Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s “Reflections on Marriage”
Oct/090
Over at The Nation, the always fabulous Melissa Harris-Lacewell provides her thoughts on the marriage equality debate (and marriage in general). Just ignore the comments, because as per usual, the trolls have ventured out from under their bridges to claim–erroneously–that marriage is a “very specific social contract, between a man and a woman, with roots as a religious rite”. It’s a social contract all right, but has little to do with religion at it’s root, let alone in modern law.
Getting Up to Speed – NYTimes.com
Jun/091
In France, Mellier pointed me to the small city of Reims, about 90 miles from Paris, which has effectively become a Parisian suburb since the opening of the Strasbourg line in 2007. You wonder if Bakersfield could become a bedroom community of Los Angeles. In recent years, moreover, some French cartographers who think about the social effects of train transportation have taken to creating new maps of Europe that simultaneously reflect the time and the distance between cities. These “time space” drawings of France (the technical name is anamorphic maps) have a distorted look as if someone crumpled a paper rendering of the country and pulled all the surrounding cities closer to Paris than they really are. Marseille is half its real distance from the capital, as are Strasbourg and Lyon. Mostly this is because of the TGV, which seems to have knit the country together in a way that air travel never did. Alain L’Hostis, a geographer at the Université Paris-Est, told me that the train has undoubtedly changed the psychological distance between places. For the French, he said, the mobility has created among many citizens “a feeling of belonging to a common or interconnected city.”
As a survivor of an Amtrak journey up the coast, I recalled those 13 hours unconnected to any California city at all — not a particularly pleasant feeling. When I asked Schwarzenegger about the social effects of a rail line, he quickly replied, “I think people will look at the state and not just say, ‘Oh, my God, I have to go from the south to the north, what a schlep.’ ” That was kind of like what L’Hostis said to me, but in a different way. After Schwarzenegger thought for a moment more, he said, speaking of his own commute by private jet: “I fly from Sacramento to Los Angeles, and it takes two hours. And if I would fly commercial, you would have to add an hour, or an hour and a half. Imagine. What if I could do high-speed rail?” I could picture a crumpled time-space drawing of his state. In my mind, and maybe in his, too, the big cities of California were already moving closer together. (from The Architecture Issue – Getting Up to Speed – High Speed Rail in California – NYTimes.com)
The prospect of American high-speed rail is horribly exciting to me. As the article states, Reims has easily become a suburb of Paris thanks to high-speed rail. Suddenly 30, 40, 50 or more miles is just a quick train ride away. Regional airplane flights would be a think of the past. Instead of flying from Kansas City to Chicago, you could take the train instead.
America is lagging behind when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Japan and Europe have been leading the way for decades. It took us nearly thirty years to finish the interstate system, and that was a major boom to travel and the economy. Since Eisenhower took inspiration from the German autobahn, it’s high time Obama take inspiration from the TGV in France and bring environmentally friendly high-speed rail to the United States. It also creates countless jobs in construction, engineering, and manufacturing. Seems like a win-win to me.
Data Center Overload – NYTimes.com
Jun/090
From the New York Times Magazine, an interesting look at server data centers, the monolithic buildings that power “the cloud” and all of the services we take for granted on a daily basis: email, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.
Gay Stereotypes in Film, Television
Jun/090
Movie poster for Sacha Baron Cohen's new movie Brüno, in theaters July 10, 2009.
The New York Times has an article today, A Plea for Tolerance in Tight Shorts. Or Not. regarding the upcoming Sacha Baron Cohen movie Brüno. Having never seen Borat or, admittedly, any of Mr. Baron Cohen’s prior works I’m not quite sure what to expect. But after reading the controversy that has sprung up around it, I’m definitely making a point to see it now.
Brüno, R-rated of course, stars Mr. Baron Cohen as a “flamboyantly gay fashion journalist from Austria” named, obviously, Brüno. Given the sexuality of the title character, gay groups are throwing in their opinion on the film with mixed reviews depending on who you speak to. The film’s “well-meaning attempt at satire is problematic in many places and outright offensive in others,” says Rashad Robinson of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in the NYT article. On the other side, editor of Out magazine Aaron Hicklin plans to put Mr. Baron Cohen on the cover of the magazine. Again, telling the New York Times: “The movie does something hugely important, which is showing that people’s attitudes can turn on a dime when they realize you’re gay. The multiplex crowd wouldn’t normally sit down for a two-hour lecture on homophobia, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I’m excited about that.”
