Day Without a Gay: I Think I'll Stay Gay Tomorrow, Thank You Very Much

I've spent quite a bit of time trying to decide what I think about Day Without a Gay. When I first heard of it about a month ago on Facebook, I didn't think much of it. There's a Facebook group for just about everything, so I wanted to wait and see if it actually caught on. Thing is, tomorrow is my birthday, so now that the big ol' gay protest is apparently going down, I figured I should at least develop an opinion on the subject.

The purpose of Day Without a Gay, according to its website, is that "On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work. You are encouraged to call in 'gay'--and donate your time to service!" This is all fine and dandy, I suppose, but it just sort of rubs me the wrong way.

I mean, I get it. We're trying to increase exposure of the gay community's importance by showing how many of us there are while at the same time providing service to the community and looking like super great human beings. Blah blah blah. These things I 100% support.

However, I just don't know if I'm behind the way it's being done. Why, exactly, must we take a day off work to provide this service? What's the point of all of us just not showing up for work? Couldn't the service occur on the weekend, or after work, or during my lunch break or something?

My understanding of the argument is that if we all don't show up, then society will be able to see what huge role we play in society. *Gasp* Who will cut our hair? Who will teach our gym classes and golf lessons? Will there be anyone to host the cable news?

Okay. I get that. But what's the point of not going to work? Proposition 8 didn't pass because people were unaware that homos decorate all the houses and produce all the theater, it passed because of ignorance and fear of gay people and the way that we love. We don't need to be staying home from work, we need to be talking to people about the similarities between us and how we can work together to accept and understand each other.

I remember when I was in college and the immigrant community organized a similar event. Throughout the country, immigrants banded together to show their impact on the economy by staying home from work for one day. THAT made sense. See, the whole argument they were trying to make was that their community plays an enormous role in the economy of the United States, and they were tired of being exploited for their contribution while at the same time being put down for their status as an immigrant.

The Gays are totally different. Labor and employment rights are not the reason for Day Without a Gay.[1] In fact, the stated reason for it is a reaction to referendums and legislation which have taken away or limited our right to marry and adopt children. Someone explain to me what this has to do with going to work, and how it will help things for me to just not show up?

It seems to me that the only people/companies/organizations that are going to be affected by this action are the ones who are already supportive of the gay rights movement. See, being able to just "call in gay" is a luxury of either people who have flex time off (read: rich folks with cushy jobs) or people who work in jobs who support this event and will look the other way and allow this to be counted as a sick day. I know for sure that if I had called into my retail job saying "I'm calling in gay" they would have said "yeah, okay, see you in 15 minutes." Working people don't just have the ability to skip a day, and the insinuation that they could is just plain elitist and annoying. People have to feed their families, pay their rent, buy new shoes, whatever. I'm not going to get into a "in these tough times" diatribe, but the idea that taking a day off is as simple as one phone call ignores the reality of most people in the United States.

I have to be honest. I'm not really one for a protest. A stern call to my Congress person? Sure thing. A letter in support of a cause? Yessiree. A door knock or fifty for the candidate of my choice? I'll be there for you, my friend. But a huddled group of people yelling "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" is just not really my style. I realize that's not really what we're doing here, but it seems analogous. This type of action is not what will convince people of acceptance and understanding. Acceptance and understanding has to come from, you know, FUCKING UNDERSTANDING. How does not going to work one day promote understanding? I imagine the conversation going like this:

"Hey boss, you know how my being a homo sort of freaks you out?"

"Why yes, good employee, it really does scare me a bit."

"Well, boss, I've decided that in order to help you understand my importance to the community around me, I'm not going to come to work tomorrow. Instead, I'm going to volunteer at the Red Cross."

"Wait. Hmmm. What? Couldn't you volunteer on the weekend? Wait. What does this have to do with you being a homo again?"

"You see boss, we homos care about the community. So I'm not coming to work. I'm doing community service."

"Community service is good, but tell me about the homo thing again? That part's still pretty scary. Why not come to work? I'm confused..."

I'm not saying that a group reaction and effort is a bad thing; in fact, I believe it is necessary. Also, I sincerely believe that the people who planned this event did so because they wanted to do something big after Prop 8 passed to show how many people support LGBT equality. I just think that in the end, Day Without a Gay misses the point and ends up coming across sophomoric and out of touch.

I'd love to know what you all think.


[1] Please do not misconstrue my words to mean that no members of the LGBT community deals with labor or employment issues because of their gender identity or sexuality. I realize that this is a large problem, and I'm excited to talk about the ENDA in another post soon. All I'm saying is that those things are unrelated to this.

Anxiety Really Wastes My Flavor

I am an anxious person. This is not news to those who know me, but it has gotten really annoying lately and I'd like it to just go away, thank you very much.

So I'm sitting in the law library, attempting to put together some semblance of an understanding of what might be on the family law exam. I have mediation team tonight at 8pm (WAYYYYYYYY past my bedtime, p.s.) so GF and I talked this morning and decided that she'd call me after work to decide if she would come get me before my team meeting or if I'd just stay here and study.

GF usually gets off work at around 5 or so, and calls pretty quickly after that. I don't know where my head was at (actually I do, it was halfway between marital status and facebook status) but I forgot that my phone was off and lost track of time, thus missing GF's 5 phone calls. When I finally got around to calling her back, she was already home, and our chance at grabbing a drink before class or just talking or whatever was completely lost.

Even as I write this, I realize that it's not really that big of a deal. I mean, I live with said GF and I'll get to hang out with her in like 4 hours. That, however, has not stopped me from obsessing over the incident and feeling overwhelmingly bad for missing her calls. Ridiculous? Yes. Inescapable? It sure seems that way.

