Get Out, Stay Out- Ken Mehlman and "Forgiveness"

Much has been said this weekend about OUT magazine's "Out 100" list ...and here whereGawker's Brian Moylan makes a brilliant case for why OUT's decision is both jarringly ill placed and wrongheaded..and rightly effing so.


Having read the write up that accompanied the article on Melhman I nearly spit coffee. "As someone who came out later in life I can say It gets better" he says. Please, its better for him because he's wealthy, conservative and most importantly DOESNT live in a state that hurled anti-gay policy around like grenades to make sure he can't EVER get married in them. He lives comfortably in one of the few states where it is better...but refuses to own up to the fact that its significantly less so in other parts of the nation because of his role as RNC chair. It hasn't gotten better for gay couples in the 11 states where they adopted the RNC's gay (southern) strategy and enshrined their state constitutions in bigotry to make sure gay people couldn't share their lives in any meaningful way.


I find the drum and strang on Melhman irksome because there have been very few conversations about him post coming out that even attempt to directly speak to his culpability as head of the party that made and continues to make being rabidly anti-gay a tentpole. Instead he's being lionized by OUT and more than a few apologists because he's out of the closet well after the damage has been done on the national scale and it is no longer politically expedient for him personally. There is in fact nothing heroic about being overwhelmingly opportunistic...and yet, here we are attempting to make excuses for those that haven't admitted wrongdoing. There's something so snide and disappointing in this narrative it makes me genuinely question the collective memory (and sanity) of the group he's profited off of maligning.

Old Habits Die Hard- Alabama and Institutionalized Discrimination

"Hispanic Alabama Schoolchildren Face Bullying In The Wake Of Anti-Immigrant Law"

This should come as little surprise. When a society creates law and policy that reinforce underlying prejudices we often very quickly see this reflected in more open hostility towards people perceived as part of the group.

Of course its a shame that anti-imigrant sentiment has driven politicians of the state of Alabama to do, perhaps, what seems normal in their circles, and create laws that make treating other people like equals impossible or criminal. What generally follows, when one institutionalizes cruelty, is that people become cruel and discriminating towards anything aproximate to the blighted group in question. We're certainly seeing this here.Human decency and fairness take a backseat to policing the overt cultural biases.



UPDATE: Excellent op-ed in the NY Times on the subject here.

And now for some daytripping music. Killer track from Chromatics, "In the City".

Santorum, the "Google Problem", and the analogues of Jim Crow and DADT politics.

Say  what you will about Rick Santorum (and his "google problem")...but the man has a real gift for sticking his foot in his mouth.

Egg on face moment #2,132 is so bad that the Fox News interview in the link almost equals "gotcha" journalism. The commentator gives him a quote from a general against a policy Santorum assumes is DADT for the same biases referenced tirelessly about "military cohesion" and fairly quickly indicates that animus towards people based on immutable characteristics is the driving theme here.

When compared, the mentality of the military on integration was equally opposed when polled as it seemed to be to DADT. A fascinating historical account of both can be found here. Some of the most telling similarities follow:

Wellsprings of Venom- The AFA and "Family Values"

Joe. My. God.: Star Parker: Gay People Make Us Sick:

The only political event that I've ever heard that approaches this sort of language is this "Family Values Summit", which frankly seems to have more in common with an Oi band performance than it does with the more...cautious rhetoric of a nonpartisan function. This is the AFA when it thinks its preaching to the chior. This is what they think and believe. Full stop. Its been unadultrated hatred and undistilled bigotry...but its been very informative... ahhh the internet. It really does have uses outside of pornography. Seeing the coded "family values" misdirect for what it is? May actually be something to thank them for. At the very least, the pretense of civility has at least evaporated in a spate of hate speech and righteous indignation. The Summit has proven to be a wellspring of such.

