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.
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.
Yes, They Are Bigots
Apr/090
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president Maggie Gallagher wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Times last Friday, upset that Frank Rich titled his opinion column about NOM’s “Gathering Storm” commercial The Bigots’ Last Hurrah. (The word “bigot” only appears twice in the whole column: in the title, and the last sentence.)
Ms. Gallagher writes:
I am not the only one Mr. Rich is calling a bigot. In a March CBS News poll, only a third of Americans said they supported gay marriage.
As with most polling and statistics, she’s right and wrong. The poll she’s referencing is this one (Adobe PDF), released April 3rd. The question was “Which comes closest to your view?”, and the options were as follows:
- “Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry”, OR
- “Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry”, OR
- “There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship”
The results are as follows, broken down by political party affiliation in the first table, and then with three previous samples in the second table:
Total
%Rep
%Dem
%Ind
%Allowed to marry 33 6 46 37 Allowed to form civil unions 27 34 23 26 No legal recognition 35 59 26 30 Don’t Know / Didn’t Answer 5 1 5 7 Table 1: Party Affiliation
Now Aug 2008 Mar 2007 Mar 2004 Legally marry 33% 34% 30% 22% Form civil unions 27% 22% 28% 33% No legal recognition 35% 39% 26% 40% Table 2: Historical Samples
So only 33% of the 1142 respondents in the poll are in favor of allowing legal same-sex marriages, but that number is 11 points higher than five years ago. And respondents selecting “no legal recognition” has gone down in the past five years as well, reaching a low of nearly only 25% in 2007. Clearly, it’s still a divided issue. But support for legal marriage has risen in the past several years. As Mr. Rich stated in his column:
[T]he majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.”
Ms. Gallagher, in her brief letter, ends saying that she is “proud of the ‘Gathering Storm’ ad precisely because it lets the American people know the truth: Gay marriage has consequences”. Consequences, she says? Like the ones in the “Gathering Storm” ad? The Human Rights Campaign did a good job of giving some more background behind these “consequences”:
The examples they cite in the ad are:
- A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
- A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
- A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California [Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group], determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
Not really consequences. All of these things are as a result of failure to abide by state laws when involved in the public sphere. Doctors take an oath to do no harm and are supposed to provide care to anyone needing it, the second was more sexual orientation discrimination than anything else, and the third involved parents wanting to dictate what all children were taught. If they feel so strongly about their beliefs, they are free to teach that to their children. But a public school setting has the responsibility to be inclusive to all of the students, their families, and their backgrounds. We don’t teach in schools that single parents aren’t fit to raise a child, after all.
This assertion of “name-calling” is–much like the very act itself–childish. Does Ms. Gallagher not understand that her discrimination of gay and lesbian couples is equivalent to name-calling? She thinks that marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, and has “spent the last five years warning” that opponents of gay marriage would be called bigots. Well, by definition, aren’t they?
bigot
Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
If the shoe fits, wear it. (In the interest of fairness, it could also be said that the pro-gay-marriage side is bigoted towards those against it. Much like “special interests” and “pork barrel spending”, it’s all in how you look at it.) As for this mother and a father bit, plenty of children are raised by just one parent. And since when did marriage automatically bring raising children into the argument? Raising children either by birth or adoption is exclusive of marriage. There are plenty of gay and straight marriages and committed relationships where no children are involved. Most definitions of marriage are also exclusive of the child-rearing family structure.
If you’re going to make an argument, at least try not to come across like this is your first rodeo. Even in her appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball opposite HRC President Joe Solmonese, Ms. Gallagher came across as confrontational and standoffish, like an ill-prepared middle school debate student. Her need to write to the New York Times because someone referred to her beliefs for what they are just highlights the fact of how clueless the National Organization for Marriage is. They are a one-trick pony, with limited visibility since their “Gathering Storm” and failed 2M4M campaign (they failed to register the website 2M4M.org, now run by a gay marriage advocate). They issued a press release praising Stephen Colbert’s parody of the “Gathering Storm” ad, clearly missing the point. Her appearance with Joe Solmonese on Hardball appears below, from the HRC’s YouTube page.
Flickr
