Clown Power!!!

Of all the counter-demonstrations, this has got to be the most ingenious and creative. Clown Power vs. White Power? Who do you think will win? Read the article to find out!

Photo and article courtesy of Asheville Indymedia.

Nazi's out of Knoxville!

Saturday May 26th the VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.

Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/7704982.html

“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.

At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”

The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”

It was at this point that several observers reported seeing several Klan members heads exploding in rage and they stopped trying to explain to the clowns what they wanted.

Apparently the clowns fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the rally, they believed it was a clown rally and came in force to support their pointy hated brethren. To their dismay, despite their best jokes and stunts and pratfalls the Nazis and Klan refused to laugh, and indeed became enraged at the clowns misunderstanding and constant attempts to interpret the clowns instruction.

The clowns on the other hand had a great time and thought the Nazis were the funniest thing they had ever seen and the loud laughter of over 100 counter protesters greeted every attempt of the Nazis and Klan to get their message out, whatever that was.

Many of the local Knoxvillians that came to counter demonstrate had no illusions about why these out of state bad clowns with swastikas were doing in their town.

“KKK YOU CAN’T HIDE, WE CHARGE YOU WITH GENOCIDE!”

“GAY, STRAIGHT, BLACK, WHITE ONE STRUGGLE ONE FIGHT!”

“U.G.L.Y. KLAN YOU AIN’T GOT NO ALIBI, YOU UGLY, YOU UGLY”

Were just a few of the chants that the non clown counter protesters rained down upon the Nazis. The clowns interacted with the non clown protesters with glee and even participated in a chant or two, though apparently with no idea that the Nazis were indeed not clowns thinking it was just part of the show.

In the end the 20 or so sad VNNers left with their tails between their legs. At this point over 150 counter demonstraters were present. The clowns seeing how dejected and sad the Nazi’s looked began singing to cheer them up.

“hey hey hey hey, ho ho ho ho—good bye, good bye” everyone sang waving their arms in the air in unison.

After the VNNers left in their shiny SUVs to go back to Alabama and all the other states that they were from the clowns and counter demonstrators began to march out of the area chanting ‘WHOSE STREETS? OUR STREETS!”

But the cops stopped the clowns and counter protestors. “Hey, do you want an escort” an African-American police officer on a motorcycle asked. “Yes” a clown replied. “We are walking to Market Square in the center of town to celebrate.”

The police officers got in front of the now anti racist parade and blocked the entire road for the march through the heart of Knoxville. An event called imagination station was taking place and over 15,000 thousand students and their parents were in town that weekend. Many of them cheered as the clowns, Knoxvillians and counter protestors marched through the heart of Knoxville singing and laughing at the end of the Nazi’s first attempt at having a rally in Knoxville.

On June 16th the Stormfront Nazis are trying to have a second rally in Knoxville. Clowns, anarchist, activist and others are all invited to come and creatively and nonviolently help us confront these Nazis and give them an even bigger counter rally than the first. If you can come, or can help email.

knoxvilleantiracistaction@yahoo.com

or join our myspace at:

http://www.myspace.com/knoxvilleantiracistaction

Thanks to Three Rivers Earth First!, Mountain Justice Summer, Katuah Earth First!, Knoxville Anti Racist Action, Katuah Anti Racist Action and the clown block for utterly wrecking the failed attempt of the Nazis to get a foothold in Knoxville. In one day Three Rivers Earth First!ers posted over 1000 anti racist fliers all over Knoxville recruiting people to come, this is just one example of all the work and effort that went in to creatively and nonviolently rejecting the VNNers out of Knoxville.

Judge: Iowa Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

"DES MOINES n Gay rights advocates won a major victory Thursday when a Polk County District Judge ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the Iowa Constitution."

This is a major development and I need to read the decision but it sounds like the ban on marriage was a form of sex discrimination. Of course, I am sure the decision will be appealed. We'll just have to wait and see for the next round.

read more | digg story

YouTube, CNN, Swedish TV, and Me

So I'm at Murky doing what I always do which is read, research, and write when the owner announced that a Swedish news team will be interviewing and videotaping patrons in regards to the upcoming CNN / YouTube Democratic debates.

So just 10 minutes ago, I was interviewed by the Swedish reporter, with a camera crew hovering over my table with my laptop, sipping my chai latte, and talking about virtual communities, politics, and the debates tonight. How weird is that?!? Afterwards, the reporter said I was sure to have lots of fans in Sweden. WOOT! I'm almost famous!!!

However, my only regret is that I couldn't catch her name or the station. It was Swedish after all, and I didn't want to press it after the second time or else I would look like an idiot. But throughout the interview, I had only one thought ...

I AM SO GLAD I SHAVED TODAY! ^.^

Chungs Update

I came across another good article by Marc Fisher, columnist for The Washington Post, a video link of a press conference, and a discussion also led by Marc Fisher.

UPDATE: I like this Marc Fisher and I'd forgotten that he was among the few, if not the only one, who covered the recent appointment of Michelle Rhee to the top position of the D.C. school system of simmering Black-Korean tensions with the recent laundry pants case. Here's his article and check out the subsequent reactions to his post. It's very predictable.

D.C.'s Black-Koren Dynamic: A Simmering Tension
by Marc Fisher, Metro Columnist

What do the $54 million pants man, Roy Pearson, and the new D.C. schools superintendent, Michelle Rhee, have in common?

