Freedom. Joy.

I love this photo of Harvey Milk. See more at sfgate's photo gallery on the Milk and Moscone assassinations.

I hope he's right...

...about item no. 12, 'cause no. 12 is about all I've got right now.

Dogpoet: Twenty Reasons to Join the Impact.

I think there's a movie named after what I'm about to do...

Well....maybe we should try being honest with ourselves.

There's a lot of anger directed toward the state of California right now (most of it coming from me, I admit), but the truth is, the people of the Golden State didn't do anything different from the rest of us who cast our votes for Barack Obama. Sure, he said he didn't think a constitutional amendment was "necessary" to support his position, but he made it quite clear that as a Christian, he believes that marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. He proposed glb (and probably some t) should get a separate set of laws, instead of giving us access to those that govern his marriage to his wife and his relationship with his children.

There were a lot of reasons--probably most of them good--to vote for Obama despite his denial of equal rights to members of the glbt community. Catherine suggested I think of the polar bears his energy plan might save, for instance (although there's an argument to be made that if we kept Palin tied up with business in Washington, D.C., she'd be too busy to go out and shoot more wolves from helicopters). So, yes, it's pretty easy to ignore, or at least to rationalize, the negatives of voting for Obama. The U.S. was a sinking ship, and a few people had to be thrown overboard to save it. Fine, I get that. But still and all...calling Californians bigots for doing exactly what we just did...that's a bit much. There really is some truth to that old saying about pointing fingers: you can point a finger at California, but don't forget there are three pointing back at you (unless you're that kid I grew up with who accidentally cut his finger off when we were still in grade school, he's only pointing two fingers at himself). Maybe we like our reasons for throwing our support behind someone who doesn't believe in equal marriage rights better than some of the reasons put forward by the pro Prop 8 campaign, but really....same difference.

I've got a lot of fury spilling out of me right now. Some of it is directed toward...well...the targets you'd expect, and some of it is directed toward targets that probably would surprise you. A lot of my anger is directed at myself, for once again voting for someone I don't believe in, a candidate obviously willing to extend fair treatment to everyone but me. Mixed in with that is anger at myself for being too selfish to take the hit--shouldn't I be noble enough to step off the boat before I'm thrown off, so others can survive, and even improve their position? Turns out I'm not that generous--who knew? I want to be one of those people jumping up and down with joy, I want to be happy for all those people for whom this was a real victory. But I'm not, I'm not even close. I can be happy about not having a McCain/Palin administration, but the rest....I don't think I'm ever going to be able to forget what it felt like to watch the President-Elect celebrating with his wife and family in front of all those cheering people on election night, effortlessly enjoying his position of heterosexual privilege, no matter how much good comes out of this administration in the next four years.

Breaking my own rules.

And losing all my friends. But I've decided that's okay. I keep thinking that I just have to hold the fury in a few days more,and then it will be okay, and I can talk to people again without risking ruining relationships with my anger, but that "few days more" keeps stretching to a few weeks, a few months, and then four more years.

Today is my sixteenth anniversary. Do you know what Catherine and I did on our first date 16 years ago? We went canvassing, handing out literature against Measure 9, an anti-gay measure sponsored by the OCA. A few years later, we were working on No on 13 (same measure, different number). We left Oregon before we had to work against yet another Measure 9.

Seriously, you'd think in 16 years, things would change. I bought into the (Bill) Clinton's administration promise, and look what I got--a president who wouldn't even speak to us at March on Washington, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I got a President who signed Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, otherwise known as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. And since that time, I've watched the U.S. become swept up in anti-gay legislation--only five states do not have some sort of statute against gay marriage (in most cases, that "statute" comes in the form of an amendment to the state Constitution). Anti-gay politics has evolved into a very pro-active institution--think of what gay people might want to do, and take that right away from them before they even knew they had it to begin with.