Now, before you all comment with tips about meds I should be taking, let me cut you off. I KNOW. Those types of remedies are helpful in making sure that I'm not full out, batshit crazy, but they do not solve the day to day annoyances of situational anxiety. I'm not really looking for remedies here so much as I just needed to write it down to realize that it's no biggie and I can go back to studying.

So, you know, thanks for that.

Well if Melissa Etheridge Isn't Paying Taxes, Does that Mean None of Us Have To?

Election week provides far more blog-fodder than regular old Mondays, and I'm having trouble thinking of good things to write about. Actually, I don't have trouble thinking of ideas, I have trouble remembering ideas. I used to carry around a little composition book that I would write all sorts of things in. Perhaps I'll have to bring back that practice.

In other news, Melissa Etheridge has decided to stop paying her taxes until she's allowed to get married in California. I appreciate her tenacity, really I do, but is that really the best way to solve things? Not to mention, at the risk of getting all lawyer-y on you, it's not a legally supportable action, so really all that would happen is she'd end up in court for tax evasion, wasting even more tax payer money for a lawsuit that she knew full well wouldn't enact the ends she was looking for.

I realize that taxes are like our favorite thing as citizens of the United States to complain about, but I, for one, am happy to pay my taxes as long as I trust the person who's writing the checks. And, because that person has switched to someone who is presumably at least equally interested in social programs as he is with the wars we've created, I feel pretty good about the 15% tax that I will pay this year. I'll feel even better about the 35% I will pay if and when I start making $357,700 a year. I don't mean this to sound all liberally and holier-than-thou (although I'm aware of my propensity to come across that way), I just believe that sometimes people do have enough money and while the conservatives can scream from the rooftops about how this "redistribution" is code for socialism, I don't really care because it's gotta be better than what we've got now.

I'm a strong believer in the progressive tax system because I believe that the people at the top have a moral and legal responsibility to look after and provide for the people at the bottom. It has worked historically, and although there have obviously been major problems with some social services, the general idea that FDR set forth in his New Deals is one that continues to thrive, regardless of what the right tries to tell you.

While they'll try to tell you that welfare just allows for lazy people to milk the system (or they just come right out and say what they mean, like this asswipe) the reality is that the vast majority of the people on welfare are just normal citizens who are down on their luck and need temporary support to get back on their feet. Does that mean that nobody is out to fuck over the welfare system? Of course not, but there's criminals in every system, and the obsession with demonizing anyone who asks for help has gotten wildly out of control.

They'll try to tell you that national healthcare is a bad thing because it takes the power away from individuals. However, Obama's healthcare plan doesn't change anything for those who are happy with their healthcare, it just provides it affordably for those who can't access it now. It's this twisting of information that's got everything all fucked up, and I'm excited for the opportunity for someone to finally set the country straight.

I realize that Melissa Etheridge probably didn't mean that she didn't care about poor people or children or anyone else who receives governmental funding (like, you know, EVERYONE) but not paying your taxes is not the way to fix things. Paying your taxes, funding your government so that it can function the way it's supposed to, is what will really help to change things.

I agree that things need to change, I'm just certain that there's a better way to do it.

Ralph Nader Sucks Too Much to Handle

Okay, I've been trying to keep to one large issue per day, but this is too ridiculous and overwhelmingly offensive to save until tomorrow.

As if I needed more of a reason to hate Ralph Nader. His altruistic facade that hides his egomaniacal self-importance has made me want to barf since he duped people into believing him in 2000. This just puts the proverbial nail in the coffin.

Feministe has posted about this Presidential "Hopeful" and all around Selfish Bastard releasing a statement, and then appearing on Fox News, in which he calls President-Obama an Uncle Tom.



Perhaps there was an important point he was trying to make somewhere in his racist bullshit, but it was completely lost in the midst of him trying to reason away his grotesque behavior. Plus, dude, when Fox News is calling you out for being racist, you've got some major problems. I'd like to join Feministe in joining in a resounding FUCK YOU NADER.

This Just In! Obama has Erased Racism in the United States?

I've been having a hard time figuring out how to approach the race issue with this whole election. However, this dumbfuck has created a glorious segue to the way that feel about things:

“You know, if you were a slave in the old South, what did you get as a slave? You got free room and board, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children because that was just, you know, tomorrow’s slave. … Can I ask a question? How’s that different from welfare? You get a free house, you get free food, and you get rewarded for having children. Oh, wait a minute, hold on a second. There is a difference: The slave had to work for it.” - Jim Quinn [hereinafter, Douchebag], on radio program The War Room with Quinn & Rose

Okay, let's break this down. First, Douchebag says that slaves should have been grateful for their station in life because, dammit, they got to eat and not live outdoors. Plus, they got to have children! Who whines about that?!

Next, Douchebag says that welfare is the same as slavery. That may or may not be a tenable argument, although I'm certain that Douchebag and I have very different reasons why. However, he goes on to reasons that it might actually be different because slaves had to work for their (non-existent) living.

Now, let's not get into the racial breakdown of who receives welfare because that missed the point completely. The point that has been clearly demonstrated through this Douchebag's ability to say such things and keep his job is that merely electing a Black [1] president does not magically fix race relations in this country.

I've been watching the 24-hour news cycle all week long, and while there are glowing aberrations (Oh how badly I want to be Rachel Maddow's friend...),the majority of what I've been hearing from white pundits is how great it is that we can finally move on from those pesky race problems and finally get to the business of fixing Uh-mer-i-cuh. But don't worry, you radical socialist liberals, they've always got the token Black person to throw in the "Um, guys? Maybe it's not the best thing to say we've moved past race in this country..." so that the whiteys can rebut with their "But we elected a Black dude!"