Their moments in the news in recent days have lifted the lid off a cauldron of black-Korean tensions. This relationship has a volatile history in Washington, running back to 1986, when Rev. Willie Wilson of Union Temple Baptist Church famously led a boycott of an Asian-American grocer in Southeast who had supposedly disrespected a black customer. The episode culminated in Wilson saying, after being asked if his demands were inflaming racial tensions, that if he and his followers hadn't forgiven the Asian shopkeeper, "we would have cut his head off and rolled it down the street."

Interestingly, until the start of last week's trial, the mail on the Pants Man was focused almost entirely on issues of abusing the legal system, the eternal battle over tort reform, and how the District could possibly have such a fellow serving as an administrative law judge. But once the trial started--and most importantly, once the first news photos of Pearson started appearing online, on TV and in the paper--the tenor of reader reaction changed dramatically. I still heard plenty of outrage about how Pearson was tormenting the owners of the dry cleaners and wasting the court's resources, but now that it was widely known that Pearson is black, a good chunk of the mail shifted to matters of ethnic rivalry.

Similarly, the surprise announcement that Rhee, a Korean-American woman, would become the first non-black chief of the D.C. school system in nearly half a century immediately engendered all manner of comment about supposed antipathy toward blacks by Koreans--all this from people who know nothing of Rhee's background, approach or personality.

I'll spare you the comments that consist solely of racist vitriol, but I think there's value in looking at the texture of the incidents and complaints that readers report about encounters with Korean merchants. I doubt that these incidents are much different from those that could be catalogued about any dry cleaner, no matter the owner's ethnicity, but here's one of the more thoughtful comments I've received from readers who believe the pants case is more about black-Korean tensions than anything else:

"The main thing here is the strained relationship between Korean businesses and Blacks with regard to customer service or lack thereof," wrote Keith Jones, a legal assistant at a major Washington company. He told of an Asian-owned grocery in his D.C. neighborhood where he says the owner routinely sells coffee creamer that has passed its sell-by date, as well as a dry cleaner that he says charges exorbitant rates.

"It is clear that the Korean merchants have a lot of businesses in urban America and that they are unified," Jones writes. "Blacks in these urban settings, for the most part, rely solely on Korean establishments in their neighborhoods. This is due to access and ultimately, their socio-economic status. I am certainly not saying that this justifies the Pearson case, especially not the amount. From the examples I gave from my own experience, however, one can only imagine what a Black person experiences daily dealing with the Koreans."

And here's an account from Rosemary Reed Miller, the longtime owner of Toast & Strawberries, which was one of the city's best-regarded boutiques, talking about her experience with a Korean dry cleaner:

"I had brought in a pair of pants which had a small spot. They cleaned that area, but left a larger spot on another area of the pant. When I pointed that out (unfortunately, I didn't see the spot until after I had paid), they told me that the large spot was on the pant when I brought the pants in. They wouldn't give me my money back, and implied that it would be another fee to get out the second spot. I decided to walk.

"When you're in business--and I had a small shop, Toast and Strawberries for over 20 years--I know you can't be perfect with everyone, but this I thought was unreasonable. I've lived long enough to share [Pearson's] pain. I am African American, but didn't sue. However, I feel as though I should have sued that cleaner even though my silk pants had a modest price tag. I've fought for the civil rights of all people all of my life. People need their rights to be addressed, and the people who 'wrong' them should be educated not to do something like that again to another person.

"I appreciate his suing on my behalf. Obviously $60+ million is 'over the top.' And I understand that
Korean-Americans have made efforts to be 'nicer' to their Afro-American clientele, but I think these cases are examples of their needing to be more sensitive. If they had listened with more understanding in the beginning,
and paid him for his 'lost' pants, I would hope that Mr. Pearson wouldn't have had such a strong sense of outrage."

Why do the kinds of poor customer service that might otherwise result in a grumble or a decision to shop elsewhere morph into ethnic tension in the black-Korean dynamic? This has been the subject of considerable study since the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which some Korean grocers took up arms against black rioters, and the years that followed, when some rappers took after Korean merchants in their lyrics? (Warning: That link goes to a song with R-rated language.)

In part, this divide is a continuation of black-Jewish tensions that developed when many shops in American ghetto neighborhoods were run by immigrant Jews. But there's an additional element that many of the academics end up focusing on: It's a culture clash between two groups with very different behavioral mores.

Contrast a Korean social manner in which merchants may put change down on a counter rather than touch a customer's hand, or an infelicitous command of English that can make a shopkeeper seem distant and even disrespectful, against an African-American culture in which strangers are expected to make eye contact and acknowledge one another in a respectful exchange. Here's a black writer's perspective on this, and here's a Korean writer's view of a similar situation.

Did Roy Pearson sue the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners, because they are Korean immigrants? There's no evidence of that. Will the rank and file of the D.C. school system refuse to give Michelle Rhee a chance to succeed because she is Korean-American? Certainly most people are better than that. But in both cases, the noise around the black-Korean tension is loud enough to make hard situations much harder, and that's worth keeping a close eye on.

NOTHING!!!

That's what a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled against Roy Pearson in his $54 million dollar suit against the Chung family. The Washington Post has a great article that includes a link to the court opinion. Apparently, Pearson called forth several witnesses to testify and one of them described the Chungs as "Nazis." Pretty strong words to use against your local laundry, and definitely not a comedic description like, for example, "The Soup Nazi" in Seinfeld. Judge Judith Bartnoff adeptly rebuked each of the witnesses and their testimonies, but I check it out in full because they can be read as narratives to be deconstructed. Aside from the dramatic use and intent of the witness, I want to know what would compel someone to describe the Chungs as "Nazis."

