Saturday, March 31, 2007

Dissertating

So I was reading another law review yesterday about Virginia v. Black (2003). Of the several dozen or so articles there were only one or two that moderately favored the decision. The rest simply attacked the decision as an attack on First Amendment protections. I don't know why. Maybe I just happened to pick up the negative ones, but there's very little praise for this decision.

Most had their own reasons for it centered around the general anxiety of waning First Amendment protections, or circumventions of Brandenburg, etc. I read this particular one and it started off with the usual critiques of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion, the "puzzling" opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in RAV which was revisited in Black.

On a side note, for some reason, and this one article was not the first, authors who wrote extensively about Black and RAV, talked about how the two statutes from Minnesota and Virginia were "nearly identical" or bore a "striking resemblance."

From St. Paul, MN, this is the city ordinance which was challenged in RAV v. St. Paul (1992):

Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
And here is the Virginia statute:
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.
Other than a cross burning as a common thread, and an effort to criminalize hate motivated expressive conduct, I don't see the "striking resemblance" or the "nearly identical" that I've been reading. If anything, there are substantial differences that sets the two apart in its content and application. I just couldn't help but think that these First Amendment purists were in a rush to substantiate their objections to Black and neglect the details. Anyways ...

So this one article was predictably arguing against Black and through it all I was trying to figure out where this author was going with her argument. Then it struck me near the very end about the "slippery slope" that the decision produced:
It is clear that the Nazi swastika is already the next form of symbolic expression on the chopping block. What about the use of confederate flags? What about shirts bearing only a picture of the confederate flag? Has the Court allowed states to restrict expression that society has come to regard with distaste?
Aha!

To answer the questions, I resoundingly say "Yes!" So start lining them up because it's clear minorities cannot always depend upon the good natures of people to know any better. If anything, state power has always been invoked to protect minorities and combat discrimination, and this is perfectly consonant with the history of civil rights.

The really sad irony is that oftentimes it was the state that had created these problems in the first place. And now the very instrument that perpetrated policies of segregation, colonization, race-based exclusion, and genocide, is also the same one that dismantles discrimination, and asserts justice and equality.

And on a final note, I'm getting sick and tired of reading so many First Amendment purists bemoaning the destruction of free speech, and therefore, the end of the so-called "free marketplace of ideas" and the vitality of democratic life and blah blah blah blah. Seriously, after reading the 16th article on the same theme and conclusion, but different method of course, it's like beating a dead horse ... like thousands of them!

*sighs*

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

It's Raining 300 Men!!!

With all the hype around 300, and all the criticisms, I came across this YouTube clip that just made me roll on the floor laughing uncontrollably. Enjoy!

Monday, March 26, 2007

298 ... 299 ...

300! Yes I saw 300 over the weekend. It was the most visually spectacular, and gripping story of two nations battling each other over ...

... their sexual identities.

And you thought the movie was an accurate representation of the Spartan last stand at Thermopylae? Yeah right! I don't think so. That movie was full of homoerotic discourses. I believe the men of Sparta represent the classic gay community mostly of "white" men with hard abs and chiseled bodies who wear nothing more than a thong to battle. That's 300 Spartans for a grand total of 1800 six pack abs for everyone's visual indulgence. As for Persia, they are the most multicultural of all with not only Persians, but people who look like Chinese, Africans, South Asians, and Mongolians to name a few. They also include livestock with rhinos and pale ape-looking things, as well as non-traditional humanoids, such as goblins, trolls, and ogres (well, to me anyway).

Did I mention the ninjas as well? Anywho ...

All are lead by Xerxes who seems to be an avid member of the S&M/Dominatrix community. Thus, the white gay men of Sparts versus the multicult/S&M/Dominatrix crowd of Persia. Anyways, I thought it was a great movie about happens when sexual diplomacy is abandoned and we have all out sexual war. And if I had a chance, I think I'd live in Persia. Judging from the diversity I saw, I think it'll be a cool place to live, and plus they seem to know how to party.

Here's two spoofs about 300 for your enjoyment. The first is a spoof about 300 as a PG-rated film.

Here's one with some voice-overs to change the dialogue a bit:


Thursday, March 22, 2007

New Additions

Added two new blogs to my list.

Hegemony Rules looks really cool. I love the tagline: "an official dissertation procrastination device."

And how can I ever forget my best friend who just started her own blog, Adventures of Elijabet. *hugs*

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Why Do Straights Hate Gays? (Cont.)

I decided to move my response to a full length post.

One Response to “Why Do Straights Hate Gays?”

Not all straight people hates gay people. I am straight and I DON’T HATE gays. I love them and I respect them.

That's true Ira, but I think the aim of this article is that it's not enough for heterosexuals to simply say they support and respect gays/lesbians. From Stonewall to ACTUP, as powerful political events that shaped queer politics, things have not changed much and it's incredibly frustrating. One can change their attitudes and develop respect for each other. But *real* change demands an active public engagement against those who continue to stir and feed off of an increasingly powerful anti-gay agenda. This is the political dimension. Voting is one of those political practices to voice that support in public, and so is petition writing, opinion pieces, blogs, and so on. But "we" as straight people simply do not do enough. Or worse, "we" lack a political conviction. And the fallout is not restricted to those liberal or progressive hets either. It also extends to the state of queer activism and politics which has been largely confined to marriage, a rather heterosexual practice and institution.

Seriously. When Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked if homosexuality was immoral, she simply responded, "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."

WTF??? She's running to be President of the United States, and she's going to leave that decision to others???

That is not "presidential." It is not in the least bit invoking "executive privilege." It is simply cowardice. It runs from the very top of our political elites to the common person. And the worse thing about it is that we accept it without question.

Larry Kramer's final analysis is right on target:

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Why Do Straights Hate Gays?

I made a brief comment after the Democratic takeover of Congress last year about how I'm not sure what they stand for and what they will fight as a coherent political agenda.

I'm convinced now that neither Clinton and Obama stand for anything since it seems they're dodging gay and lesbian issues which basically permits condemnation. I can't seem to recall anyone who will stand definitively on what they think is principled and right -- unless you're a conservative, in which their platform is crystal clear and consistent. But on the liberal side? For Democrats? I don't see anyone at all.

And I'm not at all surprised when Larry Kramer, founder of ACTUP, writes an article like this:

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us....

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Just When I Thought It Was Safe ...

... along comes this freak. I've been trying to avoid mentioning "he-who-really-must-not-be-named" as much as I could, but to no avail. "He" was on FOXNews awhile ago. "He" wrote an op-ed piece in AsianWeek, based in San Francisco, about why "he" hated African Americans. It's a vile piece of reading, and apparently, "he" also hates whites, but loves dragons with guns (don't ask me). Naturally, the community of SF was up in arms over what "he" wrote. But the controversy also caught the ears of FOXNews and of course aired "his" side of the story. And this interview just confirmed how much of a moron, and mental nutcase, "he" really is. Enjoy ... or not.

*raises fist at Kenneth Eng*