Embryo of Philosophy

( Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure )



Now, there are a lot of fear-mongering myths out there about hate crimes legislation. Let's put those myths to rest.

( Preaching the Gospel Would be Against the Law! (And Other Hate Crimes Myths) )



Perhaps the most pervasive objection is that of the "thought crime." It shouldn't matter why you kill someone, just the crime itself. That's exactly right. That's why we always judge murder on the exact level. It doesn't matter if it was premeditated, accidental, or in self-defense. Everyone who kills someone else gets judged the exact same way.

Except that's not true.

If I'm ever arrested for murder, if anyone argues that it was premeditated I'm going to scream "thought crime". Why does it matter what was going through my head when I did it? My civil liberties are being violated!

And I'd like to say that hate crimes do terrorize an entire group of people. When I learned that Angie Zapata had been murdered not far from where I live, it scared me. When I hear that transgender people have a one in 12 chance of being murdered (the national average is about a one in 18,000 chance of being murdered), that scares me. When two Boulder citizens were gay bashed within days of each other, it scared me. ate crimes are bigger than the one person attacked. They send a message: if you are Black/gay/disabled/Jewish/whatever we will hurt you.

Of course, as mentioned in the last article, hate crime laws have been on the books since 1969. It's only now that they're being expanded to include GLBT people that there's an uproar. Hmm, I wonder why that might be?

There's just one more step before this becomes law, and Obama has previously said that he supports the bill.

Oh, and can I just congratulate the Democrats on actually using their brains to get this thing passed? And I thought they had forgotten how to do that!

This week is Banned Books Week. I like to celebrate by reading banned book. This year's choice is The Great Gatsby. Yeah, it's a little embarrassing that I haven't read it before, but it's shocking and shameful what I have yet to read.

If you want to read a banned book to celebrate, it won't take much effort. One of the top ten challenged books for 2008 was And Tango Makes Three, a children's picture book about two male penguins at the New York City's Central Park Zoo who who hatched an egg together. I'm reluctant to use human words for non-human animals, but let's face it, they're gay penguins. You can imagine how well the book goes over with the religious right. So make a statement: read a picture book.

Go here for the ten top challenged titles, which includes His Dark Materials and Scary Stories. You can also go here for more information. It's absolutely ridiculous, some of the books that have been banned and challenged. Also, people who want to ban To Kill a Mockingbird based on racist language are really missing the point. One of the main points of the book is the evils of racism. How is supposed to do that without showing that racism? And people who want to ban Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry for the same reasons are missing the point even more. It's about a Black family in the 1930's who interact with white people. Should we sanitize history by removing hateful language and actions? What a good way to hide the fact that white people have been racist fuckheads throughout American history. Or should books about Black people that take place prior to 1980 or so just never be written? I really don't think that's the solution. (I suppose you could try and write a novel where the Black people never interact with white people, but I'm not sure how possible it would be. Plus, wow, there's a limitation.

Also, people who want to ban any book even mentioning LGBTQ people (or penguins) as "not age appropriate" make me want to kill things. But you could guess that.

I haven't posted about Iran, mostly because I don't really know what to say. I don't have anything insightful to contribute that hasn't already been said.

Because I'm dumb, all I can offer is a selection of links cobbled from my friends list. If nothing else, I can try to make more people aware. I have to say something, because my silence is too damn loud.


A summary of current events in the rallies.

Why you should care and Why I will not let it go (and neither should you) both by one_hoopy_frood. The latter has some "what can I do to help?" links.

There's a live post going on here at ontd_political

There's a move to get Google to change their logo in order to show support.

Apparently, Saturday is going to be a global day of protest. There's information here. There's going to be one in Denver, and luckily, I am not working on Saturday. I encourage people to go. Here's a handy flier.

I've been putting off this post for too long.

On May 28th, two of the hosts of a Sacramento morning radio show called Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning spent over half an hour encouraging and promoting the physical and emotional abuse of transgender and questioning children. No, seriously.

( Read more... )

Well, it feels good to get that off my chest.


EDIT: Carl's Jr/Hardee's and Verizon have also pulled their sponsorship! Yes!

EDIT AGAIN: Well's Fargo is also no longer advertising on KXRQ!

EDIT TAKE THREE: Nissan's pulling their support as well!


RETURN OF THE EDIT: AT&T and McDonald’s are gone too! That's ten big name corporations so far.

I came a cross a very interesting article the other day. Apparently, Keith Olbermann offered to make a donation to Sean Hannity's charity of choice, if Hannity would undergo waterboarding. Hannity didn't take him up on the offer, but another Fox commentator did.

The article is also under the cut. It's short.