I’m inclined to agree more with Mr. Hicklin than GLAAD’s statement. Satire is often meant to be offensive to some, while drop-dead hilarious to others. I’d like to think that the gay rights movement has come far enough that we are able to laugh at our own expense. Certainly some movie goers are going to take the movie as acknowledging their homophobia or are going to enjoy the movie more because of it, and perhaps the film isn’t going to change any minds about homophobia. Now, I haven’t seen the movie yet (it doesn’t come out, so-to-speak, until July), but I’m confident it won’t be a breakthrough in positive portrayal of gays. But the character is so intentionally over-the-top that it would be hard to peg it as representing even most flamboyant gay men. We’ve had “flamboyant gay stereotypes” on television for years (Sean Hayes’ character Jack on Will and Grace or Michael Urie’s Mark St. James on Ugly Betty, for example), and some of those shows are awarded for portrayal of gay characters. Compared to ten, or even five, years ago there are many more gay characters on television (both positive and otherwise).
Kevin (L, Matthew Rhys) and Scotty (R, Luke Macfarlane) Walker. From the "Brothers & Sisters" episode "Glass Houses". (Image from IMDb.)
ABC Family has two shows that I know of (Greek and Secret Life of the American Teenager) with a major or minor gay character in shows that target a younger demographic. The new FOX show Glee features a gay show choir stereotype, and a glee club diva with two dads. From the pilot episode (which I encourage everyone to watch, if only for the productions of Amy Winehouse’s Rehab), the issue isn’t central to the show. It’s just another facet to the characters. Yet there was some negative reaction to the character of Kurt for being a stereotype (and being a minor character in the pilot), while ignoring the other big cliché of the show: the jock with a softer side (like Sears). I’ve also seen some negativity towards the ABC show Brothers & Sisters (between Ugly Betty, Brothers & Sisters, and the ABC Family offerings, ABC is one of the more “gay-friendly” networks today) centered around the fact that gay characters Kevin (Matthew Rhys) and Scotty (Luke Macfarlane) don’t get enough on-air time.
There have been plenty of gay-centric television in recent years, on premium networks (Queer as Folk, The L Word, etc.) and broadcast (Will and Grace), and now it seems that gay characters are moving out being either minor recurring roles or part of an “ensemble of gay characters” to being just characters. Their gayness doesn’t define them as a character. The Kevin and Scotty couple could just as easily be a heterosexual couple and many of their plots don’t necessarily hinge on their sexuality; instead they are your normal couple who just happens to be gay. With more states allowing gay marriage, positive portrayal of gay characters where their sexuality isn’t a key issue can only be a good thing.
Reasons for Firing Carrie Prejean
Jun/090
Carrie Prejean reads from a bible during services at the Rock Church in San Diego Sunday, April, 26, 2009. Prejean has drawn attention for her comments against gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, where she was first runner-up last weekend. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
In the “karma is a bitch” department, Carrie Prejean, runner-up in the Miss USA pageant from California, has lost her crown (and title) of Miss California for breach of contract. And considering she’s been running around doing everything but (I don’t think the National Organization for Marriage is part of the Miss California USA pageant tour), I’m not surprised. The reason behind her termination was not her gay marriage comments from the Miss USA pageant in April. But should it have been?
Blogger Emma Ruby-Sachs at the 365Gay.com news site (run by LGBT-oriented cable network Logo) seems to think so. (For the sake of keeping this on-topic, I won’t go into my love/hate relationship with “gay news/gay media”.)
Yesterday, Carrie Prejean, poster child for the National Organization for Marriage and the newly conservative California, was fired.
When told of her firing by the celebrity radio host Billy Bush, Prejean insisted it was because of her answer to Perez Hilton’s gay marriage question during the pageant: “”It’s just because of my answer, I think. None of this would be happening right now if I just said, ‘Yeah, gays should get married. You’re right Perez Hilton.’”
If only that were true.
The press release issues by the Miss California and Miss Universe organizations states that the firing is, “based solely on contract violations including Ms. Prejean’s unwillingness to make appearances on behalf of the Miss California USA Organization.” Since Prejean maintained her crown after the nude pictures surfaced and after Shanna Moakler resigned in protest, it is unlikely that her answer in the original pageant is the root of this dismissal.
And that’s the problem. [Emphasis added.]
“And that’s the problem”? I’m not quite sure the situation is being looked at objectively. Instead I get the impression that Ms. Ruby-Sachs wanted some comfort knowing that Ms. Prejean was punished for what she said rather than her behavior and actions required in her contract (as happened). “[H]aving someone who holds bigoted and discriminatory views as a figure head for a state is unacceptable,” Ms. Ruby-Sachs writes, as if Miss California USA is the California equivalent of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As much as people would like to imagine a beauty pageant winner holds some sort of celebrity outside of the beauty pageant circuit, they really don’t. Yes, there might be some little girls in princess costumes who dream of being a beauty queen, but by-and-large Miss California would have never been taken seriously if it were not for this controversy. Out of the Miss America and Miss USA winners of the last twenty years, I recognized three of them (Ali Landry, Gretchen Carlson, and Shanna Moakler).