Let's get one thing clear: my views about racism fall to the very left of the political spectrum. I believe that racism is an institutionalized problem that affects every aspect of life in the United States. I believe in reparations, I believe in affirmative action, and I believe in funding social welfare programming which works towards understanding and inclusion of these issues. So, when I say that the whole idea that racism is "over" because we finally elected a Black president is offensive, it should come as no surprise.

Maybe the theory of color blind racism hasn't quite reached the mainstream. But, the idea that the ability of one person to "pull himself up by his bootstraps" means that every other member of the Black community should be able to as well only perpetuates the idea that all people in that community are the same. I keep hearing that "now Black students have a role model," and I don't want to negate the overwhelming importance of that fact. However, it does not mean that all the limitations placed on racial minorities have magically disappeared in a cloud of Obama greatness.

I'm excited that the issues of race have been brought more squarely to the front of politics in the United States because it's been a long time coming. However, we cannot use this as an excuse to declare victory on the race war and move along to other issues. Racism is still an issue in the United States, and will continue to be until we acknowledge their existence and begin to genuinely work towards its eradication. The possibilities have been greatly expanded, and for that I am truly enthusiastic, but please stop minimizing the issue by declaring that it can be completely remedied by one president's election.

[1]: I use the term "Black" to reference the color of President-Elect Obama's skin while not making a statement about his nationality or race. My use of the term "Black" is not meant to offend, but merely reference color of President-Elect Obama's skin as it is reflected in the current culture of the United States. Maybe we can get to the offensive nature of conservative "is he or isn't he" conversations another time...

An Open Letter to the Anti-Gay Majority

Dear Anti-Gay Legislation Supporter,

I am a lesbian. I am a citizen of the United States. Yesterday, you chose to pass 4 measures which severely limit the rights of me and my friends based solely on the people we love. In California, Florida, and Arizona, you passed propositions which make marriage unavailable to gay and lesbian citizens. In Arkansas, you passed a measure which would make me and my partner of 4 years adopting children in need of a home illegal. While it may be easy for you to vote for such things, I think it is important for you to understand just what effect your vote has.

The discrimination in my life began early, and continues each day. From the time when I was told to go to the boys bathroom as an 8 year old, to the time when I was 23 and was refused service for looking too masculine in South Dakota, to my constant wondering now about how much to disclose about my personal life in job interviews, I am tired of living in a world where it is perfectly acceptable to treat people as second class citizens.

Today, I have had to take numerous breaks to the bathroom in order to cry privately before returning to study. I have had to come to grips with the fact that a democracy in which I believe so strongly chose to legislate hate. You may think that your actions have little effect on actual people, but there are millions of people just like me for whom your decisions matter greatly. While you may not realize it, we are your neighbors, your teachers, your government officials, your friends, and your family. You think you don't know us, but people like me reside everywhere and I will no longer allow myself to live in a world where such overt hatred is allowed to prosper.

Perhaps most disheartening, anti-gay legislation supporter, is who you are. In California, nearly a quarter of you are women. Another quarter of you have at least a bachelor's degree. Of the African-Americans polled, seventy percent of you voted for discrimination. Nearly thirty percent of you identify as a democrat or independent. You had the chance to help eradicate hate in your state, yet you chose to support a measure which only solidified discrimination.

So, anti-gay legislation supporter, you can go fuck yourself. While I am overwhelmingly sad over the decision you've made, I will no longer allow you to disguise discrimination as sound public policy. Change is seeping from everything I see in this post-Bush society, and today is the day that your backwards and offensive views are no longer allowed to prosper.

I encourage and welcome the support of others in this enormous task, even those who previously voted for such measures. Hate should not be a legislated value, and I look forward to fighting against that notion until everyone in the United States is truly equal.

Sincerely,

ChangeAgent

A Girl's Guide to Voting (As Long as that Girl is Me)

Since it's the day before the election, I've decided to compile a handy voter guide for people who a) live in Precinct 13, Ward 3 and/or b) people who have the exact same political views as I do. I realize how helpful this will be for all, so I'd like to graciously thank you in advance. ;)

I looked up my sample ballot at the Star Tribune, which has an awesome site telling you where your polling place is and everyone who's on the ballot. Just make sure you don't put the name of your street in the "House #" box because it took me three attempts to figure that out.

Anyways, I thought I'd go through each contested race and explain why I'm voting for who I'm voting for, half for your benefit, half so I can decide exactly why I'm going the way I am. I'll start with the bottom of the ballot and make you wait until the end for the biggies. Otherwise, how do I keep your interest piqued?

Soil and Water Supervisor, Seat 3

Do people really know about these candidates? It's kind of surprising that there are three challengers to the incumbent for this seat, considering I don't really know what this person does (I mean, they supervise soil and water, I get it). However, when you go to that Strib site, you can click on all the candidates to get a little bio, which rules. In doing so, I realized that the incumbent, although a woman, is not who I will be voting for. Anyone who lists "fiscal conservativism" as their most important issue is going to have a hard time getting my vote. So instead, I'm voting for Mara Magnuson Humphrey. She's endorsed by the DFL, plus her most important issue is the protection of natural resources, so she's the one for me.

Soil and Water Supervisor, Seat 2

Again, who gets to be soil and water supervisor isn't exactly my most important issue this campaign, but I believe in the system so I believe that these seats are important to making sure Ramsey County (and thus, Minnesota) maintains the right view on natural resources. This race was a bit harder to choose on its face, as there are no women running, but I'm voting for David Bogue. He has a degree in Environmental studies, and he lists some great issues (including decreasing runoff of surface contaminants and improving groundwater) as important. Plus, the other guy with a profile, Nick Quade, was a state delegate for Ron Paul, which is an automatic disqualification for all votes cast by me.

