Police Violence: A Link Archive

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6051043/how-many-people-killed-police-statistics-homicide-official-black

http://www.bustle.com/articles/36096-do-police-shoot-black-men-more-often-statistics-say-yes-absolutely

http://rt.com/usa/180648-police-shootings-african-american/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/08/23/fact-checker-police-brutality-toward-blacks-rare/14424297/

http://www.colorlines.com/archives/2007/11/killed_by_the_cops.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

On Michael Brown and Addressing Anti-Black Violence

Some excellent pieces on Michael Brown and the killing of Black people in America:

America is not for Black people (Greg Howard, the Concourse)

Black kids don't have to be college bound for their deaths to be tragic (Jasmine Banks, The Root)

In defense of Black rage (Brittney Cooper, Salon)

I have zero answers here, but I've been thinking about what the structures are that enable violence, especially state-sanctioned and white violence, against Black people, queer people, Black queer people, and other people of color of various sexualities and genders to occur without repercussion (often--thankfully Renisha McBride seems to be an exception to this rule) and with impunity.

As Mia Mckenzie (Black Girl Dangerous) points out in her latest piece, "In this country, police protect property while killing human beings. Sometimes they, as well as civilians, kill human beings in order to protect property."  This one thought brings together the interlaced nature of white supremacy with corporate power. In our current oligarchy (to paraphrase Chomsky: "There is one party; the business party.")  And corporate power almost uniformly is held by white people (usually white men).  These men usually present as straight and/or gender conforming (i.e., cisgender) but who knows?  The take-away here is not whether they are or not, but rather they present as such, likely to retain their power and privilege in way that would be compromised (although perhaps not depleted) if they weren't.  For the record, I have no illusions that a gay white corporate power broker would be more just, less racist, or more equitable than a straight one, as illustrated by the numerous times non-powerful gay white men articulate and act on their white privileged worldview.

In our increasing carceral society (Foucault was right!) police power and the prison industry is tied to corporate interest and money.  I don't know if white supremacy is able to be defeated or even mitigated without de-powering corporations and the police.  I of course still believe in education and I think us white educators need to teach not just the evils of racism (i.e., don't be racist because racism is violence), but the harmful effects on all people (i.e., don't support racist policies and tactics because they're violence and they are also bad for you).

This is a small chip, and it might be my (or anyone's) primary chip, but I think it's going to take a long fight against the increasing state/police power our government at multiple levels is exerting against all its citizens, corporate influence on our political processes, and corporate ties with police and prisons. (In addition to the increased militarization of police as demonstrated in this article and others, I'm seeing more stories on police serving/protecting the citizens who can afford them.  A recent news story from a nearby town detailed a woman was charged a fee because she called police to investigate a situation at her house!)

TL;DR: Anti-black / anti-POC violence by police and white people is supported through corporate-government-police ties and it seems to me those ties must be dismantled or damaged.  How to do that however?  That, I have no idea.  I'm just sharing my latest thinking out loud.  Violence and state violence  in this country against Black and queer people has always existed.  Black people and their allies helped address some of it, but it seems to be gaining strength as white corporate interests continue to increase their power.

Gay White Men and Black Women: A Link Archive

http://time.com/2969951/dear-white-gays-stop-stealing-black-female-culture/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-michael-dagostino/bye-sierra-mannie-a-slightly-ang_b_5588108.html

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/why-white-gays-steal-black-female-culture.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antwaun-sargent/a-history-of-throwing-cultural-appropriation_b_5586481.html

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/17/332283239/are-white-gay-men-stealing-culture-from-black-women

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/11/are_gay_white_men_really_stealing_black_female_culture.html

http://www.xojane.com/issues/white-gay-men-cultural-appropriation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/gay-men-black-women_n_5591565.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://time.com/2988033/white-gays-black-women-allies/

http://www.autostraddle.com/white-gay-man-publishes-epically-stupid-response-to-stop-stealing-black-female-culture-245972/

http://thoughtcatalog.com/h-alan-scott/2014/07/dear-white-gays-dont-listen-to-time-magazine/

Fat and Health: A Link Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/our-imaginary-weight-problem.html

http://mic.com/articles/91407/9-facts-that-challenge-the-way-we-talk-about-fat-people?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/05/can-you-be-fat-and-fit-or-thin-and-unhealthy/