Sure, at the end of the day, the right girl is now Miss California. But the decision was made too late and for the wrong reasons. In the same way that racism is not tolerated in world of celebrity and politics (when it is recognized, mind you), homophobia should not be appropriate for those appointed to “represent” a state or community.
Ms. Prejean’s original comments (reproduced below from Huffington Post) were not homophobic. She stated her beliefs and her values. Was her answer poorly worded and in parts incoherent? No doubt about it. Her association with the truly homophobic National Organization for Marriage after this all transpired is worthy of critique, but her stating an opinion doesn’t make her a bad person.
I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. – Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA
Ms. Prejean’s right to free speech means that she should not have been fired for her words as Ms. Ruby-Sachs would have liked. I can understand not agreeing with Ms. Prejean’s response, and clearly Ms. Prejean is no friend to the LGBT marriage equality movement. But to state that Ms. Prejean should have been fired for having the courage to speak her convictions on a very divisive issue is ignoring that had her answer been in favor of gay marriage, we’d be seeing equal response from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. There are compromises to be reached, and the issues are not black and white. Zeal from both sides will get the struggle for marriage equality no where unless we respect differing views.
Joan Walsh Goes up Against O’Reilly on Abortion
Jun/090
Recently on his show, Fox News self-proclaimed “commentator” Bill O’Reilly engages in a heated “debate” with Joan Walsh of Salon.com over abortion, specifically late-lerm abortions and Dr. George Tiller. Again and again, he asks Walsh her feelings on late-term abortions in the context of his lead story for the night, “the far left on the attack”. Rather than summing it up, here’s the YouTube clip.
Bill O’Reilly still maintains that everything he mentioned about George Tiller was true and not inappropriate: calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer”, saying his has blood on his hands, that his legal clinic was an “abortion mill”. “My constitutional rights say I can say what I say,” O’reilly said. “You can say what you say, as vile as you say it, you can say it, and I would never condemn you for saying it. You are misguided, you have blood on your hands because you portrayed this man as a hero.” (Read Joan Walsh’s response here.)
I appreciate that O’Reilly has his views, just as Keith Olbermann on MSNBC has his views. But I’ve not heard Olbermann accuse a doctor legally practicing medicine of murder, launching incessant vile attacks over and over, no doubt inciting the intense hatred in the far-right groups that lead them to bomb abortion clinics, threaten practitioners and as we realized mere weeks ago, kill a man inside his church simply because they disagree with the service he provides. Free speech ends when you incite violence or threaten public safety. It’s why you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre. I’d like to post here Olbermann’s comment on Fox News and Bill O’Reilly, and the inciting of this domestic terrorism. He suggests that an advertising boycott of Fox News would do nothing, but instead we should politely ask any establishment with Fox News Channel on their television to turn it off, and tell anyone you know who watches Fox News to stop doing so. I for one will do my part, not because I’m for the right to choose and that I believe I shouldn’t be allowed to decide the reproductive rights of any woman, but because I don’t think anyone should have to die for what they believe in. I don’t believe that a television personality, however popular or whatever their ideological vies, should be allowed to incite hatred and violence and ignore all culpability in the matter. I believe that humanity needs to be better than that.
Press This: “Gay Marriage: Is California’s Supreme Court Shifting?” from TIME
Mar/090
“Press This” is the feature in WordPress that lets me share links from the internet to my blog. Think of it as the “Share Link” aspect of Facebook, but without those pesky character limits that inhibit my ranting.
The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year’s historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. “You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution,” said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. “You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California.”
The Court isn’t shifting, really. The arguments brought to the Court that what was Prop 8 (now it’s Section something or other since it’s part of the state’s Constitution) should be overturned really don’t hinge on any notion of equality or fairness. It’s about a legal technicality in the California Constitution that says “revisions” must be brought on by a constitutional convention or 2/3 of the legislature. Attorney-General Brown (who changed his position in favor of repeal) presented a different argument: that there is an inalienable right to marry.
Similarly, Kenneth Starr (yes, that Ken Starr of Whitewater and Lewinsky fame) aruged that the people of California have the sovereign right to change their constitution, even claiming they could repeal free speech if they wanted. ”While it is unthinkable, … the people do have the raw power,” he said. Starr also used the example of repealing anti-racial-discrimination statutes the same way. Obviously, and as Starr noted, changes that violate the United States Constitution would be struck down on the basis of the grounds that such statutes would be unconstitutional on a Federal level. (Of course, homosexuality isn’t a suspect class under the United States Constitution. And getting into that involves dealing with suspect classification. And I just don’t have that kind of time right now.)