Its a fascinating notion that the Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized the American Family Association a hate group (explanation from the link), solely on the fact that it uses consistent disproven rhetoric and hate speech to further its anti-gay agenda, is so in line with right wing ideology that numerous GOP candidates for the presidency of the United States have shown up currying favor.The soundbites from its figurehead Tony Perkins (Right Wing Watch has compiled quite a list of inflammatory statements from the guy) are far from partisan and...only rarely deviate from the idea that gay people are going to destroy the world. How he's not advocating gas chambers yet speaks to incredible self control. These orginizations are not as benign as they position themselves to be. The National Orginization for Marriage may have once claimed that its merely interested in preserving marriage, the AFA may suggest its just about "family values", but more and more when one pays attention to the tone, language and frequency of anti-gay hostility in the interests of what they perceive "family interests" to be...their pretense that they're not homophobic and purely interested in politically advancing  that marriage is between a man and a woman (tm) evaporates. 

And now for some theme music. The National- Afraid of Everyone. Apt, no?

'via Blog this'

People Hide Behind Masks For A Reason, Sir.

Joe. My. God.: DADT Repeal Forces Bigots Into Closet:

'via Blog this'

Busy day, so just one thought on the angsting of figurehead bigot Mr. Sprigg;

If bigotry wasn't something to be ashamed of and keep behind closed doors...Klansmen wouldn't hide behind sheets and hoods. If they didn't know there was something to lose from their true selves being made public, they wouldn't conseal themselves. Could it be that the institutionalized discrimination you used to validate your view point with doesn't provide as much cover as it used to?

When those who have long sought to use their own personal biases to keep others in their "places" percieve that they have less of a leg to stand on, I'm putting it in the win column. It is of course a terrible pity that Sprigg and the like feel pressured to keep their bigotry to themselves. Now if you're wondering what to buy the closeted bigot that has everything, a suggestion: Hoods are very much in season this time of year, you'll fit right in.

Below is one of the most gorgeous songs I've heard in a long while-( natch for Caribou Coffee's playlist). Enjoy life.

A

And Yet We Never Learn. (On the Tyranny of the Majority)

It bares noting that our little state of North Carolina is, as of the recent vote in the State House, due to have a very public, very likely messy Proposition 8 debacle to call our very own. The House passed the initiative within a comfortable margin, and seems likely to make the state a "culture war" battle ground when it comes to pass. Nothing's quite as fun as having one's friends and neighbors weigh in on whether or not they should have the luxury of being in a economically and legally approved relationship. What those unaware of the tyranny of the majority argument and all the sign waiving "Let the People Vote!" individuals don't seem to get it is that if we allowed the majority of white male landowners to vote on desegregation, interracial marriage, womens sufferage and the like? We'd still be in the cultural stone ages. I'd still be staring at the world through "coloreds only" windows and we'd all be shooing women back to their private spheres. One of the reasons I believe that we've gotten as far in the business of equality as we have is because...on many of the other minority politics issues, federally, we haven't allowed small town thinking and poorly rationalized biases get in the way of fairness and decency.

Democracy is a fascinating, often complicated thing. I find here that people seem absolutely oblivious to how biases towards other groups who share (or ought to) their status as Americans could allow their "vote" on the ability for the state to recognize their relationship as valid might be an integrity issue. In a just world, I don't want to have to vote on the relationships, or rights of others I may harbor biases against, as it is far easier a thing to act against their civil liberties and do harm to the quality of life of others. It should never be my place to dictate my terms and expectations onto other citizens, and I find it a throwback to the days of Jesse Helms to watch this ominous possibility present itself. To watch others line up to restrict the rights of their fellow citizens so willfully, so gleefully is a miserable thing to have to stomach. I expect we'll be discussing the issue a great deal more in the future. As much as its beneath the dignity of any civilized person to have to make a case for their equality (rights they should have by proxy of being a citizen or a human being), it does seem to be the way our woefully flawed society works when it regards minority issues, and yet we never learn.

UPDATE: I've been combing through NC politics blog "the Progressive Pulse" and found this bit from Democrats in against the amendment. Its not rosy, but there was/is some impassioned speaking on the behalf of the maligned at the very least.