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/01/if_fat_is_unhealthy_why_are_overweight_people_less_likely_to_die.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/overweight-bit-obese-bad/story?id=18108820

http://kateharding.net/faq/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/

http://greatist.com/health/why-it-okay-to-be-overweight

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/04/just-the-fat-facts-maam/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2539857/Obese-people-not-always-unhealthy.html

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2009/11/03/there-is-strong-research-showing-fat-people-can-be-healthy-and-fit/

Trigger Warning: A Link Archive

"Christina Hanhardt's work on the concept of queer "safe spaces" - and the historical and political contours that define those as such - is worth looking at as well. What I find especially interesting about Ashon's work, and in juxtaposing that with Christina's, is how we're challenged to think about the basic questions: Who gets triggered? Who gets protected? And from what? How are triggering and protection raced, gendered, and classed? How does that work in a uni setting? In organising spaces (where it has, in my experience, often made it impossible to actually move forward in organising work)? There's a willingness to insist that TWs somehow protect people, but the larger question is: what are the political costs of that protection? What does "protection" really mean?" - Yasmir Nair, Facebook, June 24, 2014

http://thegeekypress.com/2014/05/29/on-why-trigger-warnings-are-a-bad-idea/

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/05/23/treatment-not-trigger-warnings/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/05/29/essay-faculty-members-about-why-they-will-not-use-trigger-warnings#sthash.7YFC3mNX.I4rXZB61.dpbs

https://storify.com/ashoncrawley/on-trigger-warnings

http://entropymag.org/on-trigger-warnings-part-i-in-the-creative-writing-classroom/
http://entropymag.org/on-trigger-warnings-part-ii-generational-tensions/
http://entropymag.org/on-trigger-warnings-part-iii-disability-and-accommodation/

http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/

response to Halberstam: http://queerandpresentdanger.tumblr.com/post/91296439324

http://raneutill.com/how-trigger-warnings-broke-my-back/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/trigger-warning-stigma/?utm_content=buffer6fb51&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The History of and Debate Over "Tranny": A Link Archive

http://www.transadvocate.com/tranny-an-evidence-based-review-2_n_13593.htm

http://veronicavera.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/miss-vera-on-tranny/

http://katebornstein.typepad.com/kate_bornsteins_blog/2009/07/who-you-calling-a-tranny.html

http://katebornstein.typepad.com/kate_bornsteins_blog/2014/05/tranny-revisited-by-auntie-kate.html

http://thefightmag.com/2014/05/performance-artist-justin-bond-fires-back-after-trannyshack-name-change/

http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/

response to Halberstam: http://queerandpresentdanger.tumblr.com/post/91296439324

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/09/is_tranny_offensive.php

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/12/context_lets_talk_about_tranny.php

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/trans-community-debates-middle-ground/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malek-mouzon/i-guess-i-should-stop-letting-people-call-me-tranny_b_5147564.html

http://zinnia.sexy/post/86765895585/why-cant-bailey-jay-just-have-her-feelings-about

http://chamblee54.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/wtf-rupaul/

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2014/05/rupaul-still-clueless-as-usual.html

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/logo-tv-distances-itself-from-rupal

http://prospect.org/article/word-faggot

Miley, Madonna, Big Freedia, and Willi Ninja

In just a matter of hours, I've seen more coverage and discussion of Miley Cyrus's VMA performance than I've ever noticed before. The coverage generally seems to stem from peoples' deep discomfort with Cyrus's sexually provocative moves. I haven't watched her performance and I don't care to, although I've seen stills from it; most of them fixate on her twerking and simulated rear penetration. I have seen her rather disjointed and controversial ode to young adult (women's?) rebellion. I don't consider Cyrus particularly interesting or talented, but the attention she draws merits interest. Such attention, while clearly fed and furthered by media outlets who seek page views (i.e., ad revenue) and to line the pockets of the producers of Cyrus's videos and performances, calls attention to American society's need to continue to surveil and police women's bodies and sexuality. Regardless of the questionable aesthetic merits of Cyrus's VMA performance, video, or dancing, Cyrus is able to draw attention because she's clearly aware that women acting in highly sexual ways in public draws attention and controversy. Cyrus is no fool or dupe here; she's following in a financially proven tradition, whose more modern originators include Madonna, Cher, Janis Joplin, and others, although they did this, many would likely argue, in more daring, original, and aesthetically complex ways. (I omit women of color in these originators not to exclude them, but to highlight the tradition of white women Cyrus follows in, an important distinction.)