( Olbermann's offer to Hannity off the table )


I think this clears things up. People who have been waterboarded consider it torture. And one of those people is a probably-Christian white guy, so his opinions actually count, unlike those Islamic brown people. (EDIT: Er, that last sentence is heavy sarcasm. I think that's obvious, but...)

I think it's time to round up members of the Bush administration and change their minds. And plenty of people in the current government. (No, I am not serious advocating that we round people up and torture them. I'm a Liberal.)

But a good percent of the American people need a wake up call too. Slacktivist AKA Fred Clark is my favorite blogger. He's a liberal Evangelical Christian (no, seriously) who writes about economic inequality, civil rights, and how very crazy the current Evangelic movement is in the U.S. His running critique of the Left Behind book series is one of the most fascinating things on the internet. His latest post is about a recent poll stating that 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants said torture of a suspect could be often or sometimes justified, while 40 percent of the "religiously unaffiliated" held the same stance. Now, while the "religiously unaffiliated" stats are nothing to brag about (Almost half? My god.), they're a damn sight better than the white evangelical Protestants. (For white, non-Hispanic Catholics the rate was 51 percent, and for white mainline Protestants it was 46 percent.) I find this both horrific and darkly amusing. See, plenty of people have defended religion by saying that we need it to define morality. This implies that people without religion must be somehow less moral. But, as it turns out, in the United States, being a white Christians makes you more likely to be a horrible person. So, the next time someone tells me that we can't have morality without God, I'm going to tell them to shove it.

And they said that it couldn't be done.

So, this is where I go fishing through my inbox to find interesting articles.

First off, something I agree with so, so very much.

( 'I Was Raped' Should Horrify -- But Our Culture Has Stripped the Word of Its Power )


And this next article for a healthy daily helping of rage, along with a bit of hope. I disagree with Obama on some things; I'm not always satisfied with his decisions, but thank god we have him instead of another Republican.

( How Bush and Co. Broke the Law to Keep Women from Using Birth Control )

Now, maybe you thought that I was too harsh with that last comment. Just because Bush and his cronies were immoral morons when it came to sexual health doesn't mean that all Republicans are, right? And it's not like I'm impartial. I'm a liberal who believes in equality, and personal liberties, and the First Amendment, and all those other pinko commie things. But if you won't take my word for it, would you listen to Meghan McCain, who's not just a Republican, but John McCain's daughter?

( The GOP Doesn't Understand Sex )

But, I do have some unabashed good news.

( Washington, D.C., Council Approves Recognition of Out-of-State Gay Marriage )

And

( N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill )

And now I feel slightly less guilty about all of my fandom posts. And we are all so edified, aren't we?

I am on the verge of losing my mind. The slightest thing sends me sobbing uncontrollably, I'm nigh constantly nauseous from stress, I keep hyperventilating. It's not pretty.

My grades are just a not pretty. I only have one class that I'm doing truly atrociously in, Spanish; but my grades are slipping all around.

It's hard for me to describe just how insane school makes me. I think I'm just worn down by years of stress and misery every damn semester.

I'm also pissed off because the anti-choice group that goes around colleges bringing huge billboards of bloody fetuses is at CU. I really loathe these people. Not only are they disgustingly manipulative (LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO YOUR DARLING LOVELY INNOCENT BABEEEE), they're outright liars. No, morons/assholes , abortion and breast cancer are in no way related. Then again, they wouldn't know a scientific fact if it bashed them over the head. These people make me want to go out, get pregnant, get an abortion, then send them a graphic description of it, telling them that they inspired me to do it. Of course, I wouldn't actually do this. Think of the time and expense!

Another thing I'd like to do is go up to one them and say that we don't yet live in country where women understand that they are dirty, dirty sluts who shouldn't dare do things like make decisions, but I'm glad to see that they're working on it. I also won't do this, as the resulting confrontation would be both futile and annoying.

These people aren't pro-life. If they were pro-life they would be equally against the death penalty, war, putting animals to sleep when they're old and sick, and the use of pesticides. (They claim that the "right to life" begins at conception. Why doesn't a grasshopper deserve life as much as an newly fertilized egg? The grasshopper has higher cognitive functions.)

So, yes, dealing with them all week hasn't made my mood any better.

I don't think that this is connected to the tragic loss of my "I asked God, and she's pro-choice" button, but it's an annoying coincidence.

