that woman's defense of "It's a free country." Remember, all this happened the day after July 4th; they were most likely getting together to celebrate. And for them, July 4th and the fact that "it's a free country" apparently means they have the right to be ignorant and the right to call me and anybody else a faggot. This is what July 4th celebrates for them. Their freedom to belittle and to interrupt, their freedom to construct a reality where gay children must put on their own proms simply to be safe.

This is why I have such a difficult time with July 4th. This is what my "free country" feels like every other day of the year.

---

By the way, for more info on gay proms, expect another entry from me on the topic. In the meantime, check this decent NY Times article. For legal info on same sex couples at non-gay proms and other school dances, check out the guide put together by Lambda Legal. Finally, for a more complete history of the development of prom itself, check out this awesome (and short) documentary: Prom Night in Kansas City, which includes a segment on gay proms.

Carrion Bag

2008-07-08T13:19:00.002-04:00

My good friend Panda De Tueur and I have started a joint venture in culture vulture territory, and have thusly named it "Carrion Bag." Here, he and I (joined occasionally by some friends) dissect various cultural oddities, patterns, and whatever else we see fit. I'll post links here to my contributions as they occur. The link to the blog as a whole is on my list of suggested reading off to the side.

Here's the first one - "Lament of a Barista." Enjoy, and please comment!

On Gov. Elbridge Gerry

2008-07-02T23:39:00.002-04:00

In 1812, the governor of Massachusetts signed into law a redistricting of his state that heavily favored his party in the coming election. His name was Elbridge Gerry, and the resulting shape of one of the resulting political districts was said to resemble a salamander. This produced the term "gerrymander," now used in politics to describe the manipulation of district lines for political advantage.

Sometimes this advantage is achieved by spreading members of a certain group over many districts to ensure they do not gain representation in any district. Other times, it is achieved through consolidating a group into a specific district that guarantees their representation.

Certainly, women have faced the same gerrymandering throughout the social, economic, and political experience in America. They are systematically and often subtly divided and put against each other in a way that ensures their continued status as second-class citizens and wage-earners. Alternately, they are represented by a few tokens who serve as (false) reminders that women are indeed included, respected, and treated equally in the political and social processes. Nonetheless, the underlying truth remains that women - and all minorities - do not have the same opportunities or successes as majority America.

This blog is a personal effort to reexamine the ways in which this truth manifests itself, and also the ways in which this reality can be affected. Luck to us all.