Clinton Yates at the Washington Post rightly calls out the pathologizing of Cyrus's overt sexuality as slut-shaming, or, in more academic terms, the social regulation of women's bodies. But then Yates goes off track, majorly. Yates want to make Cyrus a victim of racism because of her class status and Whiteness. Yates writes:

When the white, 20-year-old, former child star and daughter of a country singer goes on stage and does something that the so-called ruling classes deem unseemly, it starts a firestorm. ... By implying that Cyrus is somehow creating a minstrel act of sorts by including black dancers in her act, you are implying that there is something lesser than about such an act. As if it’s completely impossible that she simply enjoys and respects the talents of those she chooses to work with. In short, it is inherently racist to imply that there is anything wrong with anyone other than black women twerking.

Yates specifically refers to the Vulture piece on Cyrus, but would clearly also apply his thinking to this HuffPo piece. Yates's rightful assertion that Miley draws controversy because she is a White woman of a certain age and socio-economic class contorts what racism is and how it functions. Institutional and social racism demands that White women, particularly middle to upper class White women, act or be represented as virginal, pure, and innocent, but it makes those demands so that Black women can be portrayed as sexual beasts, uncontrollable in their desires. This is Patricia Hill Collins 101.

So, yes, racism, or more specifically institutional racism, makes certain demands on Cyrus's body, as does heteropatriarchy, but obviously she still benefits, at least financially, from those demands. She seems, in fact, to exploit the system for her own gain, her own attention. Black women are rarely rewarded, like Cyrus and other white women are, for performing in ways that verify or defy social images of them. Yates confuses personal racism with institutional racism, and doesn't understand either. Even within the realm of personal racism, Yates cannot possibly know the motives or thoughts of those who accuse Cyrus of racial appropriation, and doesn't write as if he cares. He seems to be employing a rhetorical strategy to simply end the discussion: call it racist and no counter-argument can be mounted, right?

Yet it is perfectly legitimate, if not out-right correct, to say that Cyrus, and other white performers, when they twerk are appropriating a dance move that originated among African-American communities. White entertainers have been doing this for decades, if not centuries, in this country. Cyrus and Yates cannot ignore this historical context and claim that it's racist to limit certain dance moves to certain racial groups.

What Yates fails to understand is that it's less about a White person dancing in an African-American style than it's about a number of things: to what end does Cyrus use this style? Does she care about twerking as an art form or does she simply seek to profit off it? Is she using the Blackness of twerking to appear edgy, dangerous, "hard"? Is she extending a commensurate amount of compensation to those who taught her to twerk or to those who originated twerking? These are just a few relevant questions and considerations. And focusing solely on twerking does not take into account Cyrus's use of other emblems of African-American rap and hip-hop culture, such as hoodies, grills, and gangster signs, all of which suggest that Cyrus is using Blackness for profit by trying to counter her innocent, young Whiteness which she built a reputation and career on during her "Hannah Montana" days. In addition to Black cultural symbols, Cyrus also fetishizes Black bodies, particularly the asses, of her VMA dancers and her video collaborators. At one point in the video, she spanks a person who presents as a Black drag queen in a kitchen. One cannot ignore the racist symbolism of a rich, White, straight, cisgender woman "punishing" a queer Black body in a place where Black people historically served.

In twerking and her video, Cyrus appropriates both Blackness and queerness. Twerking [seizure warning for link] originated in the New Orleans-based, African American Bounce and Sissy Bounce music scene, [UPDATE 10/27/15: In a televised interview in the past year or two, Big Freedia clarified that Sissy Bounce is not a thing. The correct term is Bounce.]  One of the leaders of whom is a genderqueer Black person--Big Freedia--who has received considerably less attention and money than certainly Cyrus does. Madonna did this with voguing, witch originated in the queer (predominantly) Black and Latino/Hispanic New York City Drag Ball culture. Yet, most people have never heard of Willi Ninja or other contemporaries, and those dance pioneers received considerably less (if any) remuneration for having their dance style stolen. Yates, and likely Cyrus, does not understand the history, (and I would be surprised if Cyrus cared so long as exploiting Blackness and queerness brings her plenty of attention and money) of this kind of institutional racism and heterosupremacy. Certainly Madonna wasn't the first and Cyrus isn't going to be the last White or straight and cisgender identified person to profit from the bodies and work of Black, Brown, and Queer people, but we must call them, and people like Yates, to recognition of these facts, and how the policing of Cyrus's body as a woman stems from these same systems of oppression.