But, I don't want you to think that my life is one hundred percent misery. There is some pretty amazing news. On May 19th, I'm getting breast reduction surgery. The doctor also seems much more understanding of what I want than last time I met with her. I printed out some pictures from the Title Nine website to give her an idea of what I'm hoping for. She looked at the picture that I like best and noted that the woman had a smaller frame than I do, and that on me that breast size would look very masculine. I told her that I was just fine with that. My mom chimed in, asking the if the doctor was familiar with "butch" and that that was the look that we were going for. When I assured the doctor that there was no such thing as too small, she wrote it down. So, I'm hoping that things will go well. Dude, it's happening in a month.

I'm hungry, so I'm going to see if I can work up the emotional energy to cook (from a box) and then eat.

Why do people continue to Not Get It? Today's post isn't about stuff that's jaw-droppingly rage inducing, but still makes me go "Argh!"

Yesterday, in my lesbian lit class, we were discussing Stone Butch Blues. Since the book deals with Diné/Navajo culture and transgenderism, it's no surprise that the topic of of third genders within Native American Cultures would come up. The problem came when one woman used the word "berdache." While this is indeed a word used to describe non-gender-conforming native peoples, it's an insulting word, first used by European conquers to insult the people they were destroying. Also, using berdache as a blanket term ignores the multitude of differences across tribes. (I really hate it when I hear something described as a "Native American custom." Which tribe are you talking about? Cheyenne? Arapaho? Iroquois? Mohawk? I demand details!) When I brought this up, I was all but attacked, with the woman insisting that the work should be used for convenience's sake. The professor tried to cool the situation and made a note that perhaps someone should research the history of berdache. Which is exactly what I did. I looked in Transgender Warriors by Leslie Feinberg and Sex Changes by Patrick Califia, and found confirmation for my statement. (I would hope so, considering those books are where I got the information in the first place. But it's nice to have straight textual evidence.) I fully plan to bring this up tomorrow. The professor better have meant it when she said that someone should look into this. I do my research! And my research does not support the "Yay Western Imperialism!" viewpoint.

By the way, a blanket term for gender nonconformity within Native American Cultures that actually used by native people is two-spirit. That's respectful. Of course, if you come across someone who doesn't like the term, you shouldn't use it to describe them. (I shouldn't have to point that out, but.)

Later the same day, in my Christianity and Democracy class, I encountered a different time of privilege. We were discussing Christianity and Democracy by John De Gruchy. Of course, it's severely difficult to discuss the problem knowing that it's highly unlikely that anyone reading this has also read said book. To give you an overview of my issues, I'll just put up my response paper that I wrote for the class.

( Read more... )

All right, there you go. Little more than you strictly needed, but you understand my issues.

There are times when something seems incredibly clear to you, and you're shocked to find that people disagree. This happened in class. Two people thought that De Gruchy wasn't privileging Christianity. That's right, saying that an ideal society would be modeled after the Holy Trinity has nothing to do with concept of Christian supremacy. One woman couldn't see what the problem was. "If you like his ideas," she said, "why does it matter how he expresses them?"

I wonder what it would be like to go through life seeing absolutely nothing oppressive about saying that people not believing in the Christian God is responsible for society's ills, or that God should be a "necessary working hypothesis with regard to science, ethics, or art." It's classic Christian privilege. (Of course, it's possible that the woman wasn't a Christian. There will always be people who defend oppressors without being them. Look at the sheer number of sexist and misogynistic women. But I find it more likely that she's Christian.)

I'm reminded that in the same class, someone expressed the belief that the presidential inauguration wasn't explicitly Christian. Multiple preachers, swearing in the president with his hand on the Bible, and reference to God in the speech, and it's not Christian! People don't seem to get that the concept of Christianity as default in our society is problematic.


But now we reach our last point for today. And this point deals not with other people's privilege, but with my own. (So much harder to deal with.)

I'm not sure how much any one person on my flist has been keeping up with Racefail 09. I know that there's a lot that I've been missing. If you want to catch up, rydra_wong has an extensive (and impressive) collection of links.

A post that really stuck with me is this one by seperis. To quote:

Speaking for myself, sitting here in comfortable privilege and mulling how much new material I have to read, I'm ashamed that in this, I had nothing to lose and everything to gain and I've profited immensely by way of clicking links like some progressive online course. And I have to be grateful, and sickened by it.

This is so true. And it's not just this one instance. It seems that every time there's an explosion of racism in fandom, I get to learn stuff. I find fascinating, worthwhile information from brilliant people. People of color? Well, they get stepped on and hurt.

Does that make me a bad person? No, of course not. Privilege 101: Having privilege does not make you a bad person. But it's something I need to keep in mind. Something that frustrates me.