Here. Mood music.

Its Like Watching a Morally Bankrupt, Dispicable Trainwreck...

There's something particularly troubling about how the press has been covering the tragedy in Oslo. When they're not blatantly diverting the subject back to their discomfort zones (Look, over there Muslim terrorists!) , or Beck's classicly horrifying "Those kids were practically hitler youth (so its not AS bad some nut killed them all)" they're pontificating on Breivik's methodically chilling manifesto and coming up with THIS disturbing assessment:

"As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right."(emphasis mine)

Its difficult to understand what anyone would have to gain from not uniformly denouncing someone who is capable of the cold blooded murder of innocents, and further an odd intersection between troubling and fascinating to watch some do this- all in the name of being loosely affiliated with the same (tremendously common) religion.

When involving Breivik, one hears pleas for nuance and understanding regarding what it is the writers and the villain share- belonging to an aggregate. The post Brayton showcases by Adam Serwer does a great job illuminating this position, especially given many of these same conservative writers eagerness to paint the "run of the mill" threat to America (tm) as being anti-American, Anti-Christian and most assuredly of the Muslim faith.

Sewer's article raises the serious concern with the tone of the argument here- not that they're writing and responding to a very real human tragedy...but they're responding with what a friend on the book of faces rightly categorized as a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy (which the wiki-page helpfully provided Bill O'Riley's response to the Oslo massacre as an example). "Why, surely no one belonging to our group could be responsible for such awful things. But everybody from those OTHER groups they're monsters worthy of being suppressed and chased from this American life... but please, show some nuanced consideration for how intricately different we as Christians can be. Please excuse me while I demonize everyone practicing a religion I know little about."

Jon Stewart nails this bizzaro ideological contortion brilliantly.

Some days, I shudder for the universe. Oh what a world my parents gave me...

See What We Did There?

From the ever clever "Dispatches from the Culture Wars":
I'm very pleased with how diligent our steadfast Republicans have been about job creation and restoring the country to prosperity. Because the 162 provisions created hamper reproductive health rights? Thats directly linked to reversing unemployment. Or, here's a thought: It could be that once these tea partiers got into office on their solemn swearing to do no harm, they decided to do overtime on their political pet peeves instead of righting the economy as they'd sworn.

Some of us are paying attention. Though it may be a day later and a dollar shorter than many would prefer.

Gender Bombs: Sissy Boys and Security Threats

Box Turtle Bulletin » What Are Little Boys Made Of?

Above is some of the most impressive blog journalism I've ever seen related to a given piece.

Anderson Cooper has of late been making the rounds with a story, which by all accounts is a gripping, soul searing testament of how completely the idea of gender and its slightly murkier links to perceived sexual orientation can belabor and ruin the already arduous process that is coming of age. The Cooper story was broken initially by Box Turtle Bulletin, and in tandem both prove to be some amazing, damning evidence against homosexual "deprogramming" touted among the Christian Conservative set.

Every semester to date, when discussing the gender and sexuality chapters of Intro to Sociology, the topic without question veers to the very dicey topic of gender expression. "My four year old nephew likes the color pink...should I be worried?" "I once saw my son playing with his sister's doll, does that mean anything?" It feels as though every month or so we have a histrionic "gay panic" about some parent somewhere "making their 5 year old gay" by "allowing" their child to paint their toenails pink or play dress up, or wear a costume for Halloween.

What follows is usually a fairly profound unpacking of our societal misconceptions about gender and how it relates (or does not) to sexual orientation, and more importantly how socially constructed a given cultures ideas of masculinity and femininity are.

We live in a culture, post cold war conformity, that is still suffering from the hangovers of rigid gender expectation. All boys should like color X (or else something MAY be wrong with them), all girls should like the color Y (or something might be wrong with them). That something, post-McCarthyism was always the idea that gender non-conformity of any sort, the slightest "deviation" meant that your son might be a "sissy boy", much the way homosexuality was linked to such extreme deviance during the period that it was considered a national security risk to have any real or presumed homosexuals employed in a federal capacity. Being gay or even considered gay was so subversive that it was considered a danger to the very American way of life. Those ideas were popularized roughly a generation ago during a time of extreme social conformity, so it should come as no surprise that the original gay panic defense still has lingering implications as many years later.