An Open Letter to Anna Bross and Other News Editors

Today Anna Bross declared that NPR will not refer to Chelsea Manning as she/her, but will continue to use he/him despite Chelsea's express wishes.  Of course, NPR isn't the only news outlet stigmatizing and refusing to honor Chelsea's wishes. Below is the letter I just emailed her.  It applies to any news organization that refuses to recognize Manning's agency.

Ms. Bross,

As a long-time listener of NPR as a source of news with intelligence and depth, I am disgusted at your ignorance about transgender people and gender identity in general.  Your choice to continue to refer to Chelsea Manning, despite her stated wishes, as he/him is a display of the worst kind of heteronormativity, cis-gender privilege, and systematic genderbashing.  Do you understand those terms?  If not, I suggest you do some research.  Gender is not about genitalia, it's about how we understand ourselves.  Some people, like myself, and likely yourself, understand our gender (male in my case, female in yours) as aligning with the sex were were assigned at birth.  (You need to understand also how sex also is much less clear than what you likely believe.)  Others understand their gender differently from their assigned sex.  Chelsea Manning has stated that she is one of those people.  

Your insistence on continuing to use male pronouns for Chelsea, or anybody, who states a preference to be referred to otherwise (such as she/her, or perhaps ze/hir) needs to be honored.  Why do you feel like you have the authority or right to police and decide for Chelsea, or anybody, their gender?  Why do you think it's ethically sound to decide what Manning's sex is?  Are you a genitalia expert?  Have you seen Manning's genitalia?  Do you know whether Manning has a penis or just an enlarged clitoris?  Do you know Manning's chromosomes?  If not, I'd strongly urge you to let Chelsea decide what is proper to call her.  Even if you knew all of this information, you do not have the right to police other people's decisions about how they wish to be known.  

Would you object if, although you seem to present and identify as a woman, as female, news outlets, friends, family, the public, decided to call  you a man and refer to you as he/him?  I suspect you'd object strongly to this because you see yourself as a woman.  So does Chelsea.  It doesn't matter who you think she is.  I expect better from NPR and its staff: I expect you not to promote systematic discrimination.  Your actions today have done this.

I have donated to NPR in the past, but I will no longer do so unless you reconsider this decision.  I'm sure my donation is a small sum compared to your corporate partners, but it's what I can do other than urge you to consider how you are harming the life of not just Chelsea Manning, but effectively declaring that no trans person has the right to declare their own personhood and terms of engagement with others.

I urge you to rethink your position.

Perspectives on Obama's Morehouse Address

James Fallows points, probably rightly so, to the impossible predicament that President Obama (and First Lady Michelle Obama by implication) find themselves in when addressing issues of race and/or about lesbians and gays, as exemplified by the reaction to the President's commencement address to historically Black men's university, Morehouse.  The historical significance of the President's mere presence (i.e., the first Black president addressing the graduating class of one of the preeminent colleges for Black men) and the content of his address as well.  In particular, two aspects of his speech have gained prominent attention: his admonition that these young Black men need to not blame racism for their failings and to press on, and his mention that Black men should be good husbands, or partners, opening up space for the recognition of the gay men / same-gender loving (SGL) men. (Some Black men find gay to be racially marked as White, and choose other identity designations, such as SGL).  

The Need to Be Super: Queers in comics, Zizek, and the Petition to Fire Orson Scott Card

All Out has started a petition to have DC comics to drop Orson Scott Card from writing one of their new digital Superman titles.  Apparently it's a couple of issues and not the entire series, although the petition implies otherwise.  Card, most famous for his science fiction novel Ender's Game,  is notoriously anti-gay, has written about it prominently, and has ties to the National Organization for Marriage, a anti-same-sex marriage political organization.  He is, to be fair, a class-A straight and cisgender supremist who has advocated the overthrow of the government if same-sex marriage becomes legal.