That said, the least I can do is plug some lj communities that are trying to make a difference. 50books_poc challenges you to read fifty books written by people of color over the course of year. Or more than a year. Or read fifty short stories. Or keep count of the books you read that are written by people of color. Or just read books written by people of color and post reviews. The point is to read work by people of color. I want to fulfill the original challenge: fifty books in a year, but right now, with my school schedule, the idea of being able to finish a book for fun seems like a distant dream. But I'll make the effort. I read What I talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami earlier this year, and right now I'm in the middle of The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall.

Also, Verb Noire is a small press publisher dedicated to celebrating "the works of talented, underrepresented authors and deliver them to a readership that demands more." They're currently accepting submissions. Check them out!

Ok, I should probably get started on tidying up the condo, just a little.

Yesterday, my mom called me up.

Her: We have a problem.

Me: We do?

Her: Yes. Not only did you kill Jesus*, you're also destroying the rain forest.

Me: I am?

Her: Yes. The Pope has said that "saving" gays is just as important as saving the rain forest. "Saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rain forest from destruction." He also said that "The Church should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed." And "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

Me: I see.

Her: Yes, "behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations" is "a destruction of God's work."

Me: Right then.

We talked a little more, and laughed about my role in the destruction of the rain forest. I should explain, that my mother is joking. She does not actually believe that I killed Jesus, nor does she think that I'm destroying the rain forest.

Anyway, today I found an actual article on the Pope's statement.

( Pope likens 'saving' gays to saving the rainforest )


*A few years back, my mom and I were waiting in line at the grocery store, and we saw a magazine that had some headline about Jesus. My mom whispers in my ear "Jesus died because you're gay." We both crack up. There we are, cackling like loons in the grocery store, and no one else has the first clue what's so funny. If we were a more religious family, this would probably be my big homophobia related trauma. However, since we're not, it's just a continuing inside joke.

( Bush-Era Abortion Rules Face Possible Reversal )

This article actually cleared some things up for me that I didn't previously fully understand. For instance, "For decades, federal law has said that doctors and nurses can't be compelled to perform abortions. The new regulation broadens that to make clear that all health-care workers may refuse to provide information, such as a referral, to patients looking for an abortion."

And abortion isn't the only issue here. From the National Center for Transgender Equality:

( Newly Released 'Provider Conscience' Regulations and Their Affect On Transgender People )

A few people may be wondering why I'm so worried. After all, isn't Obama going to simply get rid of that despicable junk? Wasn't that the point of the first article? To you, I say that my faith in President-Elect Obama has been sorely shaken.

( A Bigot, Anti-Choice Pastor Picked for Obama's Inauguration )

After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the Forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier," (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals.

It drives me really, really nuts when anti-choice people compare abortion to the Holocaust or genocide. For one thing, it's a sickening trivialization of the Holocaust. For another thing, it reveals that these people do not understand basic dictionary definitions. A genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" (from dictionary.com). Fetuses are not a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Even if you believe abortion is morally wrong, it's no more genocide than it is arson.

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

Okay, not only does he not understand dictionary definitions, he also doesn't understand genetics or evolution either. There is no one "gay gene." And recessive genes can be in your genetic makeup without being active. And evolutionary biologists have hypothesized that homosexuality is actually evolutionarily beneficial because it creates adults that are unencumbered with offspring of their own, allowing them to help with community child care.

Warren protests that he's not a homophobe

OH, OF COURSE NOT. HOW COULD ANYONE THINK THAT HE IS?

He thinks his AIDS relief efforts represent an elevated form of Christianity over those non-evangelical do-gooders whom he compares to "Marxists" because they're more interested in good works than salvation.

Because the main tenet of Marxism is... doing good works without being concerned about personal salvation?

Things that Rick Warren has absolutely no understanding of:

The Holocaust
Genocide
Genetics
Evolution
Marxism

Seriously, does this man just throw out random words to see if they stick?

After I first told my mother about this Rick Warren guy, she was skeptical. You may be too. So, I present a second article from cnn.com.

( Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage )

"There were all kinds of threats that if [Proposition 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech."

...The only thing that Prop 8 was concerned with was whether or not same-sex couples would retain their legal right to marry. These claims that that right would have made speaking out against homosexuality (and god, look how it's phrased "he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships." How sweet and innocuous.) hate speech or that it would have forced kindergarten teachers to discuss homosexuality in their classes are such despicable lies that it shows just how detestable the religious right is. These people are scum. That's all there is to it.

Okay, has the world just decided that it wants to make me furious and sad? Is this some grand conspiracy? Because Jesus H. Christ on a freaking pogo stick.

Somebody makes a post at fanfic rants about an author using "gay" as an insult. Irritating right? I hate when people do that. But if that's all it was, I wouldn't be making this post.