What is problematic about this misconception is that one's sexuality, even when we're in our most formative years, learning the very socialized aspects of gender expectation- girls have long hair, wear dresses, pet kitties and play with dollies. Boys are "snakes and snails and puppy dogs tails", yadda yadda yadda. And what that fails to indicate, or even adequately express is the idea that sexuality and attraction are phenomena that exist outside of our gender identity/socialization.

As per the experiment referenced in both the Anderson Cooper and Box Turtle Bulletin links, there are several boys who conform to "appropriate" gender roles and still have same sex attractions, plenty of rugged military personnel that just so happen to like dudes. Sexuality does not perfectly dovetail with gender role behavior. If anything, what is evidenced by the extremely horrific results of the "sissy boy experiment" the infamous "ex-gay" reparative therapy guru George Reukers is that when we attach such caustic controls and expectations (i.e- conflating sexual orientation to gender behavior of a five year old) more damage can be done than good. Its utterly heartwrenching, the sort of hurt and trauma this experiment has caused the family the articles and expose touch on. And utterly criminal how people like the junk psychologist/therapist interviewed therein are allowed to further the falsehood that same sex attractions are something that can or should be essentially reprogrammed at God(tm)'s say so. The damage this does to the psyches of young people, living in fear of rejection and shunning based on whether or not their presentation of a given role is "convincing" (and not necessarily on their actual sexualities) is exponential in magnitude.

EDIT: Having just found this rather succinct meme from the APA on NARTH and the Focus on the Family fundies that perpetuate the ex-gay myth, I think the defense can rest safely enough.

Celebrity Deathmatch: Unreality Version.

Counter-protesters confront Westboro Baptist Church at Arlington - CNN.com

Perhaps the apocalypse really IS a-coming, after all. Here we have the Klu Klutz Klan counter protesting the Westboro Baptist Church. Yes, one group has been historically the most repugnant blight on American culture (since...well, technically the Europeans landed and performed gradual genocide centuries ago), the other has through sheer mean spirited "fire and brimstone" spitefulness, made a name for itself protesting funerals of gay people, military soldiers, and anyone with a slightly elevated profile that may be somehow..."endorsing sin that deserves God's Fury". Or something. And they're FIGHTING each other!!!

Not since those rather ridiculous claymation Deathmatch epsidoes on MTV have I wanted to see an actual throwdown. To be fair, The Westboro Baptist Church finds that its NOT an abomination that needs to be protested at funerals to be black or female. Just gay. Or a soldier who happened to die at war. Which vaguely (though not actually) doesn't outright condemn the homosexual to death. So they're sinners too!!! (Or something). This is like if the Legion of Doom squared off against the Storm Troopers from Star Wars. Except, in reality, is slightly more jarring and a little pathetic.

Don't worry. My head hurts too.

Speaking of religious interpretation and big obnoxious overreactions. I'm posting the video to Lady Gaga's "Judas" which the Christian Anti-Defamation League called a bunch of foul things before either the song or the video were released. You KNOW you're controversial when you get pre-emptive pearl clutching...

If This Doesn't Stimulate the Economy, Nothing Will! (Oh wait)

House passes measure to ban funds for teaching abortion techniques in health centers - The Washington Post

This is ridiculous. As a student that spent a great deal of time at a state university with a med school of some renown, I can't tell you how detrimental even the pretense of this measure is. Half the town I went to was employed by the University, the other half? By the state of the art hospital that...you guessed it, was and is funded and staffed by the University's med school. Teaching medical students to be LESS professionally viable because some fundies have their pearls in a perpetual clutch is not a social good. Much to the contrary its likely to make med school programs in the US less competitive and thinking back to my sleepy southern college town, mean a lot less money to trickle down to the locals via housing, resteraunts and over priced textbooks. Luckily, and with good reason, the odds of passing the Senate aren't the best. I submit for the record another in a very rapid line of Tea Party "shots across the bow" idle threats that do NOTHING but score political points with their increasingly rigid constituency.