It's such a bizarre case when I first heard about it months ago, but unfortunately, there's the distinct possibility that Pearson will file an appeal. The Chung family will have a donation drive to support their legal expenses because their savings have been depleted as a result of this idiot.

Plaintiff Gets Nothing in $54M Case of Missing Pants
by Henri E. Cauvin and Debbi Wilgoren

The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out this morning what he's going to get for all his troubles.

Nothing.

In a verdict that surprised no one, except perhaps the plaintiff himself, a D.C. Superior Court judge denied Roy Pearson the big payday he claimed was his due.

Delivering her decision in writing, Judge Judith Bartnoff wrote 23 pages dissecting and dismissing Pearson's claim that he was defrauded by the owners of Custom Cleaners and their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute," the ruling said. " . . . The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever."

It was a pointed rebuke of Pearson's claim, and came with an order to pay the cleaners' court costs. But even bigger troubles may loom for Pearson.

Financially, he could soon be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred by the owners of Customer Cleaners. Attorneys for the Chungs have said they will seek such payments, as well as sanctions against Pearson for bringing the lawsuit. Bartnoff said in her ruling that she would decide those issues after both sides have filed their motions, counter-motions and legal briefs.

Professionally, Pearson could find himself out of his $96,000-a-year job as an administrative law judge for the District government.

All that is certain right now is that he won't be getting the multi-million dollar payout he demanded when he filed suit in 2005 against Soo Chung and her husband, the owners of Custom Cleaners.

No one, not even Pearson argued that his pants were actually worth $54 million. The whole suit had cost just over a thousands dollars, and letting out the waist, as Pearson had asked the cleaners to do, was only going to cost him $10.50.

But this case -- decried by both trial lawyers and the defense bar -- was, to Pearson, about far more than the pair of pants.

It was about safeguarding the rights of every consumer in the District who, Pearson argued, might fall prey to signs like those once posted in Custom Cleaners. Satisfaction was in fact not guaranteed, Pearson argued, and his own experience put the lie to the supposed promise.

For years, Pearson had been a customer of Custom Cleaners, the only dry cleaners in easy walking distance of his home in the Northeast Washington neighborhood of Fort Lincoln. Even after a squabble several years ago over another pair of lost pants, Pearson continued to patronize the Bladensburg Road NE business.

So when Pearson was hired in April 2005 to be an administrative law judge and needed to have all of his suit trousers altered, he went to Custom Cleaners to have the work done.

Until he landed the judgeship, Pearson had been out of work. Strapped for cash and running up close to his limit on his credit cards, he brought his pants in one or two at a time to avoid maxing out his credit.

On May 3, he brought in the pants he planned to wear three days later. But on May 5, the pants were not ready, and the next day, May 6, they were nowhere to be found.

A week later Soo Chung found what she said were the missing pants. But Pearson said they were not the pants he had left to be altered. Not only was the pattern different, but the pants proffered as his had of all things, cuffs. Only once in his adult life, he said, had he worn cuffed pants, and never, he suggested, would he have so defiled his treasured Hickey Freeman suits.

Pearson demanded $1,150 to buy a new suit. When that didn't fly with the Chungs, Pearson swung into action, filing a lawsuit that would eventually make him the talk of the town and fodder for late-night comedy.

Along the way, he rejected offers to settle, first for $3,000 , then for $4,600 and finally for $12,000. A judge headed off Pearson's efforts to turn the case into a sort of sweeping class-action suit and tried to rein in his "excessive" demands for documents. But the judge found he could not simply dismiss the claim, and that meant Roy L. Pearson Jr. vs. Soo Chung et al. was going to trial.

By the time it did, on June 12, it was in the hands, a new judge, Bartnoff, and it lived up to its billing. Media hordes descended, including television crews from Korea, where the Chungs were born. CNN updated its viewers frequently.

A dozen witnesses testified. One, called on behalf of the plaintiff, compared the dry cleaners to the Nazis.

When Pearson testified, he lost his composure and began to cry.

When she took the witness stand, Soo Chung did the same.

Hate Crimes Bill (H.R. 1592) Passes ...

... in the House but the President has already signaled an intent to veto it before it even reaches his desk. There's a good synopsis on CNN.com about it. The bill would essentially expand federal powers in assisting state and local law enforcement in prosecuting hate crimes, and, add sexual orientation as a protected category.

Under the House bill, the definition of a hate crime would expand to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Local law enforcement officials would be allowed to apply for federal grants to solve such crimes, and federal agents would be given broader authority to assist state and local police. Federal sentencing guidelines would also be stiffened.

This is why this bill has been lagging in Congress for over 6 years. A fairly strong coalition of evangelical, socially conservative, Christian fundamentalists, who form President Bush's political base, have been successful in preventing the passage of this bill from day one. And get this: they believe that such a bill would threaten their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and public expression -- that is, their right to publicly espouse their vitriolic attacks on gays, lesbians, and sexual minorities. Give me a break!!!

As the blog, Town Called Dobson, simply asks:

When did murdering gays become religious expression?

"The Style, But Not the Substance" by Baraki Kitwana

OK, one last one and that's it. But I came across this article by way of Oliver Wang at Poplicks. It's an excellent piece by Baraki Kitwana at Newsday about Imus, black popular culture, and consumerism. It's one critical analysis that hits it on the mark.

The Style, But Not the Substance
Baraki Kitwana, Newsweek

When Don Imus put his foot in his mouth on the air last week with a dirty and derogatory reference to young black women, he was articulating a message that had been clearly voiced by Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh and countless others long before him. Ditto the white law students at the University of Connecticut who donned big booties and blackface this year on Martin Luther King Day, as well as the rash of undergraduates across the country, from Michigan to South Carolina, who somehow imagine that hosting "pimp and ho parties"is a good idea.