2nd District Court, Seat 21

This race is a really difficult choice for me because both candidates are great. It's between Gail Chang Bohr and Howard Orenstein, and I'm voting for Gail Chang Bohr. If I'm being honest, her gender is probably what pushed me over the edge, but I don't usually like to use that as a sole determining factor. She is the Executive Director of Children's Law Center of Minnesota, and used to be a social worker, so in my house that's a enough to get my vote. However, Orenstein got pretty much all the DFL bigwig endorsements, which is also a good thing in my book, so read their profiles and decide for yourself what's most important.

Minnesota House, District 64B

This is an easy one, as I've met both candidates. I'm voting for Rep. Michael Paymar because he's genuinely cares about Minnesota and the district, and has proven that fact by his years of service in the Minnesota House. Plus, Emory Dively was really rude to me personally during my days at St. Kate's. I realize that my district is distinctly democratic, so the candidate knows they have little chance of winning, but he treated me as though my (and a group of other college students I was with) vote didn't matter to him, and that was a major turnoff. Rep. Paymar is a nice guy with great experience and a genuine interest in the lives of his constituents and I'm excited to get to vote for him.

United States House of Representatives, District 4

The choices get easier and easier for me as we move up the ballot, but this one is kind of ridiculously easy. There are some decisions that Rep. Betty McCollum makes that I don't agree with (for example, her stance on music/video game censorship really bugs me), but in the end I am a die-hard Betty! advocate. I'm voting for Rep. Betty McCollum because she has proven through action that she cares about all members of the community, not merely those in the DFL. Really, though, I'm voting for Betty because she's a Katie (read: she went to the College of St. Catherine) and has lived the lifethat I am striving to create for myself. She came back to St. Kate's a number of times while I was the Senate President there, and the way she talks to students makes her both a fantastic advocate for the area and just an all around great person. Plus, who's even heard of this Matthews guy?

Constitutional Amendment: Increase state sales tax by 0.375% to pay for environmental and cultural programs

This has been by far the most difficult decision for me this election season. We talked about this amendment extensively in my caucus during primary season, and my team decided that it was not a good idea. Still, i've decided that I'm voting YES because although I don't necessarily agree with the manner in which the money is being obtained, I believe strongly in the programs and services that it's going to.

My main concern is that sales tax, by definition, is recessive, which means that people with less money end up paying more of their income. In one informational pamphlet I read, it was estimated that the increase would cost Minnesota families about $1 a week, which doesn't seem like much, but when you only get $200 a month in food stamps and WIC benefits, each dollar is extremely important. Sales taxes are not the right way of getting money to pay for things, and a constitutional amendment is a particularly extreme way to go about raising funds. HOWEVER, after learning that the money will be spent specifically on programs that assist the low-income community in accessing the arts and environmental resources, I changed my No vote to Yes. I would love to hear more reasons for or against this amendment, because this is really the only issue in which my mind is not completely made up.

MN Appeals Court Judge, Seat 16

Here, I'm voting for Hon. Terri J. Stoneburner because she's the incumbent, she's been a judge for 18 years, and her opponent has given no legitimate reason to vote against her. Plus, as I said, I'm always going to err on the side of the woman, so without a reason to vote for the other guy, Hon. Stoneburner wins it for me.

MN Supreme Court Associate Justice, Seat 4

Both candidates here seem as though they would be good for the Court, but I'm voting for Hon. Lorie Skjerven Gildea . My sister got to hear her speak, and said she had some really great things to say. Plus, retired MN Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz endorsed her, and I respect Hon. Blatz immensely, so Gildea it is.

MN Supreme Court Associate Justice, Seat 3

Here seems like as good a place as any to voice my disdain for the voting for judges system we have in the great state of Minnesota. In this race, I'm voting for Hon. Paul H. Anderson because I've met him and he's really nice, plus his voting record is one of a fair and impartial guy who cares deeply for justice. But, it totally bugs me that he has to run in the first place, as he's been on the Court since 1994. He's a competent, impartial judge who deserves to keep his seat. Plus he went to Macalester, so my family would hate me if I voted against him.

United States Senate

This race is perhaps the most important one that Minnesotans have to vote for. Forgive me for my bluntness, but Norm Coleman is a total tool and the thought of him continuing as the Senior Senator from Minnesota makes me want to barf. Although it took me a second to get as excited about Al Franken as I am now, I caucused for him in the primaries and have heard him speak three times now. I'm voting for Al Franken because he's passionate about grassroots change in a way that I haven't seen since Sen. Paul Wellstone. He excites the people into believing in the political process, and anyone that knows me knows that I'm passionate about such things too. If you want to hear just how excited I am about Al, you can go on over to MPR and give it a listen. However, if I can convince you Minnesotans of one thing throughout this entire diatribe, let it be that Al Franken is exactly what this state needs.

United States President

It wont come as much of a surprise after this here rant that I'm voting for Sen. Barack Obama in tomorrow's presidential election. Besides the fact that I pretty much hate every single policy stance that Sen. John McCain holds, his entire demeanor throughout this election process only cemented my disdain for him as a candidate. There has been much talk about things not related to policy (his refusal to combat the racist comments coming from his supporters, his support for fabricated tales of terrorism in the Obama campaign, his inability to say S's correctly, his neck skin...) however I am much more interested in the actual reasons that Obama is better for the United States than McCain.

A short rundown:
- He's better on economic policy (unless you're a facist free-market libertarian, in which case you better be voting for Bob Barr because McCain ain't so free market either)
- He's WAYYYYYYYYY better on women's issues. If you want a more in depth analysis of that, go here
- He's better on foreign policy, and chose a running mate that can at least decipher who is and is not the President of France
- He cares about health care and the ability of low income people to access it
- He doesn't hate gay people
- He's a dreamboat.