Absolute Blackness (of Souls, Skin and Intent).

Joe. My. God.: Fischer: Herman Cain Is Authentically Black, President Obama Isn't

Well, two dizzyingly bigoted screeds from the man in the same day. And here I'd thought one couldn't stoop to levels of putridness this often consecutively. The man does like to outdo himself it would seem.

So here's the jist: Because the President of the United States is visiting Ireland (much to the pleasure of the Irish themselves, the fanfare is pretty endearing) and honors and respects the ancestry of his grandparents- who raised him, he's less convincing as "a black person". Fischer then goes on to trumpet the new GOP darling, who...apparently is somehow more black because he's allegedly of "purer" black parentage?

Interestingly enough, I'm willing to bet Fischer and his ilk categorize President Obama as black every other time it serves their purposes. To now go out of one's way to use the idea that he's "not black enough" to be authentic is...both galling, and a troubling line of thought that has permeated African-American culture for generations.

Thats the funny thing about "blackness" (tm). Its subjective. Blackness (much like jewishness or being hispanic) can be ethnic, racial,or some variation inbetween, as I can consider myself black, merely because my ancestry is denoted as such, or because I ascribe to various cultural norms associated with the group. People often associate norms of an ethnic group with the belonging to the racial status. I am black by proxy of having black ancestry. I'm also a suburban brat with a vocabulary on steroids, musical and literary tastes that verge on the grungy/indie rock and seldom conform to the more generic of the sub-cultural cliches we're told are valid if we're to act the part. People very annoyingly remark that I don't "act black" or "sound black"...and that I somehow need to convince them that I am. Its funny, whenever I'm in environments where the likes of Fisher feel comofrtable I'm always ACUTELY aware of how black I am, regardless of how I act or speak. One is punished/judged for belonging to the "deviant" outgroup of black WELL before performance of blackness even comes into play.

Brian Fischer is likely as disconnected about racial issues as he is about gender and sexuality, make no mistake, but what he's done here is beneath contempt. President Obama is the antithesis of everything Christian Conservatives stand for (regardless of them sharing a religious vantage- despite how loathe most conservatives are to admit this)and the rejection out of hand is seldom merely just about political divides. To conjure this argument that a white old conservative can be the arbiter of "blackness" is no different than it was in the antebellum south when the house and field slaves were routed into distinct classes, with one having more "privileges" than the other. In order to simplify the act of judging what place to put black folk in, the "One Drop Rule" became the rule of thumb for "determining" how strictly, how rigidly to stratify an individual under scrutiny. One drop of "black blood" (however this was measured in the early days of the 1900s)was enough to banish you to seperate-but-equalville. Many a fairer person of African-American ancestry have experienced the ethnicity v. racial complexity of blackness in the act of "passing" during more despicable periods of Southern history. The film "An Imitation of Life" deftly explores the concept; the marginalized tragic mulatto internalizes a world of contempt and comes to reject the family that cannot renegotiate their racial identities similarly. Under normal circumstances, white powerholding arbiters of racial hierarchy favored the "white makes right" ideology, currying incremental favors upon their biracial slaves while still holding them at arms length vis a vis the one drop rule.

On the other end of the spectrum, judging the authentically of blackness are those of the African-American community who would disdain members who don't neatly conform to the expectations established by other arbiters. To be deemed "not black enough" is to be judged unworthy of membership in the group because of a performance not up to snuff. The problem becomes being scorned by racists within the dominant culture, who will gladly write off black people merely for being racially "other", and being treated as suspect by the minority culture you belong to for not prescribing to cultural adherents. To be seen as insufficient by the group others are punishing you for being part of, ironically. A lifetime of otherness.