That message is this: The aesthetics of hip-hop culture - from the language and clothing to the style and sensibility - can be absorbed into American popular culture like any other disposable product without any effort or responsibility on the part of the consumer.

It is an idea in part ushered in by the marginal voices of black youth themselves, youth so eager to be visible that they gave up far too much of their identity in the interest of partnering with the corporate music industry. Together, and all the while green-lighted by the Federal Communications Commission, a handful of rap artists packaged and commodified rap music (not to be confused with hip-hop culture lived daily by countless youth around the globe at a local level, from graffiti and break dancing to deejaying, spoken word poetry and political activism.).

Encouraged by the quick bucks, this partnership was quickly reinforced by additional peddlers of one-dimensional images of young black men as violent, and women as oversexed bitches and hos - from filmmakers and television producers to music video directors, comedians and beyond.

These snake oil salesmen marvel at the gravitational pull that hip-hop exerts over American youth and see dollar signs. Drawing necessary distinctions between the various lifestyles (street culture, prison culture and the traditional culture of black America) that converge on the national stage isn't even an afterthought.

The result is what cultural critic Greg Tate addressed in his 2005 book, "Everything but the Burden." That is, far too many American consumers of black popular culture don't take the time to decode the complexity of black life that produces a 50 Cent, a Jay-Z or a Russell Simmons, multi-millionaires all, who peddle rap music riddled with the language of the street.

When I interviewed Jay-Z as I was completing my book "Why White Kids Love Hip-Hop: Wankstas, Wiggers, Wannabes and the New Reality of Race in America," he put it this way: "Hip-hop is not clothing or a place you go, this is people's lives, people's culture."

But who picks up the slack when this gets lost on the consumer?

Imus - and his defenders who claim they learned this language from hip-hop - are only partly correct, even as they are wholly dishonest. They would do themselves and the country a service by owning up to at least three facts. 1) Imus took liberty with a culture that he didn't fully understand, and when he got called on it, rather than coming clean, he pointed the finger at hip-hop to take the weight. 2) Clearly those far more powerful than rappers are complicit in bringing pimp and ho talk to the American mainstream. 3) If indeed Imus is a hip-hop fan, innocently consuming its language and aesthetics, that doesn't remove him from the responsibility to understand hip-hop cultural and political roots in all their complexity.

Rather than an ignorant fan chopping it up in the living room with one of his buddies, he's a public figure whose voice is heard by millions. His responsibility then is even greater.

That is why he had to be removed from his radio and cable TV networks. Lest folks inside the hip-hop activist community who were calling for such be deemed hypocrites, let the record show that media justice advocates such as Davey D Cook (of the organization daveyd.com), Rosa Clementes (of R.E.A.C.H. Hip-Hop) and Lisa Fagers (of industryears.com) have for years been very loudly challenging the music industry and rappers to raise the bar.

Hip-hop's internal criticism is something that a 2007 study by the Black Youth Project recently documented. In a survey of 1,600 young people it found that the "overwhelming majority" of young people agree that rap music videos contain too many references to sex, and "the majority" agree rap music videos portray black women and black men in bad or offensive ways.

Maybe the flak over Don Imus' mean-spirited, sexist and racist comments can help to raise the volume of those voices. Our failure to hear them, like our failure to check Imus, can mean the difference between our ability to escape America's old racial politics and our historical tendency to drown in them.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

I came back to see, The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006), with a couple of friends and it is absolutely stunning. Set in 1920 Ireland, the story is about two brothers drawn together in rebellion against British colonization, but torn apart when a peace treaty is signed. One brother sees the treaty as inherently unjust; the other, a clearer road to independence. It's a tough movie to watch because of the physical violence and torture, but also because the politics of nationalism is so deeply complex and contradictory. This no cookie cutter movie, or your typical Hollywood flick, as the director, Ken Loach, and Paul Laverty, the writer, do a superb job weaving an intricate political story. It's not superficial nor cliched. It is powerful in its depth and grasp of the complexity of life under colonial, and postcolonial, Ireland. There was a beautiful scene that takes place after the treaty is signed and the room is filled with discussions about whether to support it. The discussions were layered and the individual aspirations and dreams of a free and independent Ireland were entangled, and forced to confront, the need to be a functioning nation, even if it was not wholly free. The exchange was simply brilliant, thoughtful, and contentious. I really liked how the movie portrayed nationalists intelligent men and women who made extraordinarily difficult decisions. It's too easy to dismiss the men, women, and children of these political movements as uneducated and irrational reactionaries who are no better than common criminals. What the movie has done is to demonstrate complexity. And it was fantastic!

The Day After Imus

So now in the aftermath of Imus and his racially and sexually derogatory epithets, his subsequent firings from NBC and CBS, the Rutgers Women's Basketball team press conference, the fans, the outrage, the marvelous coalition of support for the students, the hope that this painful episode will set a new standard for media responsibility, we now turn our attention to ... RAP MUSIC?!?!?

Oh shit. I heard the report on CNN Headline News this morning that there's a greater concerted effort to now target rap/hip hop artists like 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, and others. The argument, ironically, seemed to have come from Imus himself when he appeared on Al Sharpton's radio show. He commented that he did not get the phrase on his own. That it's origins are in the very worst of rap/hip hop. In other words, he wasn't saying anything new or different from what rappers were saying in the music. I know it's a cop out, and it doesn't hold water. I just can't believe that people are buying into that point. I know elder African American leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and many others for different reasons, have always had a problem with rap and it's derogatory portrayals of black men and women. But this is a fairly reactionary and conservative critique about the politics of representation and culture -- that the causes of misoygny, homophobia, or racism, etc., can be traced to an offensive representation be it film, picture, television, or even words. The solution then is simple: remove the representation from our public sphere.