And we're at it again, of course, with Prop 8. There was no point in getting excited about being allowed to marry in California, because you know that ten minutes after permission was granted, we were all pulling out our pocketbooks to fund the campaign to preserve that right. It seems like improvement, fighting for the right to get married, rather that just the right to have sex without going to jail, but let me tell you, it feels exactly the same on an emotional level.

And we're at it again in other ways, too. Once again, I'm being told that I shouldn't expect too much or any support from any presidential candidate. How many times have I been asked in the last sixteen years to put my own civil rights on hold so we could elect "the best" candidate, a candidate that would surely fight for me once he or she got into office? Yeah, and how has that worked out for me? Not very well, I can tell you that. That's why endless comments like those made in response to Andrew Sullivan just piss me off--how many times can I be asked to sell myself and my relationship out for the Democrats? How many times am I going to be blamed for the loss of a presidential election for being too controversial? Don't be too vocal about Prop 8, you don't want to mobilize the religious right in California and lose the state for Obama! Well, fuck that noise.

And news flash for you: it's cowardly for a presidential to say that marriage is a "states' rights" issue. It's also just false. Let me tell you, it's not State law that is keeping me away from Catherine this year, it's a Federal law. A federal law signed by a Democrat.

Well, I waived my right to a secret ballot so I could vote through e-mail from here in London, so I can say that I voted the way everyone around me wanted me to vote. But I don't feel good about it, in fact, I may feel worse than after the last two elections. Once again, all I'm getting is more "separate but equal" rhetoric. Welcome, again, to the back of the bus.

So, when I get yet another e-mail from a friend telling me to be sure to cast my absentee ballot for Obama, I have to stop and remind myself that this person doesn't understand the level of sacrifice they are once again asking of me. It takes a long time for me to lose my political anger after every election season, and I have to work very hard to remember, "These people are my friends, they don't mean to hurt me." And I tell myself, "Really, don't be selfish, it's not all about YOU." And that is so true, it's never about me. If it were about me, I would be able to vote for a President who actually believed that everyone deserved the same rights.

I really miss Catherine, and I hate everyone who helped make this twelve-month separation possible, including myself.

Itinerary and Ire

So, my airline tickets to London and Delhi are finally in hand. T-11 days and counting. Every other sentence out of my mouth is "I don't want to go," but it seems that I have to, whether I want to or not. We have the webcams all set up so we can Skype, and Catherine has promised to visit, but I can't seem to stop feeling like this is all one big mistake. I spend all my free time reading cake decorating websites, contemplating a second (third? fourth?) career at the local bake shop. I'm pretty sure I'd be a good cake decorator.

As my departure draws nearer, I find myself growing more and more bitter about the Defense of Marriage Act. It's standing directly in between me and my partner, keeping us apart for twelve months simply because we're both female.

Here's the exact language from the DDRA booklet:

"Dependents
A dependent is any of the following individuals who accompany the fellow to his or her research site(s) for the entire fellowship period if the individual receives more than 50 percent of his or her support from the fellow during the fellowship period: 1) the fellow’s spouse; 2) the fellow’s or spouse’s children who are unmarried and under age 21.

Dependents for whom the fellow is requesting a dependent’s allowance must accompany the fellow to the research site for the entire fellowship period. Should a fellow’s dependent return to the U.S. during the tenure of the fellowship, the fellow will be required to return the full dependent's allowance.

The word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. These definitions are found in 1 USC Section 7, commonly known as the “Defense of Marriage Act” and apply to all federal programs."

So, the fact that Catherine and I have been together for sixteen years means nothing--she doesn't count as a dependent, and doesn't qualify for a dependent's allowance. She could easily get a leave of absence from her job, and the living + dependent's stipend from the DDRA would easily support us both in London and India. But, no. Not straight, not possible. When my friends try to tell me I should be happy for "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions," I offer this as a clear and specific example of why these supposed "separate but equal" institutions are in fact still discriminatory.