The comments on the petition are strident and strongly worded:

You hire him, you've lost an avid fan of your company and I will never buy any of your products again. I will actually go out of my way to ensure no one buys your products. Ever!

Don't take us back to the 1950's! Get rid of this guy!

The petition itself states:

By hiring Orson Scott Card despite his anti-gay efforts you are giving him a new platform and supporting his hate.

This matter has risen to the attention of even the Guardian, and I want to know why.  I'm curious about the investment people--the large portion of which I'm confident do not read comics regularly--have in this matter?  Why has this particular instance so captivated peoples' attention when far worse is done against LGBT people and far worse has been done to LGBT characters in comics?

Thinking Kevin Clash: Elmo and Queer Perversity

A second accusation seems to have solidified what many suspected or feared about Kevin Clash--he's a homosexual(1).  Yes, on the surface the concern is that he potentially had sex with a minor, or as some are eager to say, that he's a pedophile.  Some seem just generally grossed out that a male would have sex with another male 15-30 years younger.  And all of these may be actual concerns of people, but underlying it all is an implicit (and often explicit) policing and punishing of homosexuality.

I suspect Clash's career in puppetry was ruined by the first accusation.  Homosexual men working with children are generally seen as perverts, regardless of what they do or how "well behaved."  As Eve Sedgwick and David Halperin have pointed out, neither being "out" nor "in" the closet is refuge from being indicted about one's sexuality.   Those who would accuse Clash of getting in trouble because he never publicly discussed his homosexuality or because they presume he was a closeted gay man looking for sexual or emotional gratification in any place he could find it miss the larger point that being gay is always precarious for those working with children.

Election Aftermath: Scared Whites and Will Legitimate Extremism Shut Down the GOP Body?

about the economy

Two thoughts in the aftermath of the election that I keep coming back to:

1) A lot of straight White people are "scared" of the "increasing division" in our country.   I read this from the encounters I've had and accounts I've heard from other friends of people with high amounts of privilege finally coming to the realization that the area of their dominance is dawning.  There is still substantial White power and influence in culture, of course, but the fact that people with Brown and Black skin, women, and gay and lesbian people substantially influenced the election to keep our first Black president in power undoubtedly has shaken the notion that White people can band together and get whatever they want.  The unassailable ability of White supremacy to put Black people in their place has sustained a palpable hit, and White people are reacting.  I suspect many of them were assured that either their fellow Whites and White skinned people were sufficiently racist (we're not) or that the numbers of the White voting block was powerful enough to counter the Black and Hispanic voting blocks.    

Certainly it must be scary to realize that others who have been oppressed are now asserting their rights and ascending to positions of authority and gaining cultural power.  My initial thought is that I need those people to think through their fear and express it productively, and ideally transform it into an embrace of a new kind of society and for those of us agitating for further change to consider that while some hate is hate, some stems from fear and we should recognize the difference.  It will also help if people like Bill O'Reilly would quit perpetuating the idea that people of other races are trying to steal from White people through the government.

Butch on the Street, Femme in the Sheets (of this Book)

Growing up in one of the larger and more prosperous towns of Mississippi, I had no access to representations of gay men or women. Despite growing up Southern Baptist, gays were not denounced in my church, they were never spoken of at all.  In sixth grade, a bully harassed me for much of the school year for being gay, but I didn't know what that meant.  I am not sure that he did either. Applied to me, it seemed to be more of an evolution of an insult that began when I took allergy medication at lunch time. I went from being a druggie to gay when druggie seemed to cause insufficient pain.  I cried in the arms of my mother, but only because I knew gay wasn't good--whatever it meant.  I was bullied in other grades also, although the insult of gay was not thrown around.  Still, as a scrawny introverted nerd scared of getting in trouble, I failed to perform masculinity properly and suffered the consequences.

Despite experiencing same-sex attraction in my teen years, I was unable to identify it as such at the time, largely because I had no conception of gay people or a gay identity.  I had no way to make sense of what those feelings meant, so I explained them away in the only ways I could: brotherly love, admiration, envy, and so on.  I would not make sense of those feelings until I was nearly thirty.  Even having gay and lesbian friends in college didn't help me identify myself as one--it honestly never occurred to me that I might be one too.  (Although later I would discover they clearly marked me as one when I was told it was about time I came out.)