This is highly problematic on so many levels. There's no talk about culture in a substantive manner. There's nothing about patterns of economic inequality, or even a commentary about the state of our education. Or worse, once again, it's a "black problem" that they created, that they must now solve, but what's different this time is now it's a fairly diverse coalition of interests willing to go further than before. It's being framed as a personal moral issue and that is worrisome. But as a political logic, it certainly makes sense to a lot of people who work on a simple map of power relations: cause and effect.

But what bugs me the most about this development is the fact that Imus somehow was able to redirect the focus and energy from himself to rap and hip hop. Maybe not by himself solely, but this episode and the mess he created certainly facilitated it. In the end, I can't help but think that cowboy is going to have the last laugh.

Soulforce "Equality Ride" at Patrick Henry College

The Washington Post has a video and article about Soulforce "equality riders" who travel to conservative evangelical colleges who discriminate against the LGBT community. What they do is simply walk onto campus and start an open dialogue with the students. Some colleges accept the invitation to a dialogue, others like Patrick Henry College refuse them to enter the grounds of the campus. Instead, they have the police standing by to arrest anyone from the group who attempts to enter.

I loved reading this article and there's a great video of the riders arriving on Patrick Henry College.

Article: "Young, Gay Christians, On a Bumpy Bus Ride" by Hanna Rosin
Video: "Equality Ride" Hits a Roadblock

Did I Read That Right? Imus is Gone?!

Wow he's really fired! I'd never thought it would go this far, but I guess, as one of my students remarked, this was a "perfect storm."

I'm still in a state of disbelief, surprise, and awe. Go figure.

From SFGate.com: "Don Imus Loses Job in Stunning Fall" (David Bauder)

Don Imus' racist remarks got him fired by CBS on Thursday, the finale to a stunning fall for one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters.

Imus was initially suspended for two weeks after he called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" on the air last week. But outrage kept growing and advertisers kept bolting from his CBS radio show and its MSNBC simulcast, which was canceled Wednesday.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Imus, 66, had a long history of inflammatory remarks. But something struck a raw nerve when he targeted the Rutgers team — which includes a class valedictorian, a future lawyer and a musical prodigy — after they lost in the NCAA championship game.

I also liked this article from the NY Times as a reminder of our political obligations: "Our Prejudices, Ourselves" (Harvey Fierstein)

AMERICA is watching Don Imus’s self-immolation in a state of shock and awe. And I’m watching America with wry amusement.

Since I’m a second-class citizen — a gay man — my seats for the ballgame of American discourse are way back in the bleachers. I don’t have to wait long for a shock jock or stand-up comedian to slip up with hateful epithets aimed at me and mine. Hate speak against homosexuals is as commonplace as spam. It’s daily traffic for those who profess themselves to be regular Joes, men of God, public servants who live off my tax dollars, as well as any number of celebrities.

In fact, I get a good chuckle whenever someone refers to “the media” as an agent of “the gay agenda.” There are entire channels, like Spike TV, that couldn’t fill an hour of programming if required to remove their sexist and homophobic content. We’ve got a president and a large part of Congress willing to change the Constitution so they can deprive of us our rights because they feel we are not “normal.”

So I’m used to catching foul balls up here in the cheap seats. What I am really enjoying is watching the rest of you act as if you had no idea that prejudice was alive and well in your hearts and minds.For the past two decades political correctness has been derided as a surrender to thin-skinned, humorless, uptight oversensitive sissies. Well, you anti-politically correct people have won the battle, and we’re all now feasting on the spoils of your victory. During the last few months alone we’ve had a few comedians spout racism, a basketball coach put forth anti-Semitism and several high-profile spoutings of anti-gay epithets.

What surprises me, I guess, is how choosy the anti-P.C. crowd is about which hate speech it will not tolerate. Sure, there were voices of protest when the TV actor Isaiah Washington called a gay colleague a “faggot.” But corporate America didn’t pull its advertising from “Grey’s Anatomy,” as it did with Mr. Imus, did it? And when Ann Coulter likewise tagged a presidential candidate last month, she paid no real price.

In fact, when Bill Maher discussed Ms. Coulter’s remarks on his HBO show, he repeated the slur no fewer than four times himself; each mention, I must note, solicited a laugh from his audience. No one called for any sort of apology from him. (Well, actually, I did, so the following week he only used it once.)

Face it, if a Pentagon general, his salary paid with my tax dollars, can label homosexual acts as “immoral” without a call for his dismissal, who are the moral high and mighty kidding?

Our nation, historically bursting with generosity toward strangers, remains remarkably unkind toward its own. Just under our gleaming patina of inclusiveness, we harbor corroding guts. America, I tell you that it doesn’t matter how many times you brush your teeth. If your insides are rotting your breath will stink. So, how do you people choose which hate to embrace, which to forgive with a wink and a week in rehab, and which to protest? Where’s my copy of that rule book?

Let me cite a non-volatile example of how prejudice can cohabit unchecked with good intentions. I am a huge fan of David Letterman’s. I watch the opening of his show a couple of times a week and have done so for decades. Without fail, in his opening monologue or skit Mr. Letterman makes a joke about someone being fat. I kid you not. Will that destroy our nation? Should he be fired or lose his sponsors? Obviously not.