It reminds me of an experience I had in high school, where a pithy girl I once knew asked with a wry smile on her lips if I felt "any less black for living in the suburbs." The implications stung me and I found myself both saddened and angry. I thought on it a bit and turned to her and said "No, I still get called a N***** enough on the off chance I was to forget." And the truth of such ignorance is the sorrier thing. We are whatever race we've been parceled into by accident of birth and social prescription. The cultural and much of the behavioral are environmental factors, that when it comes to blackness we begrudge when people don't meet the standards (usually low) we expect of other black people. I act like a boy from the suburbs with overly cerebral parents, and I've never once forgotten myself. Why would I? Much like President Obama there are scores of people out in the world that are more than willing to remind us, should this come to pass.

Injustice Leagues.

Nashville business leaders met secretly with religious right to plot demise of gay/trans rights law

A continuation of the excellent coverage I referenced at Americablog yesterday by John Aravosis regarding silent killing of anti-discrimination laws in Tennessee.

For the record, the list of cohorts in this Injustice League? :

FedEx, Nissan, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG, Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare.

Whether or not this goes forward with success (and it rather looks like it will), the Christian Conservative set has slipped in another great monkey wrench into the work of equality. As though it seemed a heroic move to skulk through shadows... More on this as it comes.

Meanwhile, at the Hall of Doom...

I just started reading Americablog in earnest a month or so ago, but they've been on fire lately regarding anti-gay politics. What John Aravosis has tipped us to in Tennessee is nothing short of staggeringly corrupt and ethically bankrupt.

In short? A veritible who's who of corporate interests are pushing a bill that not only strips gay inclusion from anti-discrimination laws (in the workplace), but ALSO will repeal/nullify all civil rights discrimination laws in the entire STATE. So, in other words, Tennessee will have carte blanche to discriminate in hiring and occupation as it sees fit now that those pesky laws aren't at play anymore. This is a gargantuan setback for civil rights, and one of the ways I say "States Rights" = "Justified exclusionary policy".

I'd like to get responses from these companies alleged to be making these back room powerplays. Some of whom I have ties to directly (and am feeling the slimier for it suddenly), and think some transparency is in order. If this proves to be true in any way, these guys have a lot to answer for.

Read the full account @ Americablog and be sure to sign the petition that follows it. This is one that it might pay to get loudly involved on. Sitting on the sidelines while the big plays are decided by back room super-villiany? Not something I'm going to let slide.

Nissan, Comcast, FedEx, AT&T on verge of getting gay rights law pulled in Nashville

Not So Fast: DADT Repeal May Not Be A Done Deal

GOPers on House Armed Services Committee pass harmful DADT amendments

This doesn't bode terribly well. On the whole, I think the article's assertion that the incrementally slow "walking out" of the DADT repeal has merely allowed the arch-conservatives enough time to properly find stalling tactics seems valid. Realistically, is the method that the repeal is being implemented by what with its scores and scores of training and the "weighing of readiness" the most expedient way to end this government sanctioned witchhunt? The snails pace by which this is being accomplished is better than no resolution at all, make no mistake. BUT, in a Republican infested House, it was perhaps foolish to expect it'd go away without the typical baring of teeth and backstage slight of hand.

I guess we are to believe President Obama understands the military when it comes to killing bin Laden, who the Bush administration no longer considered a threat, but the Grand Old Party knows best when it comes to implementing a policy that has long since been the official policy by our allies Great Britain, Israel, Canada and Australia. Those countries, who more closely observe their gay and lesbian citizen's civil rights, didn't drag their feet when it came to openly integrating their military services, either.

And really, this. While we posit ourselves grand master of the Free World (tm), our culture when put under a magnifying glass seems more and more insular and regressive. How do we stack when it comes to the true freedoms of our fellow citizens in comparison to the rest of the world? When the vast majority of our allies have done this without fanfare or the universe ending, it speaks to glaring problems with the American political mindset when we move towards ending unconstitutional laws with such a wringing of hands.

More as it develops...