Okay, this has got to be the longest post I've ever written, but it's doubtful that I have ever been as excited to vote as I am for tomorrow's big day. Even if you disagree with every single thing I've written, PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE go vote because otherwise all those fucking political ads were for naught and that seems like a big waste. There are a lot of candidates that I care about that I won't get to vote for (the joy that will ensue if Elwin Tinklenber wins the 6th District is unreal) so make sure to do your own research at the Strib website above.

I'm such a political science nerd that I doubt I'll sleep at all tonight.


P.S. - I have never had as much trouble posting a blog as I did today, so if you've read parts of this throughout the day, I appreciate your tenacity in accessing the whole thing. Happy voting!

Gays on TV: No Girls Allowed!

Okay, so GLAAD put out a press release today to applaud the major TV networks (read: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and the CW) for a higher level of inclusion. Let's move quickly past the fact that we're supposed to stand up and clap when representation raises to a whopping 2.6% onto the actual meat of the statistics.

It took me a second to find out who this 2.6% actually included, which is 16 people appearing on a total of 12 shows. I attempted to compile a list from the hodge-podge that GLAAD lists, but that proved harder than it may seem. Suffice it to say, one thing is glaringly obvious: lesbians are not welcome on network television.

Now, I wrote my thesis in college about this very topic, so its not like the absence of lesbians, particularly butch lesbians, in the media is some breaking news that's flying across the wire. But, when I have to read press releases lauding the entertainment industry for having a couple white gay dudes on their primetime roster, it gives me permission to rant about gender theory and equality for like one fucking second.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are a couple of women-dating-women counted in GLAAD's number. And don't you dare think for one second that I mean to discount them because of some bisexual-loathing sentiment that is all too rampant in the lesbian community (a blog for another time, certainly). Bisexual women are what I live for; they are a vital part of the community if only because otherwise I would have no one to date.

BUT, of the 16 main and supporting characters counted in GLAAD's glorification of network television, less than a third are women. And, from what I can see, there are exactly ZERO self-proclaimed lesbians. All are either overtly labeled as bisexual by show bios, or are said to be "known to have sexual trysts with women" or some other objectifying quip. All of the women are super femme-y, super hot and very sexualized, which rings far more of an attempt to attract male viewers than it does of LGBT inclusion.

In other news, Lindsay Lohan came out, which is so totally awesome. I couldn't tell you why I enjoy her, but I feel like she'd have been my super crazy fun friend if we'd met at the bar 3 years ago.

Spanish Basketball Players

Okay, so after checking out a great blog that my law school comrade pointed me to, I'm pretty peeved to have discovered the Spanish Olympic Basketball team's overtly offensive photo spread.

Go here to check out the whole story.

I couldn't even tell what they were doing at first glance, but once you figure out that they're making squinty eye faces at the, it's easy to see how it could be deemed offensive. In fact, I can't really figure out how it could NOT be deemed offensive. I mean, really, racist gestures aimed at the HOST of the Olympics that you're participating. Beyond stupid, racist and offensive, their actions are just downright rude.

The players have defended themselves (obvs.) by saying that they never meant any harm, but it's that exact statement that's at the root of the problem. The fact that any advertising company, any athlete, any PERSON wouldn't realize that making a face in order to mimic Chinese people is offensive only speaks to the pervasive nature of racism.

As if I needed more reasons to hate the Lakers.

North Minneapolis Follow-up

Little did I know that people actually read this here blog!

I think I need to be more clear about my contempt for the Minneapolis Police Department, particularly those who work on the Northside. As I was assuming that less than 10 people would actually read what I was saying, I was quite vague and generaliz-y about my comments.

So, if you know me, you know that my SO (which stands for significant other) worked in N. Mpls. last year in early childhood special education. Her working there is what first brought my attention to the plight of that part of the city, and really opened my eyes to the drastic lack of attention and care paid to the citizens there.

In addition to SO working over in North, I also went to a StreetLaw training course, which teaches law students how to go into high schools and inform kids about their rights and responsibilities. During that training session, a public defender who works and lives in North shared some information which is probably well known and understood as reality for the citizens in North, but still shocking for an idealist white kid from Highland Park. While many believe the problems in North stem from the people living there (they're all criminals! they deserve what they get!), the truth seems to be that the police have all but given up on a part of town that they allowed to get out of control in the first place.

Leftist race theory junkies all know this in the abstract, but hearing tales of 16 year old kids getting stopped EVERY DAY for merely walking down the street and police officers lording their power over innocent citizens really brought it home for me.

So move to the present, when two of my best friends own a home in the Bethune area of North Minneapolis. Their house was robbed this past weekend, and when the police came to "investigate," they did little more than look around, harass my friends, and move along their merry way.

Upon learning that the two are partners (you know, lesbians), the officer looked at them and stated, "Well, girls like you should really stick to Uptown." This comment only cements the idea that North Minneapolis has become a place where only "bad" people are supposed to live, and apparently law abiding citizens in that region are not entitled to the protection of the police or anyone else because, hey, they chose to live there.

It's difficult to talk about this without appearing to have also given up on North, but my view is completely the opposite. I believe that North can be revitalized, and I believe that steps in the right direction are being taken. However, there are things that the city, county and state could be doing that they're not. Schools in North Minneapolis have devestatingly low graduation rates, a statistic which has been proven over and over to have a direct correlation to crime rates. When the police are viewed by nearly everyone as a threat rather than an organization dedicated to preserving the peace, citizens have very little reason to trust them enough to seek help when they need it.