But I think that there is something deeper going on at the Letterman studio than coincidence. And, as I’ve said, I cite this example simply to illustrate that all kinds of prejudice exist in the human heart. Some are harmless. Some not so harmless. But we need to understand who we are if we wish to change. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess to not only being a gay American, but also a fat one. Yes, I’m a double winner.)

I urge you to look around, or better yet, listen around and become aware of the prejudice in everyday life. We are so surrounded by expressions of intolerance that I am in shock and awe that anyone noticed all these recent high-profile instances. Still, I’m gladdened because our no longer being deaf to them may signal their eventual eradication.

The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.

Harvey Fierstein is an actor and playwright.

Imus Follow-Up

Media Matters, a non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to monitoring and dispelling conservative misinformation in US media, came out with a really awesome timeline over the events leading up to NBC dropping him. Check it out and it's aptly titled "A Week in the Life of Imus in the Morning."

Excerpt:

In the wake of MSNBC's decision to drop its simulcast of the Imus in the Morning radio show, Media Matters for America has prepared the following timeline documenting events from Imus' slur of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" on April 4 to MSNBC's announcement on April 11.

Wednesday, April 4

• On Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus referred to the Scarlet Knights, the Rutgers University women's basketball team -- which is made up of eight African-American and two white players -- as "nappy-headed hos" after executive producer Bernard McGuirk called the team "hard-core hos." Media Matters for America noted Imus' comments at the time.
• The New York Times later noted that "Imus's remarks were picked up ... by the Media Matters for America site," and Salon.com's Jonathan Miller similarly credited Media Matters for posting video of Imus' comments. In an article about MSNBC's decision to drop the show, the Los Angeles Times identified Media Matters as "the liberal media watchdog group that first spotlighted Imus' remark last week." USA Today also reported that Media Matters "originally called attention to Imus' remarks."

WHOA!

I knew the outpouring of support for the students and anger against Imus was tremendous, but I never thought I would see something like this!

NBC News Drops Imus Show Over Racial Remark

NBC News dropped Don Imus yesterday, canceling his talk show on its MSNBC cable news channel a week after he made a racially disparaging remark about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

I blinked several times just to make sure. CBS Radio is still maintaining their two week suspension, but this is really a major development. Come to think of it, I can't recall a major media personality losing his job in this manner (and thank goodness for that because if there were more I think I'd go nuts!). I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh and his idiotic episode on ESPN awhile ago. He still has a job and he's still on the airwaves though on a limited degree. I'm talking about a clear cut, slam dunk, career-ending firing. I do remember ages ago about Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder losing his job as a television sports announcer for CBS in 1988 for saying racist remarks about the athletic ability of blacks as a product of selective breeding during slavery:

Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder is fired after 12 years as a CBS football analyst for remarks he makes to a Washington, D.C, television reporter about the physical abilities of black and white athletes. Among other things, Snyder, 70, says the black athlete is "bred to be the better athlete because, this goes all the way to the Civil War when ... the slave owner would breed his big woman so that he would have a big black kid." Snyder later apologizes for the comments but his career as a broadcaster is over.

NBC dropping Imus is an important political statement. That these kinds of remarks for radio and television will not be condoned, and more importantly, there will be real severe consequences. After all, if the average person uttering these remarks at the workplace will get fired, why not someone like Imus? There are professional standards of conduct that exist and there are limitations to what you can do.

So why am I still bothered by this? Something is troubling me and I can't exactly pinpoint it. I know I do consider this a powerful demonstration against this kind of patently offensive conduct. It was also an amazing national response against Imus, and it was a fairly diverse response even though all we see are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But there were whites, Latinos, Asians, women, parents, children, religious groups, and the like all speaking out against Imus. It was a broad and beautiful cross-section of America that came out. And I'm aware of the fact, and question, if the same thing would've happened if the players were not black, but white, or Latino, or Asian? It's a legitimate question, but it's not the one that's been bothering me.

And forget this nonsense about how this is a blow to free speech crap. It's beyond that now.

But something still does not sit well with me. It's that feeling I get when something that should be obvious to me but isn't. It's what cultural studies scholar, Stuart Hall, once described as "in plain view, but out of sight." And right now, I can't see it ... just yet.

"Trash Talk Radio" by Gwen Ifill

Just adding another excellent article about the verbal attack from "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" against the Rutgers women's basketball team. I like this piece, "Trash Talk Radio," from Gwen Ifill of the NY Times who tells it like it is. That the "cinderella story," one that can be shared by everyone especially from those who have been there, was defiled by a 60-year-old relic who's rants and raves are as anachronistic as they are patently insulting and offensive:

Let's say a word about the girls. The young women with the musical names. Kia and Epiphanny and Matee and Essence. Katie and Dee Dee and Rashidat and Myia and Brittany and Heather.

The Scarlet Knights of Rutgers University had an improbable season, dropping four of their first seven games, yet ending up in the N.C.A.A. women’s basketball championship game. None of them were seniors. Five were freshmen.

In the end, they were stopped only by Tennessee’s Lady Vols, who clinched their seventh national championship by ending Rutgers’ Cinderella run last week, 59-46. That’s the kind of story we love, right? A bunch of teenagers from Newark, Cincinnati, Brooklyn and, yes, Ogden, Utah, defying expectations. It’s what explodes so many March Madness office pools.