A friend of mine who is in the process of applying for the Fulbright-Hays told me just today that she and her boyfriend have decided to get married so he will be considered a dependent. Well, I'm sure they would probably stay together, and even get married in the future, anyway; but the truth is, they can decide to get married because it's practical to keep them together in the next twelve months, reaping benefits denied to me.

Well, life isn't fair, and that's a lesson learned a long time ago, so I can't waste too much more energy on this. But when I'm sitting in front of the television, listening to a presidential candidate who believes civil unions are good enough, and that the federal government doesn't need to do anything to secure my marriage rights, I get angry all over again. It's probably a good thing I'll be spending the two months immediately before the presidential election away from American television and radio.

No fucking kidding.

You know what's disgusting about this story? It's been this way in South Central L. A. since the Watts Riots in 1965. *1965*. That's how long corporations have been refusing to invest in the area, refusing to rebuild/add grocery stores after the property destruction of the Watts Riots. It was still an obvious problem when I lived there in 1991-1992 (try buying groceries in South Central without getting in a car and driving for an hour first), and it apparently hasn't gotten any better. Styling this as a "fast food" problem hardly addresses the 43 years of deliberate neglect by grocery chains, etc. I've had people tell me that the 1992 uprising demonstrated that these corporations had a smart policy, refusing to put property in an area that might see further damage and violence. I don't buy that. I just don't believe that a rebellion *32 years* later proves anything, unless it's that white people can be incredibly, incredibly stupid.

Hetero-Homo Bhai Bhai

http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20080630/1074/tod-hetero-homo-bhai-bhai-is-the-rainbow.html

Gays Marry; World Does Not End

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/367465_henryonline19.html

Former fellow asg-xer Kerry Lutz has an entertaining blog.

I'm just saying.

If the Democrats ever want me to come over to their camp, they're going to have to find a candidate who isn't afraid of giving me the same rights as every other U.S. citizen is (theoretically) guaranteed. Until they can find someone a little less cowardly, I'm not going with them.

Faith-based Prison

When I was over at Talk Left: The Politics of Crime today, I came across a short discussion of Jeb Bush's faith-based prison initiative. There's a more in-depth discussion at Punishment Theory, but you'll probably have to wade through the entry at Legal Theory, too, if you want to make sense of it.

The long pause.

Last night I dreamed that I was mauled by feral dogs. If my subconscious is trying to send me a message, I don’t want to know what it is.

1. When we first decided to move to Indiana, all of our friends told us we were crazy. One friend told us that he was glad to leave the Midwest. He didn’t like the people; he said that Midwesterners didn’t really live, they merely existed. After work, they go home, sit on their couches and watch television; they have no interest in anything cultural or educational.

I can’t help but hear this as some sort of classist statement. The opportunity to “broaden the mind” is definitely linked to economics. Who wants to think about anything after putting in an eight-hour day of manual labor? Seriously, by the time I sit down in my chair at night, I can’t even pick up a rock-climbing magazine to read, much less something a little more challenging. I have spent the last two weeks letting cable TV numb every last little receptor in my brain, and even that seems like it requires too much energy.

2. Do Americans ever get tired of having a president who can’t formulate a whole sentence without getting confused? Don’t get me wrong, I think some of the UK’s social and economic problems are all but unsolvable (and I hate them for backing the U.S. all the time, grow a backbone already!), but wouldn’t it be nice if we had a leader like Tony Blair? He can not only finish a sentence, he can spit out an entire paragraph without taking a breath. I may not always agree with him, but at least I can tell he knows the difference between a noun and a verb.

The only thing I ever watch on C-SPAN is the Prime Minister’s Questions, and after watching the sparring between the PM and the head of the opposition party, I just want to shoot myself out of embarrassment for our incredibly sorry Head of State. If Bush ever had to square off with someone right across the table throwing questions at him, his head would probably explode, even if he was given a list of the questions ahead of time.

3. I wish we would move out of town so I would have a solid excuse for quitting band. I like the role we play in the community, I think people get a kick out of seeing us on the town square and all that, and I like that we take the time to play at the local nursing homes twice a season, but god, I hate rehearsals. Partly, I’m just not very coachable. I hate being told what to do. Form your command as a suggestion, and I’ll do it right away, but directly order me to do something, and I’ll refuse. I know it’s the director’s job to tell me what to do, but I also think he needs to realize that we have two—sometimes three, but often two—percussionists covering anywhere from three to seven parts. I’m doing everything I can, and no, I can not play the cymbals, the bells, the bass drum and the wood block simultaneously, so bite me.

4. Who knew making Christmas presents was so labor intensive? I’m making a grand total of four this year, and you know what? I don’t like anyone enough to do this again. My mom will like hers, but she probably would have liked it just as well if I had gone out and bought something bright and shiny for her. So what was I thinking? I don’t know, but my hands are covered in glue and as far as I’m concerned, that’s not really a good thing.

5. I wish it would fucking snow already.

Politics.

A couple of days ago, la malinchista pointed out that a number of "thoughtful, progressive political blogs" have taken up residence on the web. And, of course, she's right, and I'm glad she keeps track of them because I pretty much lack focus when it comes to current events. I am so not interested in being a U.S. citizen that I tend to forget to keep track of what other Americans are doing. It's good that there are people reminding me to pay attention every now and again.

But what I was thinking as I was poking through some left-ish news site this weekend was that I don't really need to read any more progressive political blogs. What I really want to read is a well-written right-leaning blog/journal. It's nice to read the writing of people who are of the same general political orientation as I am--safety in numbers and all that--but on the other hand, it would be nice to be challenged by an opposing view that actually required me to work intellectually. It is child's play to poke logical holes in the center-to-right-leaning blogs I've found. I know the Limbaugh-esque drivel I've seen isn't the only way to represent conservativism, so where is the good stuff?

I really want to know. I'm not so confident in my own political opinions that I'm not willing to reconsider them (well, some of them, anyway). I'm always willing to mix and match if I think it works. But I need material with which to work, and I'm not seeing it in any of the right-wing rhetoric I'm being forced to endure. I'm definitely open to suggestions, so feel free to send me some.

The agonist.

http://www.agonist.org

Political Compass.

So, I just spent a few minutes taking the Political Compass test, and I'm thinking the results can't be right. For one thing, there were several questions where Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree didn't offer the choice I wanted which was "neutral" or "can't decide" or "could you rephrase that in the form of a question?" Anyway, I ended up with:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

There's no way that can be correct. The chances of me being farther to the left than Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama, and Ghandi are pretty damn slim. Or pretty damn fat, whichever way you want to look at it. I think if the questions had been written a little differently, I would have come out more authoritarian than libertarian, without question.

Although the test does try to add depth by considering a "social dimension," my general criticism is that too much emphasis is put on the left-to-right economic spectrum. Okay, it's not the test's fault that we live in an economically unimaginative world, but really, why must my choices be based on an antiquated (okay, 19th century) model of economics? This is 2003, for chrissakes. Why are we incapable of thinking outside the paradigm offered by Marx and Engels? Is it really true we can only be capitalists, communists, or socialists (or somewhere in between these three positions)? Surely we can think of a fourth option.

Not a fourth option, a new option. There must be other systems of economy--based on trading and bartering? I'm not sure--not derived from Marx's interpretation of the collection of the British Library. I mean, the very fact that his system was based on an extensive yet culturally limited set of source material should make us pause and wonder about the validity of his conclusions. Marx describes what he thinks he sees, predicts what he thinks might develop, and suddenly we're totally wed to the idea. And you can't point to the fact that examples of his economic systems exist as proof that he was right. Marx was the master of the self-fulfilling prophecy, a Field of Dreams kind of guy if I ever saw one.

Well, don't even get me started on that Adam Smith, we'll be here all day.

Ampersand.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/