I realize that all of these thoughts have been stated before, and disparate treatment of people based on their race and/or socioeconomic status is nothing new in Minnesota or anywhere else. However, it's frustrating that more resources haven't been dedicated to revitalizing that part of the city. Granted, I'm the leftist that would be willing to pay more taxes to see this happen, and I realize that not everyone is down for that.

I feel like a teenager with angst when I say that I hate the police, and it is certainly not every police officer creating problems. I am very confident that many officers, probably even the majority, are interested in preserving the peace and treating people with respect. However, when every encounter I hear about has racist undertones, it gets very difficult to believe in the system.

American Apparel Sucks, Apparently

Apparently I'm not allowed to wear American Apparel anymore. Or eat butter. I didn't know this was the case, but after reading this, I've been convinced. Apparently, the owner of American Apparel sucks goat ass, and is somebody that I would never purchase items from if I knew better.

In other news, the Minneapolis Police Department continues to suck hard monkey balls. As if you needed further proof of this, Polkey and KK were downright harassed after their house was broken into, and it has only become apparent that the police has all but given up on North Minneapolis as a whole.

I've been wildly unproductive as of late, but I'm sure this will remedy itself once school starts next week. I've got a nice little lineup of classes, plus the judicial practicum and LR, so I should be pretty busy.

That does not mean, however, that I do not want to hang out with my pals. Because otherwise, I'll go crazy.

Do I look like I drive a jeep cherokee and shop at abercrombie?

I've decided to pause my Pandora obsession for at least a little while. Instead, I'm going to stream the Current, mostly because I've now been listening to the same 10 or so albums for the last 3 years and am in desperate need of something new. That and Pandora is seemingly obsessed with the idea that I love jam bands and Jack Johnson, two things I quasi-enjoy but certainly not at the level Pandora expects. Reminds me of the kids I went to high school with, who referred to Dave Matthews Band as simply "Dave" and talked pretentiously about music with "soul." Barf.

In other news, I'm researching for two professors which is actually pretty fun. It's also an excercize in concentration and time management, which are two areas that could use a little refining. I just realized that it's less than a month until school starts, which is embarassingly exciting. I remember a couple years ago when Snoobs would talk about how much she wanted to go get her textbooks as soon as she could, and I'm in that exact spot. I don't know what I'll do with them once they arrive, but I'll be ordering them soon so that they can rest peacefully in the garbage dump we like to call "the office."

Also, I'm sure you all know this, but cable and internet is effing RIDICULOUSLY expensive. I'm trying desperately to save money, so cable was the first to go, and it has been all good, but the lack of internet is something that I cannot deal with. When I looked up Comcast's "deals," I was met with 6 month "promotional" pricing, followed by at least double the price after that. What really pisses me off is that my stupid apartment building wont allow satellite dishes (because it apparently ruins the aesthetic, a hilarious notion for anyone that knows the place) so its either Comcast or nothing. Fascists.

Okay, I'm going to go research unfair trade practice now. Gooooood times.

That man will trick you with his thoughts

My friend Adam has just alerted me to the funniest website I've seen in a while. Perhaps I only find it to be so hilarious because I like practically everything on the list. Ah well.

I've been wicked sick since last week, but have started to feel better. Seriously, though, I thought I was going to die on Saturday. Plus, this big huge writing project for law school was due, so the stress was at an all time high. But, paper's been turned in and things are looking up.

I need a car so badly. Its gotten sort of out of hand. I need a job, which I could only get to by driving. Its a circular problem that has gotten quite tired in the last few months.

Its a big day for primaries, and I have to at least comment on the way these primaries have been going. I just get so frustrated with the way people are making Obama into some kind of hero. Of course this will all be construed as me hating the guy, which I don't, but its just frustrating that the candidate with great speeches but few tangible ideas has garnered so much support from liberals. Its just so hypocritical the way that some people will preach about taking care of the working class, keeping traditional democratic values at the forefront, but then support a person who seems to care little about this group. Clinton is the far better choice for working class people, which is probably why she has been so strong amongst those voters. Rich people, however, LOVE Obama. He's like a rich man's wet dream. You can pretend to be really liberal while still getting to keep all of that hard earned money. Stupid.

Whatever. Maybe there will be some amazing turn of events tonight and my hope for the world will be restored.

By the 10th time I'm drifting away

Today is one of those days where I completely doubt myself.

My chosen career, namely how much it has and will continue to cost me to obtainin that career, is drowning me today, and I can't quite shake the thought that I would be happier playing guitars with Heidi the rest of my life. I don't even know if I actually know how to play the guitar anymore, and that's a weird weird WEIRD phenomenon.

I also can't figure out why it is apparently impossible for me to keep my house clean, regardless of how many resolutions I make. Merely saying "I'm just a messy person" doesn't really work when you're 25 yet I am at a loss with how to actually change my behavoir. I keep telling myself that I can just get a cleaning service when I'm older but that is
a. a cop out and
2. not going to help me today.

I wish I was good enough to play poker professionally. There's something that I love doing. Think how awesome I would look in aviators, scotch on the rocks and pocket aces. Seriously.

I desperately trying to remember what I used to do, what used to make me happy and how to get that back.

I don't know that I've ever felt this restless.

In the middle of the street

All the same people that I hung out with in high school still hang out together. I know this because Facebook told me so. I don't know why this surprises me so much, or why it leaves me with such a weird sense of melancholy, but the idea of going "home" for the holidays to a place where the people you grew up with are waiting to see how you've been is a weird, foreign idea that I don't know if I've ever experienced. I guess I never really felt like I was a part of anywhere until I moved back up to Minnesota after high school. Then, all of a sudden, there was community pouring from every bar and coffee shop I walked into. And, of course, St. Kate's. Seriously, that college...