But not, apparently, for the girls. For all their grit, hard work and courage, the Rutgers girls got branded “nappy-headed ho’s” — a shockingly concise sexual and racial insult, tossed out in a volley of male camaraderie by a group of amused, middle-aged white men. The “joke” — as delivered and later recanted — by the radio and television personality Don Imus failed one big test: it was not funny. The serial apologies of Mr. Imus, who was suspended yesterday by both NBC News and CBS Radio for his remarks, have failed another test. The sincerity seems forced and suspect because he’s done some version of this several times before.

I know, because he apparently did it to me.

I was covering the White House for this newspaper in 1993, when Mr. Imus’s producer began calling to invite me on his radio program. I didn’t return his calls. I had my hands plenty full covering Bill Clinton.

Soon enough, the phone calls stopped. Then quizzical colleagues began asking me why Don Imus seemed to have a problem with me. I had no idea what they were talking about because I never listened to the program.

It was not until five years later, when Mr. Imus and I were both working under the NBC News umbrella — his show was being simulcast on MSNBC; I was a Capitol Hill correspondent for the network — that I discovered why people were asking those questions. It took Lars-Erik Nelson, a columnist for The New York Daily News, to finally explain what no one else had wanted to repeat.

“Isn’t The Times wonderful,” Mr. Nelson quoted Mr. Imus as saying on the radio. “It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.”

I was taken aback but not outraged. I’d certainly been called worse and indeed jumped at the chance to use the old insult to explain to my NBC bosses why I did not want to appear on the Imus show.

I haven’t talked about this much. I’m a big girl. I have a platform. I have a voice. I’ve been working in journalism long enough that there is little danger that a radio D.J.’s juvenile slap will define or scar me. Yesterday, he began telling people he never actually called me a cleaning lady. Whatever. This is not about me.

It is about the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. That game had to be the biggest moment of their lives, and the outcome the biggest disappointment. They are not old enough, or established enough, to have built up the sort of carapace many women I know — black women in particular — develop to guard themselves against casual insult.

Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’s program? That’s for them to defend, and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will. To his credit, Mr. Imus told the Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday he realizes that, this time, he went way too far.

Yes, he did. Every time a young black girl shyly approaches me for an autograph or writes or calls or stops me on the street to ask how she can become a journalist, I feel an enormous responsibility. It’s more than simply being a role model. I know I have to be a voice for them as well.

So here’s what this voice has to say for people who cannot grasp the notion of picking on people their own size: This country will only flourish once we consistently learn to applaud and encourage the young people who have to work harder just to achieve balance on the unequal playing field.

Let’s see if we can manage to build them up and reward them, rather than opting for the cheapest, easiest, most despicable shots.

Gwen Ifill is a senior correspondent for “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” and the moderator of “Washington Week.”

Is He Gone Yet?

So while reading the news today I was overcome with dozens of posts and articles regarding radio newstalk host, Imus, and his obviously imbecilic and shallow characterization of the Rutgers Women's basketball team. Talk about serious trouble now that he's been suspended for two weeks, Al Sharpton is on his case, and the usual corporate pinch of withdrawing sponsorship of his show. Since then, he's apologized for his remarks ... profusely ... to the point that every other statement is an apology. It's as Eugene Robinson says in his op-ed piece from The Washington Post: "Imus is in full self-flagellation mode."

Self-flagellation: (noun) 1. The act of severely criticizing oneself. 2. The act of punishing oneself. 3. A form of punishment by a whip, strap, or rope.


Well, not fully. I haven't seen the whips, straps, or ropes yet. But I'm counting on something grander like his resignation or cancellation of his show. Of late, and thanks to internet sites like YouTube, no one can ever get away with uttering derogatory and offensive statements without being punished: Kenneth Eng's anti-black editorial, Tim Hardaway's anti-gay comment, Michael Richards' "n-word" outburst, and so on. No one can ever get away or claim a defense when the proof of their words is broadcast throughout cyberspace, and it's literally there in perpetuity for others to see. Because of the internet, no one will ever forget what happened. What also makes Imus's comments so out of line is that his target was the Rutgers women's basketball team. That seems to be a "disproportionate attack" (if such a thing exists) because they are simply students, playing on a title contending team, and representing their university on the national stage. You don't put students down or ridicule them for failure when they have been the most responsible and dedicated role models. You can tear apart students when they act stupidly by their own initiative. But when a nationally syndicated talk show host throws the first punch without provocation, then that is simply tasteless. I can also see how an event like this will bring the campus community like Rutgers closer together. I just wish it was under different circumstances than this.

Some articles of interest regarding the controversy. It's funny how "... in the morning" seems to be a popular title phrase for the articles:

SFGate.com: Editorial, "Aiming at Imus"I do agree in a sense about how this will simply blow over. But I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh's explosive "social engineering" comment on ESPN regarding Donovan McNabb's performance for the Eagles. He was ousted rather quickly. I will point out though that it also depends who's being picked on and ridiculed. I still think it's easier to get away with anti-Asian, anti-Latino, and anti-gay commentary than anti-black. That's evidenced with the number of tv and radio personalities like Ann Coulter, for instance, with her lurid use of anti-gay epithets to describe Democratic politicians.

The only thing sorrier than this all-too-frequent cycle of public offense and recovery is the fact that Imus, who shouldn't be talking about anyone else's hair, won't really suffer for his foul mouth. His show is too popular with the right people -- namely highbrow-ish journalists and politicians, who wouldn't be able to expound at length about their wonkish positions to a mass audience in any other way -- for him to stay in trouble. This is rotten, because if he were a politician, he'd be out of a job. The best statement Imus' guests could make would be to avoid him.