It’s going to come down to whether the justices agree with the pro-repeal argument that an “inalienable” right was taken away and that it represented a revision to the Constitution rather than a simple amendment. And if they feel comfortable nullifying the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the months between their ruling allowing such marriages and the passage of Proposition 8. If they do uphold Prop 8 and don’t nullify the existing marriages, you’ll have a disparity between heterosexual marriages, the gay marriages performed after the Court ruling last year allowing gay marriage, and the gay couples that are not/cannot get married. And while I am not for nullifying the existing marriages (I personally know someone who is part of that number), I don’t like the prospect of what three separate groups would do.
Unfortunately, the anti-eight argument is based on the California constitution, and that makes the California Supreme Court the final word on the issue; there is no appealing to the SCOTUS. I don’t know enough about the legal intricacies involved to say if I think the Court will agree that it’s a revision, or if they’ll uphold that marriage is an inalienable right. But I do hope based on my own stance on this issue that they will at least recognize that they gave Californian’s the right to marry whomever they choose just as Massachusetts and Connecticut have done/since done. Democracy gets its power from the majority having their say (be it by legislative vote, legislative representation, or ballot initiative) as well as the rights of the minority held in check by the judiciary. Would these same justices uphold the revocation of free speech simply because the people so declared with their inalienable right to make a mockery of the state Constitution?
Press This: Dimon Says ‘Not Every Company’ Responsible for Wall Street Pay (Bloomberg)
Feb/090
“Press This” is the feature in WordPress that lets me share links from the internet to my blog. Think of it as the “Share Link” aspect of Facebook, but without those pesky character limits that inhibit my ranting.
Bloomberg is reporting that JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon said at a conference in New York today: “It’s unfair to talk about us as one … not every company was responsible.” Dimon means, of course, President Barack Obama’s plan to cap executive pay of companies that received government bailout at a meager half-a-million dollars.
I’ll concede to Dimon that not everyone was responsible. But here’s the problem: “JPMorgan has taken $29.5 billion in losses, writedowns and credit provisions since the start of the financial crisis.” You lost $29.5 billion, and while that’s small potatoes compared to, oh Citigroup or Bank of America, you still lost money and took bailout money from the government.
The finance sector will have to forgive me when I say that they should cry me a river of their tears because they’re getting their pay cut to $500k. That’s, oh, at least 30 times what I made this last year. And it’s not like they spent all the money and bonuses from previous years. I’m sure they have investments and the like and will not go destitute like many in America who have lost their jobs and insurance, and who’s families are struggling because of it. I’m sick of the talking points echoed by financial honchos and GOP talking heads about how it’s unfair that they can’t make millions and that they somehow deserve to still be making ungodly amounts of money while their company is reporting billions upon billions in losses. Here’s an idea… take all of that money that you, the banks, have spent on the executives and shore-up your books and repay the American people for giving you their tax dollars. And while we’re at it, take a symbolic $1 salary for the next few years as a show of good faith that you are committed to your institution remaining strong (hell, even make it $100 or $1000) and that you are willing to sacrifice some of the lavish things you have come to expect making millions annually so that the economy and the country can come out of this mess better than we were before. I honestly think $500k is still a bit high for companies that are taking government bailout money. They still have losses that haven’t been realized, as Obama pointed out in at least one recent interview, and we’re clearly not out of this economic downturn. Would it not be in the best interests of the banks to drastically cut executive pay to the $1 salary and take the money saved and use it towards being the first (or one of the first) banks to come out of this financial mess and repay the government? You can’t beat that kind of P.R.: “JPMorgan Chase… We were the first bank to come out of the financial crisis on top, and repay the assistance we revived from taxpayers because blah blah blah.”
I’m all for capitalism, but not without regulation. And I’m all for rewarding people for doing hard work and becoming successful in your field and standing out from the competition. But now is not the time to be giving the people at the very top of the corporate ladder bonuses or still paying them their million dollar salary as if they’d up and quit without it. I’m reminded of the season 4 episode of Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing, “College Kids”, where they’re discussing making college tax-deductible after reading an article about a CEO who got a $35 million dollar bonus for, effectively, crashing his company into the ground. And that because of a loophole where incentive based pay is still not subject to tax like regular salary, the CEO gets a lot of money and the company get’s a tax write-off. Later in the episode, Josh (Bradley Whitford) and Sam (Rob Lowe) have the following exchange:
Josh
When Congress put the million cap on deducting salary they left a loophole for incentive-based bonuses.Sam
Yeah, are not all bonuses incentive based? Are there any bonuses you get just automatically? And isn’t that called salary? Which is also incentive-based. By the way, I don’t think there are a lot of people would go to work without one.
Exactly.
Flickr