In come the Lesbians Who Aren't Offended By Anything. Watch as they blow off valid examples of homophobia! Thrill as they say that people are "looking to be offended!" Their ability to be total assholes will astound you!

I'm in there sporadically (mostly making snarky comments), but my main confrontation with one of the people is here. It's amazing how anyone can be that ignorant, condescending, offensive, and factually wrong all at once.

On the upside, the person who originally made the "gay" comment both changed her wording and apologized. That's how to be a class act, people. However it is not nearly enough to alleviate my rage over the whole situation.

So, they're making an Avatar: The Last Airbender live action movie. Pretty cool, no? Well you might think so... until you saw the cast. They're all white. Every last one of the main characters. Yes, even Katara and Sokka

One of the great things about Avatar is that the setting isn't the same old "vaguely European" fantasy setting. It's based on Eastern cultures, and not just "the exotic Orient." The clothes, the food, the architecture is all based off of different Asian civilizations.

And the cast for the live action movie is white, when they weren't in the show.

Does everybody get why this is a problem? Does everybody understand the paucity of people of color in entertainment, especially in fantasy? And Avatar is a show that's all about people of color. This is a chance a people of color (especially children) to see people who look like them. But that's been abandoned in favor of "Oh no, white people would never see a movie featuring people who's skin is less than ivory." (And am I the only white person who finds that frankly offensive? The racism is the real issue here, but the implication that I am far too shallow and stupid to identify with characters who don't share my skin color is insulting.)

Naturally, there are people defending the casting. Privileged people will defend anything.

"Isn't talent more important than race?" The biggest problem with this is that it implies that there aren't any good POC actors available. It assumes that people of color who tried out couldn't make the cut, rather than there being racism in the audition and casting process. There are plenty of POC actors. Good ones. But instead, M. Night Shyamalan cast all white people. Plus, do you really think that any of the actors chosen are so absolutely astounding that there were no other suitable options? I mean, really?

"But I don't see Aang and Zuko as Asian." Good for you. Nice to see that the "white=default" assumption is still in place. (And by "nice," I mean "rage inducing.") But given that everything else in the Avatar world is Asian influenced, it's a rather logical to assume that the characters would look Asian. And, really, the alternative is much worse. White characters decked out in entirely Asian trappings? Can you say "cultural appropriation"? Good, I knew you could.

"It sucks, but then again, the whole movie is going to suck." Okay, bad acting and crummy action scenes or whatever? Make a movie suck. Casting characters of color as entirely white? Makes a movie racist. There is a difference in the degree of bad. (Hint: racism is worse.)

"It's not that big a deal. Why do you people care so much?" Because we don't like racism. End of story.

And my favorite, I saved it for last: "Even if the actors don't have the right skin color for Katara and Sokka, they can just wear makeup."

Yes! Yes, indeed the perfect solution! Just slather some paint on and put them in black face! And then we can tape up Aang and Zuko's eyes and make them squint a whole bunch! Hollywood used to do that all of the time! I wonder why they stopped?

BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING RACIST! I have trouble finding the words to express this. If you can't understand that yellow face is not the solution, then I'm not sure that we have any common ground.

What to do if you're pissed off by this? Well, there a letter writing campaign over at aang_aint_white. Write (...I originally typed that as "white") to Paramount studios. Write to the media. Write to Shyamalan's company. Or you could make am lj post about it. Or you could just bring up the problem when talking about the movie. It really isn't hard.

Yeah, I think that I'm done for now.

Today in Abnormal Psych, we went over Gender Identity Disorder. It went better than I was anticipating. (The section of the book on GID is horrid. The case study is a man who thinks he's a woman, but actually turns out to be just only confused, and he simply needed the therapist to talk some sense into him! And very little attention payed to the fact that that's not normally how it goes, damn it.) The teacher had some pronoun issues, but it was clear that he knew what pronouns he was supposed to be using, he just kept slipping up. And he'd correct himself. As unofficial transgender ambassador to the cisgender world, I filled in blanks in his knowledge, and he was grateful for it. (I was worried that he'd see me as a stuck up know-it-all. Which, okay, I am, but that's beside the point.) And none of the students said anything stupid or offensive! I was pleasantly surprised.

I am under massive stress, but I'm dealing quite well. I'm firmly convinced that the world is a horrible, evil place, but it's a relaxed, matter-of-fact sort of opinion. And I think it should largely dissipate once I a) get more of my mood stabilizers and b) am finished with finals.

Stupid NextRX. All I want to do is order more drugs. Why are you making it so difficult?

Just for the hell of it, some articles. First, something cheerful.

( Obama critized for using complete sentences )

Now, not so silly.