Washington Post: Eugene Robinson, "Misogyny in the Morning"
I like Robinson's take on this issue and focusing on gender and race, which everyone seems to subtly acknowledge the gendered politics, but this piece is the first that I've read that makes it explicit. I also like how he analyzes Imus' show as trying to cater to low brow and high brow interests.

If anything, Imus is more substantive and less offensive than many of his competitors. In a sense, that's one reason for his current predicament. Prominent politicians and other notables regularly call in to his show, and sometimes actual news is made -- which brings him greater scrutiny. You can be a shock jock or you can be a respected interviewer, but you can't be both.

Matthew Yglesias: blogger, "Racism in the Morning"
I came across this blog awhile ago and there's some pretty good discussions. In this case, it's the usual example of fight hate speech with more speech which is plainly non-sensical to me.

The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell

I picked up a new book by Mary Doria Russell titled The Sparrow (1997). It's another science fiction novel that I randomly chose when I was in Barnes & Nobles the other day. Well not totally random. It was after some productive writing on my last chapter on the development of classes of unprotected speech, and the formation of "true threats" doctrine in Watts v. United States (1969). I concede it sounds boring, and it's certainly no page turner, but it's what I do. Anyways, I decided to head over to B&N in Clarendon just to browse and give my brain some down time. I head over to the new releases, both fiction and non-fiction. If there's anything about B&N or Borders, it's the fact that they are all prearranged and ordered. It's like buying a mocha frappucino from any Starbuck's anywhere: you know it's the same at every one of them.

I make my way upstairs to the fiction and science fiction section. Again, the new releases are laid out prominently in its own section and I casually glance at the rows and rows of new books. I don't read a lot of fantasy novels. Stories about dragons, demons, sorcery, witchcraft, ancient kingdoms, bloodlines, blood feuds, a powerful sword, an even powerful ring, a king, a queen, a prince, a princess, a boy/girl to be king/queen, and every imaginable variation, does not appeal to me all that much. Don't get me wrong. Science fiction also has its conventions that defines the genre: aliens, space ships, planets, wars, photon torpedoes, transporters, warp drive, FTL, galaxies, universes, parallel realities, physics, non-physics or pseudo-science, first contact, nuclear holocaust, post-nuclear life, alien invasions, human rebellion, and so on. I find science fiction to be more appealing than fantasy although there are two that come to mind.

First is Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell (2004), a wondeful book about war and magic in 16th century England. Not only is it a solid narrative, but it is written like an intellectual history book complete with footnotes, discussions about the intellectual tradition of magic, and so on. The second author is Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy: The Golden Compass; The Subtle Knife; and The Amber Spyglass (2003). It's an amazing fantastic story of children and their "familiars" caught in a horrific battle in parallel universes. There's even J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter series, but I digress ...

So I was browsing through the books, and to make an unnecessarily long post short I was intrigued by the cover on Mary Doria Russell's book. It's not superficial at all. It's a version of first impressions. I like it, or I don't, and luckily the cover was very attractive and unique that I liked it. I later found out on reading Russell's website about the origins of the cover art pieces as well: a cool mash of stars from the ceiling of Scrovegni Chapel (c. 1305), and birds from Saint Francis Preaching to the Birds (c. 1297-99). So picking up the book, I read the description on the back cover, seeing if I can recognize the names or publications. All mainstream ones which tells me the general public seems to like it. I think of it as locating the readership more than whether it really is a great book to read. So after scanning the back, I look to see if there's an author bio page: she was a paleoanthropologist. An academic? Now it's quite compelling. I turn to the first page to read her style and a bit more about the story.

I was hooked.

The Jesuit scientists went to learn, not to proselytize. They went so that they might come to know and love God's other children. They went for the reason Jesuits have always gone to the farthest frontiers of human exploration. They went ad majorem Dei gloriam: for the greater glory of God.

They meant no harm.

In short, the book is about a disastrous first contact mission to a new planet with an alien civilization by four Jesuit missionaries.

My first thought was, "What?!?" thinking about the near impossibility of the idea that the Church could organize such a venture. But then I thought about it more and realized they already did. I immediately drew upon the history of the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and their colonial and imperial projects throughout the ages. The early history of the Jesuits was one of "first contacts."

That got me thinking.

And that's how I decided to buy the book. If there's any theme that I'll read in fiction or science fiction and fantasy novels, it's anything dealing with the Church, especially the Jesuits. Religion, theology, matters of faith, science fiction, fantasy, and, of course, politics will surely catch my eye; I'll always pick it up and give it a short read. That's certainly a lot more than all the other books that I pass by on the shelves.

And so far, I'm enjoying the book. :D

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*

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.

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....

I Did It ...

No I did not finish my chapter. But I did reserve my copy of J.K. Rowling's final book in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, due out on July 21, 2007. I wasn't a true Harry Potter fan when Book 1 was released. As a matter of fact, I didn't become an avid reader and fan until Book 3. The reason? I had heard over the blogs that a Christian fundamentalist group was staging an anti-Harry Potter rally somewhere in Philadelphia. That the book was heretical and blasphemous and yadda yadda. The rally ended with a book burning of J.K. Rowling's works.

Now, I don't care much about anyone's religious affiliation. I grew up Catholic and I was educated by Jesuits in high school. I'm not a devout Catholic like others, but I do recognize and live with its influence.

But of all the things anyone could ever do, book burning is a huge no-no. It's anti-intellectual, and fascist. But, in a way, I'm glad because I've always found that 99.9% of whatever organized religion condemns, I will generally love especially if it's coming from the Catholic Church. And I love reading J.K. Rowling's fantastic world of Harry Potter.