Of course, this will all come across as ungrateful for the people I have in my life now, for the people that mean so much, for the people that I've known in the past that I just seem to have lost track of. Its not as though growing up was a waste (holy shit would that be hard to stomach), or that I don't think about how weird and cool it would be to go back someday. But honestly, I don't know what I'd do once I got there.

Its just pretty weird to turn around one day and be 25 years old and in law school and have more or less everything figured out and placed into a poorly wrapped box. I guess I just thought it would be a lot easier by the time I got here. Or at least easier to figure out.

I fucking hate holidays.

Get over yourself.

I am somewhat concerned about the path the my alma mater is taking these days.

I have always been accused of being not enough of a vigilante, not radical enough to be a real feminist/lesbian/queer/insertliberallabelhere, but at this point I believe it to be a strength not a weakness.

I am certain that I can continue to claim ultra liberalism, can continue to live my life as I am, without persecuting those around me for the inability to understand fully how it is to walk in my shoes.

Because I am fairly certain that if I were to do that, I would, in effect, merely be doing the exact same thing that I purport to be rioting against.

Self-righteousness and hypocrisy are so 1991.

Thank you for your message but I don't understand

I had this initial thought that I would write blogs a couple of times a weeks about all the trials and tribulations of law school but as I've actually gotten caught up with the trials and tribulations of law school, I haven't had much time to write about it.

All the things they warned me about are turning out to me true. Even as I write this, I am acutely aware of the fact that the possibility of each of the 59 other people in my section will read it and know of my growing anxiety about all that is law school. I didn't used to care so much what other people thought of me. I think I'll stick with that theory as long as I can keep it in my grasp.

What's interesting is that I actually really like it. Like, a lot. I like reading the cases. It's like getting to read little stories all day long about how some policy or law came to be. For a political science nerd, it's like a little tiny slice of heaven. But the pressure that surrounds every single little thing, the awareness that fucking up at any moment could be the end of your academic life, is a little more than I had bargained for.

Also, people take themselves WAY too seriously in law school. Like, I'm all about being respectful and being a tactful and classy person (what am I if not classy?) but I am not a serious person. You know this. I'm not a jerk off, but I just don't think that the way to win friends and influence people is to act like you're smarter than them all the time and that you have nothing at all to learn. I feel like I have so much to learn that its obscene. Every day I go to class, I go away learning only that I have so much more to learn. It's a really weird cycle.

Mostly it's the scholarship pressure that's getting to me. Grades = scholarship. Scholarship = continuing law school. I don't know if other people in class are in quite the same situation as I am. It's not like I can just whip up $20,000 from nowhere if I lose my scholarship because I can't get good enough grades. And it's not like getting these grades is just a walk in the park. I've done the math. It's about the top 30%. The amount that I think about this fact is ridiculous.

I have to say, though, that having men in class is way less weird than I thought it would be. One of the closest friends I've met is a guy, which is actually really refreshing. It's weird to have gone from tons of guy friends in high school to a virtually man-free existence in college. I thought it was going to be a much stranger transition but in the end they're just regular old people.

Who knew?

The lack of time is pretty strange. When I'm not doing stuff for school, I'd rather just be doing nothing at all because I'm tired of thinking and interacting and answering and questioning. This is hard to explain to friends, especially when I really want to hang out I just have no energy to do so.

In the end, I know I'll figure it out. What's the alternative, right? That's what I always say to everyone else. Either do it or don't. It's a means to an end. For tonight, I'll just read some more Contracts and sleep past 7 for the first time in too long.

I'm Gonna Write You a Letter

You know what bugs me?

The Homo Acronym Phenomenon. We'll call it HAP. Heh.

So, in order to be inclusive (or exclusive, depending on who you ask) at some point in history, a little ol' acronym of LGBT was created. It stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender but even this is controversial, as it is sometimes listed as GLBT (when the boys want to go first).


Now, the best part is that this little acronym has now morphed into a full-on attack of letters. At its "most inclusive" (really?) is can stretch all the way to LGBTTTIQQAA, which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Two-Spirited, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual and Allies.

Do not get me started on Asexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation. Seriously.

Also great about the acronym game is the fact that it changes based on who you ask, so a Q to one person may mean queer but to another means questioning. Wikipedia argues that people in Minnesota prefer the GLBT as opposed to the LGBT, but I'm not sure of the basis.

Now, all of this ranting is obviously going to come of as being "intolerant" (we'll get to my hatred of the term "tolerance" at another time, I think I've used up my tangent quota for the day) or not inclusive enough of every member of this here queer community but really its just an annoyance of the extreme-ness that inclusiveness has come to. I genuinely want everyone to feel welcome, but Jesus H. Are you being serious with the fucking 11 letter label?

The absolute IRONY of the whole thing is that the very people that "we" are working to include in this ridiculous label don't even want the inclusion. From my understanding (which is not first-hand, so quit fucking asking), trans-people don't necessarily feel as though their cause is the same as that of the lezzies and gays (and the damn Bisexuals too, fuck!). So it seems pretty funny to me that all this work is being done to include those that don't want to be a part.

Of course, I don't mean that we shouldn't all work together and hold hands and love and support and sing Kumbaya. Seriously. In the greater "Queer" community, I certainly believe that we should support as much as possible, whenever possible. But I KNOW that problems within the community are not being solved by adding another fucking letter to an already-ridiculous group of letters.

So quit correcting me when I say LGBT. Just call me old school if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm not being radical when I kiss you; I don't love you to make a point

"The negative influences on the gay culture are being promulgated by people who are widely known to be gay and who continue to act as if it's a topic of non-discussion. I'm thinking specifically about people like Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper. They're gay, but never talk about it. They are perpetuating the notion that being gay is a secret shame. We still respect closets far too much in this society. I'm very proud of the fact that Ian McKellen once asked me if I thought he should come out, and I said yes--and he's credited me with that. I tend to be a little cheeky about this topic because I think it's important--there are teenagers still committing suicide over their sexuality."