( Red Sex, Blue Sex. Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant? )

In the spirit of the discussion in psych class:

( Atlanta's Intersex Police Officer Seeks Awareness )

Two things have been occupying my mind as of late.

Ralph Nader was speaking at CU last Wednesday. I didn't go, as Wednesday is D&D night, and I cancel on tekararogue and my brother quite enough as it is. But it did get me thinking about third party candidates.

After the 2000 election, I defended Nader voters. It wasn't Nader who stole the election from Gore, it was Bush and his Republican cronies. The Nader voters hadn't done anything worse than vote for the candidate that they liked best, I argued.

Four years later we came to another election. I was disturbed to learn that Nader was running again, and that some people were planning to vote for him. Bush was a disaster, that was clear. I felt that the most important thing was getting him out the White House and stopping him from doing any further damage. "Anybody but Bush" was a slogan going around, and I agreed. I couldn't vote at the time, but I supported Kerry and felt that others should as well. Still, I didn't feel like I could really criticize Nader voters. Doesn't everybody have the right to vote for what they believe in?

So, now another four years have passed, and we come to our current situation. Once again Nader is running, and once again people (especially progressives) are talking about voting for a third party. For a while, though I was even more bothered than in 2004, I still didn't feel like a could really pass judgment. Then, I found this quote from the November/December 2004 issue of Mother Jones, which finally made things clear for me:

"Anyone that the Democrats run against Bush, even the appalling Joe Lieberman, should be a candidate around whom every progressive person in the United States who cares about the country's future and the future of the world rallies. Money should be thrown at that candidate. And if Ralph Nader runs -- if the Green Party makes the terrible mistake of running a presidential candidate -- don't give him your vote.

Listen, here's the thing about politics: It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this."

It's true. People know that their third part candidate of choice won't win, but they vote to "make a statement." And that just doesn't work. Maybe it did once, I don't know, but it certainly doesn't now. Yeah, you could make your statement. But is making statement really worth damning the entire world to more of the same shit that we've been trying to survive this past eight years (and that many people haven't survived, thanks to, among other things, multiple wars)?

In perfect world, the Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney, would have my vote in a second. But we don't live in perfect world, in case you hadn't noticed.

You want to make a statement? Tell the Republican party that we want our country back. We're kicking them out of the White House. There's a statement for you.

Now that I've alienated a large number of you, let's try and get the rest.

Last week, I found myself debating with a small group of conservatives. It left me with a question. Why are conservatives so stupid? Now, hang on! Don't walk off in disgust yet. Allow me to explain.

These were gun nut conservatives, specifically. It may be surprising to people that I don't have entirely fully formed opinions on gun control. I hate guns, and wish that private citizens wouldn't own them, but whether I'd like a law outlawing guns altogether, that's harder to say. But these gun nut conservatives were far too out there for me to be feeling shades of grey. Their talking point du jour was that people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. Their argument was that the Virginia Tech shooting wouldn't have happened if everybody had had a handgun. Now, anti-gun control people make this argument all the time, just switching out the specific tragedy in order to be timely. I made the same rebuttal that I always make: So one person comes in with a gun, then another person pulls out a gun, then everyone feels under attack, so they all draw their weapons, and no one's sure who the enemy is, and maybe somebody shoots accidentally, and we're left with mass panic in room full of armed people. Does that strike anyone as an good situation?

A girl argued that that wouldn't happen because you need a license to own a gun, and I argued in return that you also need a license to drive a car, but that doesn't stop people from engaging in both road rage and plain old fashion stupidity. She mumbled a reluctant agreement and wandered off.

But there were three other people there and they kept going. Quoting one of the greatest minds of our time, I pointed out that while guns may not kill people, they certainly help. One person's reaction? "No they don't! No they don't!" Yes. Yes, he did indeed say that guns don't help you kill people. He went one to tell me that he could kill people with his car, or kill people by making pipe bomb. When I pointed out that pipe bombs were illegal for that very reason, he told me "Yes! Exactly!"

And at that point, I realized that these people didn't even understand what they were saying, and I left in disgust. But the conversation stuck in my mind. We have people who insist that guns don't help you kill people, who think that you've proven their point when you note the problem with their comparing gun ownership to pipe bombs.

It's not just this one incident, of course. Some time ago, a friend of my mother's (who's also homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, and an all around bigot) emailed her a story that the ACLU was trying to remove all crosses from cemeteries. Now, common sense will tell you that that's ridiculous, and five minutes of research will confirm that (if I remember correctly, she sent him the snopes page debunking the story), but he swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Then, there are the people who honestly seem to believe that the CEO of the Procter & Gamble corporation is a Satanist who donates part of his company's profits to the Church of Satan. (I am not making that up.) There are people who still believe that Obama is a Muslim, and even worse, these people think that it actually matters.