I was, to use David Halperin's term, a proto-gay.  Gay in the sense of experiencing same-sex attraction, but proto, in not having a consciousness of it.  Halperin specifically uses this term to designate boys who will grow up to experience same sex object choice, but have not yet done so. The earliest I recall attraction to another boy was around seventh grade.

Yet prior to both my arrival at a gay identity and my earliest recollection of same-sex attraction, I was drawn to non-gay cultural artifacts that reflected a gay subjectivity, or in other words, cultural objects and characters that reflected how it felt to be a (proto-)gay.  Bugs Bunny, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Paul Lynde, Wayland Flowers and Madame (yes, both gay, but coded or covertly so), Flip Wilson, Beau Arthur, Kathy Bates, Bewitched, Maude, Golden Girls, Designing Women, Auntie Mame, Steel Magnolias, Misery, Dolores Claiborne, Mommie Dearest, the Muppets, Spider-Man. (I realize some of these may seem more "obviously" gay appropriations than others.)  Specifically, I was a white nerd gay, and my cultural attractions reflect this sensibility.

This experience, along with my experiences with other gay men, makes David Halperin's premise (or one of them) in How To Be Gay highly compelling, to say nothing of Halperin's rigorous methodology, staggeringly incisive analysis, clever insight, necessary contributions, and sense of wit. In short, David Halperin's How to be Gay is a tour de force.

The Truth is Out There (But It's Hard to Find)

Discerning the truth about political facts and claims is an onerous and unfulfilling one.  What you're most likely to find is that, by and large, everyone lies or distorts.  Certainly, no televised advertising can be trusted (this seems given), the candidates are going to present their case in the most favorable light possible, and we cannot rely on journalists to present any kind of useful analysis, a small handful aside.

The two best sources I've found so far, FactCheck and Politifact are certainly useful tools, although they require a good deal of time to wade through to understand the often shaded nuances (outright fabrications are easier to sort out) of the claims made by politicians, PACs, SuperPACs, and other partisan organizations.  Sometimes, the About page on Urban Legends and Netlore is useful, and Snopes can be good where more personal claims are made (e.g., Q: Is Hillary Clinton the liberal Marxist America-hater I know she is? A: If you take her statements out of context, she's handing America over to Fidel Castro right now.)  None of these sources are infallible and both liberals and conservatives alike have taken specific aim at Politifact from time to time, but these sites do try to lay out data as much as possible

I wonder how widely these (or other reliable) sources are used and who uses them?  I'm inclined to think only those most invested or interested in political discourse and strategies do--with most people leaning on soundbites offered on broadcast news, entertainers (e.g., Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Stewart) primarily, faux-political commentors (e.g., Hannity, Van Susteren, Schultz)   and, to a lesser extent, partisan wonks (e.g., Huckabee, Maddow).  Confirmation bias (i.e., the theory that we seek and ignore evidence in ways that help maintain the beliefs we want to maintain) is a real threat for people of all political inclinations.  And, existing research suggests that getting people to re-think their deeply held beliefs, even opposing factual evidence is offered, is very difficult anyway.

As an example, I'll use the above popular macro, seen circulating on a Facebook page near you, to illustrate how difficult discerning such claims can be, or at least how much more complex such claims are.

The Identity Facism of Modern Gay Liberation

For about a week now, much wailing and gnashing of teeth and lamenting of the faithful has been had by those who view themselves as gay liberationists or activists over Cynthia's Nixon statment that sexuality was a choice for her.  Despite affirming that this may not be the choice for everybody, she felt this was true for her. 
Oh, the uproar.  Such vitriol is usually reserved for those who equate gay people with pedophiles and Nazis.  The nasty comments across the web have come fast and furious.  Much of it has been incredibly malicious, sexist, hateful, and biphobic (i.e., fearful of bisexuals)   It's extremely clear that many people are deeply invested in the narrative that sexuality is innate, biological, immutable.

I understand why people may feel that way.  It seems that if we can prove that sexuality is as predetermined as race, then we have a iron clad argument agains discrimination.  Moreover, many people likely feel that they experience some kind of primal, out of their control attraction or urge to men or women. But, there's a lot wrong with these assumptions, which usually go unexamined.  And, from the look of things, people don't seem very inclined toward thinking too deeply about them.