- Armisted Maupin
http://www.7x7sf.com/people/profiles/7555377.html



I don't really know what to think of this.

There's all sorts of theory racing through my head, and every bit of it conflicts the other.

On one hand, I disagree. I am adamant in my belief that not everyone should have to be a poster-gay, and no one should be forced to disclose things about themself (grammatically incorrect yet gender inclusive? I choose yes) that they are not ready for.

Yet, I don't know that this is Maupin's argument.

Whether or not they choose to acknowledge it, by virtue of the society in which we live every single person is assumed to be straight unless they explicitly say that they are not. Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper are only the most glaring examples of this. All the kids in the gay community are sitting in their armchairs, watching CNN, knowing that Coops is a friend of Dorothy, yet if I were to bring this up to someone else (a non-gay, of course) it would not only be absurd, but offensive.

And this is where I have the problem.

See, if its a negative to assume that someone is gay, then we can just use our seventh grade algebra skills to realize that it is also negative to actually be gay. So when I say, "Oh man, look at that lez over there" and Sally Straightfriend says "You really shouldn't assume she's a lez," I get real, real offended.

Why shouldn't I assume? People assume I'm straight all the time, and that's just fucking weird. Like its such a bad thing to assume a person is a homo? Even if I'm wrong, I can just be like, "Oopsy, I mean, how's your boyfriend Linda, my bad." No harm, no foul.

So, even though they may not mean to, I have to agree with Maupin when he argues that "they are perpetuating the idea that being gay is a secret shame." I sincerely doubt that this is their reasoning for not coming out. I have to assume that Jodie Foster is cool with her sexuality, and just doesn't really feel like talking about it all the time as the only facet of her identity.

But, that doesn't change the way it is perceived. Is this her fault? Certainly not. Is it her job to fix it? I'm not really sure. If you know that what you're doing is hurting a community that you're a part of, then to continue doing it seems odd, but I also realize that to come out would be pretty much putting the camera on only that for at least the next 4 years, after which is will always be mentioned before anything actually worthwhile. What used to be "Oscar-winning actress" will now forever be "Lesbian Oscar-winning Actress". And that's just fucking annoying.

So what's a gay to do? Get pissed off when the media outs people? Get pissed off at people for not being out? Stop reading stuff that once out-ed someone before it seemed they were ready, or stop watching movies that ohmygodyou'reobviouslygay people are in until they fess up? It's doubtful that any of this would do any good.

See, the problem is never the staff writer at the NY Post or Jodie Foster. Its the society that places so much value on being straight, where so much excitement is caused by knowing whether or not someone is a homo. How do we fix that? I'm fairly certain that Maupin's argument is that you fix it by normalizing it, and with that I have to agree. If it was never a big deal when someone came out, then it would never be a big deal if someone stayed in, either.

So, you know, keep that in mind.

What good is a cynic with no better plan?

Anyone watch the Democratic debate on Sunday night?

Yeah, me either. It was during the Sopranos, after all. More on those crazy gangsters another time.

Even though I didn't, you know, watch them, I have caught most of the debate action on YouTube, and the massive amount of commentaries done since then and I have a few comments of my own.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (and again). I truly believe that Barak Obama is just an eeensy bit full of shit. For all this rockstar cred that just magically fell into his lap, I have seen very little actually backing it up.

Now, I'm a big fan of nicknames, so please know that when I refer to him as yOmama, it’s out of love for the Party, not hate for the dude. I really do think he's a good guy. A good Senator. A good basketball player. A great father, I would imagine. Just not the best person to be the next President of the United States.

Why, you ask?

Well, I'd be happy to oblige.

First, and probably on the average voters' minds the most, is the Iraqi War. yOmama insists on saying, over and over again, that he has been against the War from the start. Yet, he was not even elected to Congress until 2004. It’s a pretty easy place to be sitting when every other candidate in the race, save Dennis Kucinich, either voted for it or wasn't in Congress. I mean, I don't know how much foreign policy was being hashed out in the Illinois State Senate. Just sayin'.

Next, he said this really annoying thing about immigration on CNN one day. I can't find that exact interview, but here's him explaining his stance at a town hall meeting. http://youtube.com/watch?v=wxZdEJdh8ss

Now, you may be tricked. That's my whole problem with yOmama. He's a great public speaker, and he is brilliant at presenting his views in a way that hides his actual intentions. He starts out by saying that immigrants are extremely important, that virtually every American is an immigrant unless they're Native, blahblaahblaaaaah.

This all sounds great.

Empowering!

But wait for step 3.

That's when he explains that he is most certainly not for amnesty, and illegal immigrants that want to start on the "path" to being a legal citizen will have to pay fines, learn English, and wait close to ten years before being legal.

What, Mr. Senator, are they to do until then?

Now, there are other issues, certainly. The gay thing is sticky (heh.) because none of the candidates are where I'd like them to be. But, when he says, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been," it makes me laugh in my head. Leave it to the states? What, you're a Republican now? Convenient time to believe in states' rights...

My point is this. I feel like Obama gets this eternal free pass as the most liberal legitimate candidate, and I just don't think this is true.

None of the candidates are left enough for me (at least the ones that have a chance of getting nominated), but Obama has this knack of agreeing with whomever he is speaking to.

I don't want a yes-person.

I don't want someone who figured out the trick to the game.

I want a genuine person whose ideas will change the way that politics are being played in this country.

Is that really too much to ask?