Not all conservatives/Republicans are stupid, of course. But a large number of them are, and it's not your run of the mill, basic stupidity that can happen to anyone. So why are these people so stupid? I have a two part theory. It could be bunnies.

The first part is that stupid people are drawn to the Republican party. It makes sense. The Republican party revels in idiocy. Being intellectual, hell, even being informed is seen as "elitist" and bad. Look at Bush's "aw shucks" routine, or the way that Palin seems to take pride in being uninformed. Look at the fact that McCain has admitted that he doesn't know how to work a computer. Here's a party that isn't going to make you think too hard. (They don't want you too think to hard. That would ruin the whole racket.)

The other part is that they have to be stupid. There's no other option if they want to keep on believing what they do. If they had to think intelligently about what they believe, that would ruin everything. It's not normal foolishness that makes you think that allowing college students to carry concealed weapons on campus would somehow make for fewer school shootings. That kind of mind boggling idiocy has to be cultivated. No one actually using their mental facilities could continue to believe that the war in Iraq is going fine and dandy. Ann Coulter, that fine example of humanity, has a book entitled If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. This second type of person disgusts me more far more than the first. It's one thing to be dumb, it's another to be purposefully moronic in order to keep from having to reevaluate your convictions. (Sexist, homophobic, war mongers for president? Perhaps not such a good idea.) The former is the Republican party taking advantage of people. The latter is a group of people taking advantage of all of us.

Well, uh, it's good to know that I've been an equal opportunity offender today.

I wanted to post this yesterday, but I was working.

So, as many, if not most, of you already know, yesterday was the anniversary of Mathew Shepard's death. It was also National Coming Out Day. I did not come out to anyone, but I would have had the topic arose. (At this point in my life, all the people who really need to know that I'm queer have been told. Now, it's on a need to know basis.)

I really don't think that there's much I can say here that hasn't been said better by others, so this is mainly a gathering of other content. After all, what should I say? I'm not eloquent enough or smart enough to put all of this into words.

bitterfig has a really eloquent post here.

An article from 365gay:

( Why the Shepard murder was different )

If you choose not to read that, at least know this: "[Barack Obama's website] says: 'Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.' There isn’t even a 'Civil Rights' section on the McCain site under 'issues,' much less a statement of support for specific hate crimes legislation."

The Bilerico Project has this to say:

( Matthew Shepard found, let's find the others now )

Hey, want to hear some good news? No, seriously.

( Connecticut’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage on the 10th )

Honestly, I'd rather see a stronger hate crimes act, or better housing and employment protection, but this is good too. (And I think that my thoughts on the way marriage takes center stage in the fight for GLBT rights would be better saved for another post.)

I just got to see Howard Zinn! His show, Voices of a People's History of the United States was playing at Macky Auditorium (on the CU campus). It was wonderful.

Yesterday morning, I figured that there might be a signing (there was), so I went to look for my copy of A People's History of the United States. As it turns out, I didn't have a copy of A People's History of the United States. Yes, I can hear the shocked silence. The copy I thought I had is still at my mom's, which makes sense, given that it belongs to her. But I bought one of my one and had it signed.

Howard Zinn and Neil Gaiman in the same week? How lucky is that?

...Surely something will go horribly wrong very soon.

This is a few days old, but Jack Thompson has been disbarred.

For those of you not in the know, Jack Thompson is a conservative Christian, now ex-lawyer, who has engaged in many crusades against whatever has offended his sensibilities, such as violent video games, The Sims computer game, and the Florida Bar Association. (Seriously. To quote Wikipedia, "He said that the bar was engaged in a vendetta against him because of his religious beliefs, which he said conflicted with what he called the bar's pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda." And he wanted a Florida judge to declare the whole Association unconstitutional.)

Thompson has many words of wisdom, such as, "The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people, Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does." His sheer ignorance is astounding. To quote him again, "Islam promotes the killing of innocent people. The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels - not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition." Besides being ridiculously bigoted, that's just plain incorrect. To quote the Quran, "And do not dispute with the followers of the Book ["Followers of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews- Veleda] except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." There's also "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." It's true that there are also Quranic statements that advocate a more adversarial stance, but honestly, how many religious texts don't present their religion as superior to all others? None in the Abrahamic religions, that's for sure.

Some of the things he says leave me confused, and, well, almost like a voyeur. Quoting Wikipedia again, "He also claims that the PlayStation 2's DualShock controller 'gives you a pleasurable buzz back into your hands with each kill. This is operant conditioning, behavior modification right out of B. F. Skinner's laboratory.'" I mean, a "pleasurable buzz?" Into your hand? Just how sensitive are your hands, Jack? It's not a vibrator. (Though, that gives me an idea for a controller/vibrator bundle pack. You'd hook everything up to the console, and when you scored a point...right, I'll stop now.)

I also like (well, for certain values of "like") his reaction the Bully video game. "We just found gay sexual content in Bully as Jimmy Hopkins makes out with another male student. Good luck with your Teen rating now." The ESRB was sort of like, "Uh, yeah, we knew that when we rated it Teen. It's not like it was hidden content." (That's a rather heavy paraphrase.)

But, enough with the boring stuff. I know what you're asking. You're asking, "Just how disbarred is he?" There are some answers here My favorites include:

"Jack Thompson is so disbarred he isn't even allowed to read Shakespeare." (Hee, dis-Bard. Sorry, it's my favorite.)

"Jack Thompson is so disbarred, he can't even file briefs in his underwear drawer."

"Jack Thompson is so disbarred he can't even practice the law of gravity."



You know, I'm actually still on this vibrator/video game. I think I need one for my DS. It would give shouting "OBJECTION!" in Phoenix Wright an extra oomph. And when Franziska hits you with her whip....right, sorry, I'll just be going now. Forget we ever had this conversation. Please.

Today's armchair activism opportunity is brought to you by Tyson Foods.

"Hunger is a serious problem in the Bay Area…
• Nearly 1.2 million people in the Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma and Santa Cruz counties) are living near the poverty line, at risk of going hungry. According to census figures, these people are making less than $26,000 for a family of 3.
• The California Budget Project estimates that a family needs to make more than twice that amount - at least $53,000 - in order to make ends meet in the Bay Area. People who can’t get by often give up food to pay for vital expenses like medicine, or fixed expenses like rent.
• 50% of the people Bay Area food banks serve are children – and many live in working poor families."

Food prices are going up, and government help for needy families is going down (after all, to the republicans, if a government is actually serving its people, it's clearly to big).

How is Tyson helping? For every comment to this post the company will donate 100 pounds of high-quality protein (up to a total of 200,000 pounds) to the six Bay Area (that's in California) food banks.

How can you help? Comment on the post! Seriously, it takes, like, a minute. Don't you love it when doing good is so easy?

Let's make this a feel good post all round, shall we? I have some serious problems with Google, politically speaking. They worked with the Chinese government to censor and restrict what the Chinese people could search for. That's bad, to say the least. But this latest statement from them...well, I can only approve and applaud it.

( GOOGLE takes a position on California's No on 8 campaign )

Go Google. More power to you.

When you see this, post a protest song in your journal.

( Empire by Dar Williams (A little subtle, a little not so subtle. One of my favorites.) )

Just how much of a procrastinator am I? So much that I'm even late in wishing myself a happy birthday. Happy birthday me!

It was a really fun birthday, for all I was dreading it. I got lots of a presents. (Seriously, I was spoiled this year. I think my mom feels guilty that my father isn't around to celebrate my birthday.) Plus, my mom, my brother, and I went out to a really nice restaurant. The food was so good. It was a little embarrassing, but, man, you would have thought that I was orgasming right there in the restaurant. It was really yummy. (Lobster ravioli with tiger shrimp, sushi grade ahi tuna with tempura sea scallops, and three different kinds of crème brûlée.) Also, I had my first legal drink! I don't remember what it was called, but it was good. (I do remember what was in it: champagne, blackberry syrup, and a twist of lemon.)

I'm back to slacking off regarding my school work. Two weeks of studying hard, then it's back to bad habits. But my life is moving forward in other ways. I signed up to start volunteering at Left Hand Books, a not for profit, volunteer staffed, radical bookstore. I'm really excited. It will give me experience with books, which will be helpful when I want to start grad school/my career as a librarian. Not only that, but I'll around people who can relate to me. See, I care. I care about the environment, racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, the oppression of developing nations by the American empire, the erosion of civil rights in the US, political prisoners being tortured, attacks on science by the religious right, blatantly false sexual education being taught in our schools, and more. I care a whole hell of a lot. This sounds like bragging, but it's just a fact. And I don't know many people who care on the same level. But at Left Hand Books, I'll be able to find plenty.

I keep meaning to do an article post, but politics are depressing me so much. I should at least do my "John McCain is a homophobic, sexist, hypocritical, warmonger, and no one should vote for him; also Sarah Palin is sexist, horribly homophobic, hypocritical, blatant liar, and no one should vote for her either" post.

So, yeah, that's me right now. Oh, here's a meme from andmydog:

When you see this, post a Douglas Adams quote in your journal.

I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.