It's probably never a good way to start off an essay by referring you to better done essays, but Scott Long's excellent blog post really is must-reading on this topic, as is his follow up: "Frots, g0ys, and other options."  While I was swilling this around in my mind, he said it first and certainly better than I have or am going to here.  Long provides a great overview of Foucaultian thought on sexuality, troubles quite accessibly and articulately current notions of sexuality as put forth by the mainstream lesbian and gay movement, and rightfully takes the modern "liberation" movement to task.  I would also recommend Frank Bruni's New York Times essay.  Bruni lays out the research that's been done so far on sexual orientation and shows that not only is it conclusive, but persuasively argues (along lines similar to Long) that it's unnecessary for equality.

How Do You Solve a Problem like Marcus?

A queer colleague of mine brought up this article about the potential problems of calling Marcus Buchmann out as gay.  The concerns about what this rhetoric potentially does is important to examine and take seriously.

It's been popular among (at least the gay blogosphere) to point out Marcus Buchmann's more effeminte qualities, including but not limited to the nickname "Ladybird," which I do find fairly amusing.  As with most things, the rhetorical strategy, politics and rationale behind such a move are complex. 

On the Baby Boomer Generation

This really is a gross oversimplification, but the following quote really does capture the gestalt of my feelings on how the baby boom generation as a whole (there are always exceptions) has really impacted the world (and continues to do so):

For all that Baby Boomers fetishise “the Sixties” as some mythical time when everything was perfect – not realising that it’s their own generation who have pretty comprehensively fucked the world up for those of us who are following them, by pulling the ladder up after themselves – they did have the luck to be a giant demographic bubble of youth at precisely the point when this could almost sensibly seem true. The ‘long 1960s’ (from roughly the Suez crisis to the OPEC crisis) were built on cheap oil, and that meant everything from cheap plastic consumer items to cheap transport. The Western world was rich and (other than Vietnam) at peace, and that meant an explosion in possibilities, ... After the OPEC crisis all this changed. We can’t afford hopes and dreams any more. To do that the Boomers would have to make sacrifices.

From, of all places, a commentary on Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: 1969 over at the Mindless Ones.

No Help for The Help

I did not pay much attention to the move The Help initially; I was vaguely aware of it and largely uninterested in it because I have an intense dislike of movies where a heroic white "rescues" (in some shape or manner) a black person (often after the black person in question has served, affirmed, or rescued the white person in some way). The Blind Side is just one of the most recent of these, but Crash and Driving Miss Daisy fit here.  Even a movie I greatly enjoy, The Shawshank Redemption, has this unfortunate plot element in it.  devout and/or lazy.  I have no interest in narratives that portray any person, group, community, identity, or culture uniformly and simplisticly, but I hold a special distain for narratives that portray black people as magical, saintly, stupid, sassy, or criminal.

NPR: Lesbian Couples Wed More than Gay Men

Never mind that NPR has now mainstreamed the best known lesbian joke ever.  What I really like from this news story are these sound bites:

"When you're an outsider, in order to make it okay you haveto embrace that otherness of yourself, that you live on the outside. And many of us unconsciously don't want to totally give that up. I like it.  We're used to being different and being on the outside.  Now, with marriage, you're just like everyone else. So there is a resistance to it." -- Leslie Cohen

"So, lesbian and gay people have formed very complex families, and need more flexible norms." -- Katherine Franke

While same sex marriage can do great things for some couples, it also stands to obliterate the different forms of familial and other relational bonds that queers have learned to form.  What is the cost of forgoing our queerness in the quest for equality?

Truly Offensive

As a general rule, I don't talk about Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum (or Sarah Palin for that matter).  None of these individuals are serious contenders for the Republican nomination given their extreme viewpoints and stances.  They are odious individuals who don't deserve any kind of attention.  But Bachmann and Santorum have sunk to new lows by signing the Family Leader (an Iowa based conservative organization) "Marriage Vow."  In terms of gay rights, it's all same old, same old.  What is truly offensive is that the pledge asserts that Black people were better off under slavery than they are today.

The pledge contains plenty of other objectionable material, but the racist language of the pledge takes the cake. MSNBC covers the story: