"This is not what the Republicans envisioned 11 months ago, when they were returned to office as a powerful one-party government with a big agenda and - it seemed - little to fear from the opposition."
So sorry, but...we deserve this. And they deserve this.
I just went online and gave $100 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. You should too. It's early, but giving early means more credibility for them.
“one homosexual can pollute a government office” —U.S. Senate subcommittee report, 1950
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Saturday, September 24, 2005
A yes on Roberts is not the only "right vote"
I'm tired of having letters not printed, so here they are.
---
September 24, 2005
To: the Washington Post
While I agree with your view that there should not be a
"strongly partisan component" to the Supreme Court
confirmation process, I think you are missing a critical
factor in the decision of five of the eight Democrats on the
Senate Judiciary Committee to vote against the nomination of
Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice ("The Right Vote," Sept.
24). That factor is President Bush's broader relationship to
the judiciary, a record of genuinely unprecedented partisanship.
Judge Roberts is a qualified nominee with decades of excellent
service to his corporate and Republican Party clients, but he
has limited experience as a judge and simply has not faced a
range of cases approaching that which he will encounter if he
spends the foreseeable future leading the judicial branch.
The current Republican assault on the independent judiciary is
so dangerous to the nation's legal system that I find it easy
to understand the Democrats' reluctance to confirm a candidate
for Chief Justice with no discernible track record and no
professed views on the most important issues.
Your editorial complains that Democrats "will oppose any
nominee from this administration" and that the pressure from
liberal lobbying groups is "truly intense." By contrast, I am
impressed that leaders of nonprofit organizations that work on
behalf of civil rights, consumers, women, gays and lesbians,
immigration rights, disability rights, environmentalism, and
public-interest law have finally managed to persuade our party
to stand up for us. President Bush should not appoint another
stealth candidate for the Court's second opening.
---
Friday, September 2, 2005
To: Time Magazine
Subject: President feels pain...of those overpaying for gas?
You say that Bush "stumbles in his initial handling" of the
crisis in New Orleans, but "has a history of righting itself"
(Sept. 1). That's like saying that Janet Reno "stumbled" in
responding to Waco. President Bush's speech Thursday was
astonishing---with his palpable sympathy toward those of us
paying fifty cents extra for gas, and his profound lack of
basic compassion for Americans living without food, water, or
sanitation. For Bush to say on national television that help
is on the way, "but the private sector needs to do its part as
well," goes beyond abdicating leadership; it is obscene. I
feel ill imagining Karl Rove's efforts to arrange a Friday
photo op in New Orleans.
[That one produced a letter back the next day saying basically "we paid attention to your letter and we are thinking of maybe printing it but we're not sure yet."]
---
Monday, August 29, 2005
To: the New York Times
Subject: Women's peace activism is nothing new
In her timely look at the role of mothers in the resurgent
antiwar movement, Elisabeth Bumiller is right to point out
that in Vietnam, “the demonstrations were largely led by young
men, who were subject to the draft” ("In the Struggle Over the
Iraq War, Women are On the Front Line," Aug. 29). But when
she attributes this “striking change" to events that have
"happened in 40 years," Bumiller would do well to brush up on
her history.
Women were highly influential peace activists in the World War
I era. The first Congressional vote cast by a woman was
Jeannette Rankin’s vote against entering World War I, at a
time before federal woman suffrage. Rankin cast the only vote
in Congress against World War II; she went on, at age 88, to
lead over 5,000 women in a 1968 march on Washington against
the Vietnam War.
---
September 24, 2005
To: the Washington Post
While I agree with your view that there should not be a
"strongly partisan component" to the Supreme Court
confirmation process, I think you are missing a critical
factor in the decision of five of the eight Democrats on the
Senate Judiciary Committee to vote against the nomination of
Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice ("The Right Vote," Sept.
24). That factor is President Bush's broader relationship to
the judiciary, a record of genuinely unprecedented partisanship.
Judge Roberts is a qualified nominee with decades of excellent
service to his corporate and Republican Party clients, but he
has limited experience as a judge and simply has not faced a
range of cases approaching that which he will encounter if he
spends the foreseeable future leading the judicial branch.
The current Republican assault on the independent judiciary is
so dangerous to the nation's legal system that I find it easy
to understand the Democrats' reluctance to confirm a candidate
for Chief Justice with no discernible track record and no
professed views on the most important issues.
Your editorial complains that Democrats "will oppose any
nominee from this administration" and that the pressure from
liberal lobbying groups is "truly intense." By contrast, I am
impressed that leaders of nonprofit organizations that work on
behalf of civil rights, consumers, women, gays and lesbians,
immigration rights, disability rights, environmentalism, and
public-interest law have finally managed to persuade our party
to stand up for us. President Bush should not appoint another
stealth candidate for the Court's second opening.
---
Friday, September 2, 2005
To: Time Magazine
Subject: President feels pain...of those overpaying for gas?
You say that Bush "stumbles in his initial handling" of the
crisis in New Orleans, but "has a history of righting itself"
(Sept. 1). That's like saying that Janet Reno "stumbled" in
responding to Waco. President Bush's speech Thursday was
astonishing---with his palpable sympathy toward those of us
paying fifty cents extra for gas, and his profound lack of
basic compassion for Americans living without food, water, or
sanitation. For Bush to say on national television that help
is on the way, "but the private sector needs to do its part as
well," goes beyond abdicating leadership; it is obscene. I
feel ill imagining Karl Rove's efforts to arrange a Friday
photo op in New Orleans.
[That one produced a letter back the next day saying basically "we paid attention to your letter and we are thinking of maybe printing it but we're not sure yet."]
---
Monday, August 29, 2005
To: the New York Times
Subject: Women's peace activism is nothing new
In her timely look at the role of mothers in the resurgent
antiwar movement, Elisabeth Bumiller is right to point out
that in Vietnam, “the demonstrations were largely led by young
men, who were subject to the draft” ("In the Struggle Over the
Iraq War, Women are On the Front Line," Aug. 29). But when
she attributes this “striking change" to events that have
"happened in 40 years," Bumiller would do well to brush up on
her history.
Women were highly influential peace activists in the World War
I era. The first Congressional vote cast by a woman was
Jeannette Rankin’s vote against entering World War I, at a
time before federal woman suffrage. Rankin cast the only vote
in Congress against World War II; she went on, at age 88, to
lead over 5,000 women in a 1968 march on Washington against
the Vietnam War.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Massachusetts lawmakers have changed their minds
Today, 6,500 marriages later, the Massachusetts legislature defeated by a stunning 4-to-1 margin the "compromise" constitutional amendment that it narrowly passed last year, which would simultaneously ban gay marriage and create civil unions. Many legislators who voted for the amendment last year say that they've simply changed their minds in the past year.
Because the measure did not pass the legislature two years in a row, it WILL NOT go to the voters next year. The religious right is now collecting signatures in an effort to get an amendment banning both gay marriage and civil unions on the ballot in 2008 - when thousands of same-sex couples will be celebrating their fifth wedding anniversaries.
Because the measure did not pass the legislature two years in a row, it WILL NOT go to the voters next year. The religious right is now collecting signatures in an effort to get an amendment banning both gay marriage and civil unions on the ballot in 2008 - when thousands of same-sex couples will be celebrating their fifth wedding anniversaries.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Wednesday vote may doom MA marriage ban effort
Same-sex marriage may stay legal in Massachusetts (The Advocate)
A fragile coalition of lawmakers cobbled together to support a Massachusetts constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is falling apart, virtually assuring that for now same-sex marriage will remain legal in the state, according to an Associated Press poll. The survey, conducted September 6–9, found at least 104 lawmakers who plan to vote against the proposed amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage but create civil unions.
A fragile coalition of lawmakers cobbled together to support a Massachusetts constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is falling apart, virtually assuring that for now same-sex marriage will remain legal in the state, according to an Associated Press poll. The survey, conducted September 6–9, found at least 104 lawmakers who plan to vote against the proposed amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage but create civil unions.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Levee funds diverted to Iraq
The following are excerpts from an article by Sheila Grissett published in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004:
More articles from before Katrina:
See also these stories posted since Katrina:
And search for the latest on levees on Google News
For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant earthen berms that won't be finished for at least another decade.
"I guess people look around and think there's a complete system in place, that we're just out here trying to put icing on the cake," said Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers. "And we aren't saying that the sky is falling, but people should know that this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to do before there is a complete system in place."
...
"I can't tell you exactly what that could mean this hurricane season if we get a major storm," Naomi said. "It would depend on the path and speed of the storm, the angle that it hits us.
"But I can tell you that we would be better off if the levees were raised, . . . and I think it's important and only fair that those people who live behind the levee know the status of these projects."
...
The Bush administration's proposed fiscal 2005 budget includes only $3.9 million for the east bank hurricane project. Congress likely will increase that amount, although last year it bumped up the administration's $3 million proposal only to $5.5 million.
"I needed $11 million this year, and I got $5.5 million," Naomi said. "I need $22.5 million next year to do everything that needs doing, and the first $4.5 million of that will go to pay four contractors who couldn't get paid this year."
...
The challenge now, said emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri in Jefferson Parish and Terry Tullier in New Orleans, is for southeast Louisiana somehow to persuade those who control federal spending that protection from major storms and flooding are matters of homeland security.
"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay," Maestri said. "Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
...
Levee-raising is only part of the flood-related work that has stopped since the federal government began reducing Corps of Engineers appropriations in 2001, as more money was diverted to homeland security, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
More articles from before Katrina:
Repair the marshlands or rebuild New Orleans, Rocky Mountain News, July 16, 2005
New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces record $71.2 million federal cut, New Orleans City Business, June 6, 2005
Coastal advocates dismayed by Bush's opposition, The Courier (Houma, La.), sometime in 2004
See also these stories posted since Katrina:
No one can say they didn't see it coming, on Salon, August 31 (this is an excellent article, well worth the commercial required of non-subscribers)
Funding cuts led way to lesser levees, Chicago Tribune, August 31
Intricate flood protection long a focus of dispute, NYT, September 1
And search for the latest on levees on Google News
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Bush's vacation and New Orleans' poor
...this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation. All the focus now must be on rescuing the survivors. Beyond that lies a long and painful recovery, which must begin with a national vow to help all the storm victims and to save and repair New Orleans.
People who think of that graceful city and the rest of the Mississippi Delta as tourist destinations must have been reminded, watching the rescue operations, that the real residents of this area are in the main poor and black. The only resources most of them will have to fall back on will need to come from the federal government. (NYT)
In a society hooked on access to instant and overwhelming quantities of information, it was remarkable how much was unknown about the scope of the disaster wreaked by Katrina; the storm had simply destroyed much of the information network. More often than not, calls to southern Louisiana were answered by a polite recording saying that hurricane damage had rendered telephone service impossible. In most of the storm-socked area, there was no power to run computers, much less pumps to remove the water. The Times-Picayune, New Orleans's main newspaper, was doing a heroic job of covering the crisis until suddenly, at 9:40 yesterday morning, its entire staff had to evacuate the building to flee the rising waters coming through breached levees. On CNN, harried reporters told their anchors on camera that they didn't know much more than what they could see from the hotel rooftops on which they had taken refuge. (WaPo)
People who think of that graceful city and the rest of the Mississippi Delta as tourist destinations must have been reminded, watching the rescue operations, that the real residents of this area are in the main poor and black. The only resources most of them will have to fall back on will need to come from the federal government. (NYT)
In a society hooked on access to instant and overwhelming quantities of information, it was remarkable how much was unknown about the scope of the disaster wreaked by Katrina; the storm had simply destroyed much of the information network. More often than not, calls to southern Louisiana were answered by a polite recording saying that hurricane damage had rendered telephone service impossible. In most of the storm-socked area, there was no power to run computers, much less pumps to remove the water. The Times-Picayune, New Orleans's main newspaper, was doing a heroic job of covering the crisis until suddenly, at 9:40 yesterday morning, its entire staff had to evacuate the building to flee the rising waters coming through breached levees. On CNN, harried reporters told their anchors on camera that they didn't know much more than what they could see from the hotel rooftops on which they had taken refuge. (WaPo)
Monday, August 01, 2005
Roberts and civil rights
Today's Washington Post:
In the early 1980s, a young intellectual lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. was part of the vanguard of a conservative political revolution in civil rights, advocating new legal theories and helping enforce the Reagan administration's effort to curtail the use of courts to remedy racial and sexual discrimination....
He wrote vigorous defenses, for example, of the administration's version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, that would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He challenged arguments by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in favor of busing and affirmative action. He described a Supreme Court decision broadening the rights of individuals to sue states for civil rights violations as causing "damage" to administration policies, and he urged that legislation be drafted to reverse it. And he wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases.
Friday, July 29, 2005
The Hazards of Being Male
[---the titles of an early-1970s anti-women's lib tract]
I just got back from the FedEx facility in Skokie, where I picked up my new cell phone - replaced under warranty - after three days of phone calls and mutually exclusive explanations from FedEx about why they had not delivered it. Since a signature was required, I had had it shipped c/o the feminist bookstore across the street.
During the final round of phone calls this morning before I decided to get in my car to pick up the damn thing, the FedEx manager in Skokie told me that she "understood," based on her conversation with the first person who answered the phone before she spoke to a manager, that the bookstore "has no male employees." Therefore, she was planning to send the package back to Verizon unless I could give her a plausible explanation of why I was sending the package to the bookstore. I am not making this up.
Granted, the person who answered the phone is partly to blame, and it seems to me that the bookstore's non-hierarchical staffing structure probably did not help ensure that I'd get my phone. But the FedEx person, because I was male, actually made me go across the street while she called up the bookstore and heard them state that yes I am a regular customer and yes they should release the package to me.
I just got back from the FedEx facility in Skokie, where I picked up my new cell phone - replaced under warranty - after three days of phone calls and mutually exclusive explanations from FedEx about why they had not delivered it. Since a signature was required, I had had it shipped c/o the feminist bookstore across the street.
During the final round of phone calls this morning before I decided to get in my car to pick up the damn thing, the FedEx manager in Skokie told me that she "understood," based on her conversation with the first person who answered the phone before she spoke to a manager, that the bookstore "has no male employees." Therefore, she was planning to send the package back to Verizon unless I could give her a plausible explanation of why I was sending the package to the bookstore. I am not making this up.
Granted, the person who answered the phone is partly to blame, and it seems to me that the bookstore's non-hierarchical staffing structure probably did not help ensure that I'd get my phone. But the FedEx person, because I was male, actually made me go across the street while she called up the bookstore and heard them state that yes I am a regular customer and yes they should release the package to me.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
"I'm coming day and night"
I just watched Pumping Iron, the 1977 documentary that made Arnold Schwarzenegger famous. Here are my favorite things Arnold had to say:
1. "The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in a gym, is the pump. Let’s say you train your biceps; blood is rushing into your muscles, and that’s what we call the pump. Your muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute - you know, it's really tight, it’s like somebody blowing air into your muscle. It just blows up and it feels different. It feels fantastic. It’s as satisfying to me as coming - you know, as having sex with a woman and coming. So can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like getting the feeling of coming in the gym, I'm getting the feeling of coming at home, I'm getting the feeling of coming backstage when I pump up, when I pose out in front of 5,000 people I get the same feeling. So I'm coming day and night. I mean, it’s terrific, right?"
2. "I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, you know - or even, like Jesus you know, being for thousands of years remembered."
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Calling all Democrats: it's Roe v. Wade, stupid!
***To NARAL staff member: contact me at timsw at uchicago dot edu***
First of all, right this minute, go contribute $25 to NARAL Pro-Choice America. Just do it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Out of all of the Democratic Party's constituencies, the pro-choice organizations are the only ones who know what they're doing right now. Bush's team chose made such an incredibly brilliant choice of nominee that the top liberal organizations have been scrambling, with remarkably little success, to figure out what the hell he's all about.
Many Democratic politicians seem incapable of actually talking about reproductive rights or about Roe v. Wade, or to say in public the simple fact that 65 percent of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe. They're desperately trying to find some other reason to oppose Roberts, but the pro-choice lobby knows what's at stake. There really is no other reason to oppose Roberts. He has very little paper trail, on the abortion issue or on anything else, but here's a clue: his wife is "deeply involved in the antiabortion movement."
The New York Times talked to one of the other people Bush apparently interviewed for the job, and they make it sound like Bush basically picked him cause he's a swell guy. But the conservatives seem pretty sure they know his politics. Check out JudgeRoberts.com, a website where you can view a new right-wing TV commercial now hitting the airwaves. It proclaims Judge Roberts to be an honest man, top in his Harvard Law class, who deserves a fair hearing. The website was created by a right-wing 501(c)(4) organization called Progress for America, which according to an email I received from the Feminist Majority, has already raised $18 million just to campaign for the confirmation of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. (Did PFA buy the domain names for all of the 11 candidates Bush that were supposedly on Bush's short list?)
For those who "want to know more," PFA has created an ever-so-slightly-higher-brow website, UporDownVote.com. Play Senator - browse Judge Roberts' "resume." Things like that. In dramatic contrast, the liberal Alliance for Justice has only a fairly mealy-mouthed statement on its specialized website SupremeCourtWatch.org:
In a sidebar, AFJ says something slightly more interesting (and, I think, right on the money):
You can download a "podcast" for "an in-depth discussion of these issues."
The Toronto Globe and Mail had a lead paragraph that's pretty devastating:
But everybody knows what this is really about. The pro-choice organizations certainly do. At a panel discussion during a "Counter-Inaugural" held at the University of Chicago on January 20th, George Chauncey said he thought unfortunately that it might possible take the rollback of reproductive rights to generate the next major electoral realignment in this country. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a political scientist, responded by saying that in her view of political transformation, "more oppression" doesn't necessarily lead to "more activism." Thoughts?
(If you want to be additionally creeped out - and I do this periodically in order to see what we're up against with these religious right folks - check out the Family Research Council website. Then go give money.
First of all, right this minute, go contribute $25 to NARAL Pro-Choice America. Just do it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Out of all of the Democratic Party's constituencies, the pro-choice organizations are the only ones who know what they're doing right now. Bush's team chose made such an incredibly brilliant choice of nominee that the top liberal organizations have been scrambling, with remarkably little success, to figure out what the hell he's all about.
Many Democratic politicians seem incapable of actually talking about reproductive rights or about Roe v. Wade, or to say in public the simple fact that 65 percent of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe. They're desperately trying to find some other reason to oppose Roberts, but the pro-choice lobby knows what's at stake. There really is no other reason to oppose Roberts. He has very little paper trail, on the abortion issue or on anything else, but here's a clue: his wife is "deeply involved in the antiabortion movement."
The New York Times talked to one of the other people Bush apparently interviewed for the job, and they make it sound like Bush basically picked him cause he's a swell guy. But the conservatives seem pretty sure they know his politics. Check out JudgeRoberts.com, a website where you can view a new right-wing TV commercial now hitting the airwaves. It proclaims Judge Roberts to be an honest man, top in his Harvard Law class, who deserves a fair hearing. The website was created by a right-wing 501(c)(4) organization called Progress for America, which according to an email I received from the Feminist Majority, has already raised $18 million just to campaign for the confirmation of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. (Did PFA buy the domain names for all of the 11 candidates Bush that were supposedly on Bush's short list?)
For those who "want to know more," PFA has created an ever-so-slightly-higher-brow website, UporDownVote.com. Play Senator - browse Judge Roberts' "resume." Things like that. In dramatic contrast, the liberal Alliance for Justice has only a fairly mealy-mouthed statement on its specialized website SupremeCourtWatch.org:
At this time, Alliance for Justice cannot support Judge Roberts’ elevation to the Supreme Court. While we will be conducting a complete analysis of his record on and off the bench, an initial review has led to serious concerns about whether he will be fair, independent and will protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans.
In a sidebar, AFJ says something slightly more interesting (and, I think, right on the money):
The radical right groups screaming about fulfilling promises and not engaging in consultation are pleased with the outcome--Sekulow has replaced his “don’t consult” petition with a “support Roberts” petition. What do these groups and the White House know about Roberts’ record that we don’t? That’s a question Roberts and the White House must answer. They must be transparent and fully answer questions. We all have a right to know before putting Roberts on the Supreme Court.
You can download a "podcast" for "an in-depth discussion of these issues."
The Toronto Globe and Mail had a lead paragraph that's pretty devastating:
WASHINGTON -- With richly stocked war chests and massive media campaigns planned, the public battle over the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts was brewing yesterday, even as it became evident that Judge Roberts may face robust scrutiny but no real opposition in confirmation hearings.
Christian conservatives expressed hope that the conservative judge would help bring about an end to the "killing" of millions of "pre-borns," a source of bitter controversy since the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's right to abortion in 1973.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate's judiciary committee, said confirmation hearings "will be full, fair and complete." They may also be anti-climactic.
While some environmentalists worry over an apparently flip reference to an endangered toad in one of the judge's opinions, wags noted his hard-hearted backing of police who busted a teenager eating French fries on the Washington Metro, whereas the woman he is likely to replace on the Supreme Court voiced regret that U.S. President George W. Bush selected a man.
But everybody knows what this is really about. The pro-choice organizations certainly do. At a panel discussion during a "Counter-Inaugural" held at the University of Chicago on January 20th, George Chauncey said he thought unfortunately that it might possible take the rollback of reproductive rights to generate the next major electoral realignment in this country. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a political scientist, responded by saying that in her view of political transformation, "more oppression" doesn't necessarily lead to "more activism." Thoughts?
(If you want to be additionally creeped out - and I do this periodically in order to see what we're up against with these religious right folks - check out the Family Research Council website. Then go give money.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Bye-bye civil liberties, it was nice to have a few of you for a while
From Salon:
So that leaves two important questions: Will the Democrats insist that Roberts be forthcoming about his personal views on important constitutional questions? And how will Roberts respond if they do?
Robert Bork was defeated for confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1987 largely because of the extreme conservative views he expressed, views that senators considered outside the mainstream of American legal thought. This has led to the nomination by conservative Republican presidents of so-called stealth nominees, individuals -- like Roberts -- with fairly thin paper trails. But given all that is at stake -- and the Democrats' long preparation for this moment of O'Connor's retirement -- that may not be good enough this time. And Roberts may find himself having to be more forthcoming at his confirmation hearing than he would like.
If Roberts is as conservative as some believe, that could put him between a rock and a hard place. And while the next few days will see deeply detailed analyses of all his writings, there is at least one tea leaf among his judicial opinions that suggests that he may hold such deeply conservative views.
Last year, in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Roberts wrote an opinion upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single French fry in a Washington, D.C., Metrorail station while on her way home from junior high school. As the court described, the "girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later." Except for the time she was being fingerprinted, the girl remained handcuffed with her hands behind her back until she was released.
Roberts concluded that the arrest and detention under a mandatory arrest policy for minors was not an "unreasonable" seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, even though adults found to have violated the same no-eating-in-the-Metro ordinance were simply given citations. For obvious reasons, this decision is likely to be a point of some contention in Roberts' confirmation hearing. But of more significance than the decision itself is a part of its reasoning.
Roberts wrote that the Metro's mandatory arrest policy was not unconstitutional in part because it would not have been "regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed," that is, under the law as it stood in 1791. He described this inquiry as "the usual first step" in assessing Fourth Amendment cases, but really it is not. Instead, it is part of an approach to the law put forward by Justice Scalia, one that has been used inconsistently at best by the Supreme Court, garnering a clear majority's support in only one Fourth Amendment decision. It is an approach that would in essence freeze our rights as they were in 1791. And it is contrary to a great deal of modern Supreme Court case law that is dear to most Americans -- from protection against wiretapping to protection of the right to choose.
Why Roberts chose this approach and whether he indeed supports this narrow type of history-based constitutional interpretation of course remains to be seen. But what his approach is to interpreting the Constitution may well turn out to be the critical question in his confirmation hearings -- not whether he is adequately accomplished. This is largely because of the way in which President Bush has gone about choosing all his previous judicial nominees. And it means the ball is firmly in the Democrats' court.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
When museums give you a "vacation" instead of making sure you "have to work"
I just read the Tribune's review of the new Toulouse-Lautrec show. According to their art critic Alan G. Artner, the exhibition's curators display a faddish obsession with the "cafes, dance halls, cabarets and brothels" that Lautrec depicted. For example, his brothel paintings are examined in the context of brothels, when in fact they are "simply some of his greatest works in any medium" and could have been "exhibited as such."
Even though the show includes works by contemporaries Renoir and Degas and trace Lautrec's influence on Picasso and Van Gogh, these artists' works are unfortunately "presented for documentary instead of artistic value." All this social and material context comes at the expense of "formal analysis" and something called "the process that turned his documents into art."
The show emphasizes "popular culture," for example showing how Lautrec's commercial poster for the Moulin Rouge helped make the nightclub famous, and how that in turn transformed Lautrec's own career. In contrast to last year's Seurat exhibition, where the audience was "told it would have to work," this exhibition "promises a vacation of touristic, voyeuristic fun."
By the way, the Tribune wasn't the only big-city daily newspaper to endorse Bush in '04 - there were lots of others, such as the Dallas Morning News, the Indianapolis Star, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Even though the show includes works by contemporaries Renoir and Degas and trace Lautrec's influence on Picasso and Van Gogh, these artists' works are unfortunately "presented for documentary instead of artistic value." All this social and material context comes at the expense of "formal analysis" and something called "the process that turned his documents into art."
The show emphasizes "popular culture," for example showing how Lautrec's commercial poster for the Moulin Rouge helped make the nightclub famous, and how that in turn transformed Lautrec's own career. In contrast to last year's Seurat exhibition, where the audience was "told it would have to work," this exhibition "promises a vacation of touristic, voyeuristic fun."
By the way, the Tribune wasn't the only big-city daily newspaper to endorse Bush in '04 - there were lots of others, such as the Dallas Morning News, the Indianapolis Star, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
What exactly is a "feminine product"?
1) I spotted this sign in the bathroom at Filter the other day. There's a lot of political graffiti in the bathrooms there, which are both single stalls. They used to be designated male and female, incidentally, but that changed some time in the past year or two. Anyway, on a sign telling people not to put "feminine products" in the toilet, someone has crossed out "feminine" and replaced it with "menstrual," observing, "Trans inclusion, yo!"
I had thought of "feminine products" as a dumb euphemistic phrase for tampons and pads. It's one of those phrases that you see everywhere without it quite occurring to you that it merely reflects the strange fact that it's considered unacceptable to refer with any greater specificity to menstruation in a sign. (I had a similar moment occured this week when I read in the Tribune that former Bears coach Mike Ditka, in testifying against a proposed smoking ban in Chicago restaurants and bars (incidentally: what a jerk!), "drew a strong reaction from the audience when he used an expletive to describe the proposed smoking ban." I mean, what did he say?!)
I had never really thought of the term "feminine product" as a word that marginalizes trans people. Clearly, it does, though - and it makes you notice the implication built into the everyday term that everyone who menstruates identifies with "femininity." It's also one of those situations where accommodating those on the margins has the effect of showing the arbitrariness of the assumptions the rest of us make. I mean, even if you're not trans, is "feminine" really the best way of referring - even euphemistically - to tampons and pads? Wouldn't it be more logical for the phrase "feminine product" to mean, say, lipstick?
The secondary graffiti about "masculine" products, apparently added later seems dumb to me. It's as if, if there's a feminine product listed as unacceptable, plumbing-wise, then there must be an unacceptable "masculine" product, too. It seems pretty unlikely to me that two people would choose this particular public restroom to have sex in, though I admit it's possible. But - most importantly - if we're really going to get into it, what's so masculine about a condom? What if lesbians used the condom on a shared sex toy? It sounds dumb, but frankly it's same logic that gets us the so-called female condom - which was not approved or tested by the FDA for anal use, thanks to sodomy laws then still on the books in many states.
2) Check out a fabulous animation that Basic Rights Oregon has created, reminding voters that when the marriage amendment was being discussed in the fall, the antigay side repeatedly stated that the amendment applied only t. It's brilliant. They're holding a rally on July 20 to demand a vote on civil unions in the Oregon house.
I had thought of "feminine products" as a dumb euphemistic phrase for tampons and pads. It's one of those phrases that you see everywhere without it quite occurring to you that it merely reflects the strange fact that it's considered unacceptable to refer with any greater specificity to menstruation in a sign. (I had a similar moment occured this week when I read in the Tribune that former Bears coach Mike Ditka, in testifying against a proposed smoking ban in Chicago restaurants and bars (incidentally: what a jerk!), "drew a strong reaction from the audience when he used an expletive to describe the proposed smoking ban." I mean, what did he say?!)
I had never really thought of the term "feminine product" as a word that marginalizes trans people. Clearly, it does, though - and it makes you notice the implication built into the everyday term that everyone who menstruates identifies with "femininity." It's also one of those situations where accommodating those on the margins has the effect of showing the arbitrariness of the assumptions the rest of us make. I mean, even if you're not trans, is "feminine" really the best way of referring - even euphemistically - to tampons and pads? Wouldn't it be more logical for the phrase "feminine product" to mean, say, lipstick?
The secondary graffiti about "masculine" products, apparently added later seems dumb to me. It's as if, if there's a feminine product listed as unacceptable, plumbing-wise, then there must be an unacceptable "masculine" product, too. It seems pretty unlikely to me that two people would choose this particular public restroom to have sex in, though I admit it's possible. But - most importantly - if we're really going to get into it, what's so masculine about a condom? What if lesbians used the condom on a shared sex toy? It sounds dumb, but frankly it's same logic that gets us the so-called female condom - which was not approved or tested by the FDA for anal use, thanks to sodomy laws then still on the books in many states.
2) Check out a fabulous animation that Basic Rights Oregon has created, reminding voters that when the marriage amendment was being discussed in the fall, the antigay side repeatedly stated that the amendment applied only t. It's brilliant. They're holding a rally on July 20 to demand a vote on civil unions in the Oregon house.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Times bisexuality story recalls 1960s reporting on ex-gay therapy
[See background from FAIR and GLAAD]
July 11, 2005
To the Public Editor:
I urge you to investigate and retract Benedict Carey’s
article “Straight, Gay, or Lying,” published in the July 5
Science section, for three reasons.
First, Carey either did not know about or else failed to
mention the controversy surrounding J. Michael Bailey of
Northwestern University, the senior author of the study on
which the article is based. Carey quotes Bailey as saying
that “in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal
exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.” He might
have also reported that Bailey’s work has been mired in
controversy, that several of his transgender research
subjects have filed serious charges of research misconduct
against him, and that prominent scholars such as the
Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden have called his work
junk science. While Carey quotes the opinions of more
mainstream scholars, such as Gilbert Herdt, he treats the
two sets of researchers as equally authoritative. I suspect
the Times would be unlikely to report so uncritically on
another scientific article Bailey has recently coauthored,
published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, arguing that if it
were possible to “select” only heterosexual offspring using
genetic markers, it would be morally justifiable to do so.
That Bailey feels qualified to make such a claim suggests
that, in the face of mounting controversy, he has become a
full-time provocateur.
Second, Carey’s article needlessly exploits and exacerbates
longstanding tensions between two minority groups. Instead
of discussing the complex, fraught relations between gay men
and bisexual men, Carey glibly declares, “'You're either
gay, straight or lying,' as some gay men have put it.” Like
lesbians and transgender people, bisexuals have faced an
uphill battle for full inclusion and acknowledgment in gay
communities. For the Times to devote such approving
coverage to a single study that confirms a popular
stereotype is simply bad reporting. For Carey to place his
own assertion in the mouth of “some gay men” is offensive.
Third, Carey’s article shows little sensitivity to the
complex role that science reporting has played in the
history of sexuality. Would the Times devote equivalent
space to fringe researchers who today maintain that
homosexuality is chosen and can be cured? The policy
positions of numerous mainstream professional organizations
would probably keep such stories out of the science section
today, but in an earlier era, the Times gave eager approval
to antigay researchers. In a famous 1963 front-page story,
headlined “Growth of Overt Homosexuality in City Provokes
Wide Concern,” the Times reporter wrote that “the old idea,
assiduously propagated by homosexuals, that homosexuality is
an inborn, incurable disease, has been exploded by modern
psychiatry. It can be both prevented and cured, these
experts say.” The article’s most authoritative source is
Dr. Irving Bieber, longtime advocate of reparative therapy
for homosexuals. And while the opinions of gay people are
quoted, the article gives at least as much weight to what “a
homosexual who had achieved good progress toward cure
recently told his analyst.”
Sincerely yours,
Timothy ***
Ph.D. student, ***
The University of Chicago
July 11, 2005
To the Public Editor:
I urge you to investigate and retract Benedict Carey’s
article “Straight, Gay, or Lying,” published in the July 5
Science section, for three reasons.
First, Carey either did not know about or else failed to
mention the controversy surrounding J. Michael Bailey of
Northwestern University, the senior author of the study on
which the article is based. Carey quotes Bailey as saying
that “in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal
exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.” He might
have also reported that Bailey’s work has been mired in
controversy, that several of his transgender research
subjects have filed serious charges of research misconduct
against him, and that prominent scholars such as the
Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden have called his work
junk science. While Carey quotes the opinions of more
mainstream scholars, such as Gilbert Herdt, he treats the
two sets of researchers as equally authoritative. I suspect
the Times would be unlikely to report so uncritically on
another scientific article Bailey has recently coauthored,
published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, arguing that if it
were possible to “select” only heterosexual offspring using
genetic markers, it would be morally justifiable to do so.
That Bailey feels qualified to make such a claim suggests
that, in the face of mounting controversy, he has become a
full-time provocateur.
Second, Carey’s article needlessly exploits and exacerbates
longstanding tensions between two minority groups. Instead
of discussing the complex, fraught relations between gay men
and bisexual men, Carey glibly declares, “'You're either
gay, straight or lying,' as some gay men have put it.” Like
lesbians and transgender people, bisexuals have faced an
uphill battle for full inclusion and acknowledgment in gay
communities. For the Times to devote such approving
coverage to a single study that confirms a popular
stereotype is simply bad reporting. For Carey to place his
own assertion in the mouth of “some gay men” is offensive.
Third, Carey’s article shows little sensitivity to the
complex role that science reporting has played in the
history of sexuality. Would the Times devote equivalent
space to fringe researchers who today maintain that
homosexuality is chosen and can be cured? The policy
positions of numerous mainstream professional organizations
would probably keep such stories out of the science section
today, but in an earlier era, the Times gave eager approval
to antigay researchers. In a famous 1963 front-page story,
headlined “Growth of Overt Homosexuality in City Provokes
Wide Concern,” the Times reporter wrote that “the old idea,
assiduously propagated by homosexuals, that homosexuality is
an inborn, incurable disease, has been exploded by modern
psychiatry. It can be both prevented and cured, these
experts say.” The article’s most authoritative source is
Dr. Irving Bieber, longtime advocate of reparative therapy
for homosexuals. And while the opinions of gay people are
quoted, the article gives at least as much weight to what “a
homosexual who had achieved good progress toward cure
recently told his analyst.”
Sincerely yours,
Timothy ***
Ph.D. student, ***
The University of Chicago
Sunday, July 10, 2005
UFPJ statement on London bombings
United for Peace and Justice is horrified by the senseless death and destruction caused by the bombings in London on July 7, 2005. Our hearts go out to the people who have lost loved ones and those who have been wounded, as well as the countless people whose lives have been forever shaken by these events. UFPJ opposes terrorism - acts of violence against innocent civilians - in all its forms: bombs on public transportation in London, planes flying into buildings in New York City, or the armies of the United States and Great Britain waging war on the people of Iraq.
As we write this statement, there is no certainty as to who who is responsible for the London bombings. UFPJ hopes that as those who committed criminal acts are brought to justice there is no rush to judgment or assumption of guilt. It is in these moments that smear campaigns against individuals and whole communities can easily take hold, often shaped by and feeding racist stereotypes. We must counter those who will claim that the bombings reflect the supposedly violent nature of Muslims or the religion of Islam.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's comments that this was an attack on our values and way of life echoed much of the language George W. Bush used to justify his war on Iraq. We were told by the Bush Administration that our nation had to go to war in Iraq in order to fight terrorism, to make us and the world safer. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, none of us is more secure since the Bush Administration launched its so-called war on terror. The war on Iraq and the military occupation of that nation has certainly not made the Iraqi people any safer, nor has it lessened the risk of future terror attacks elsewhere around the world. Instead of feeding the cycle of killing it is time for a new direction in our policies. It is time for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, time to end U.S. support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, time to stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East and other places, and time to remove U.S. military bases from oil-rich countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Just as we mourn the loss of life in London, we mourn the daily loss of life in Iraq. We use this occasion to re-commit ourselves to doing all that we can to end the war in Iraq, including building a massive anti-war march in Washington, DC on Sept. 24th. We will also be vigilant in ensuring that this new round of violence is not used by the Blair and Bush administrations as an excuse either for new military attacks in foreign lands or for domestic policies that scapegoat Muslims, immigrants and people of color.
As we write this statement, there is no certainty as to who who is responsible for the London bombings. UFPJ hopes that as those who committed criminal acts are brought to justice there is no rush to judgment or assumption of guilt. It is in these moments that smear campaigns against individuals and whole communities can easily take hold, often shaped by and feeding racist stereotypes. We must counter those who will claim that the bombings reflect the supposedly violent nature of Muslims or the religion of Islam.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's comments that this was an attack on our values and way of life echoed much of the language George W. Bush used to justify his war on Iraq. We were told by the Bush Administration that our nation had to go to war in Iraq in order to fight terrorism, to make us and the world safer. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, none of us is more secure since the Bush Administration launched its so-called war on terror. The war on Iraq and the military occupation of that nation has certainly not made the Iraqi people any safer, nor has it lessened the risk of future terror attacks elsewhere around the world. Instead of feeding the cycle of killing it is time for a new direction in our policies. It is time for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, time to end U.S. support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, time to stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East and other places, and time to remove U.S. military bases from oil-rich countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Just as we mourn the loss of life in London, we mourn the daily loss of life in Iraq. We use this occasion to re-commit ourselves to doing all that we can to end the war in Iraq, including building a massive anti-war march in Washington, DC on Sept. 24th. We will also be vigilant in ensuring that this new round of violence is not used by the Blair and Bush administrations as an excuse either for new military attacks in foreign lands or for domestic policies that scapegoat Muslims, immigrants and people of color.
FAIR alert - New York Times Science section story on male bisexuality
Here is an action alert from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting about a recent story in the New York Times Science section article. The story uncritically reported a widely disputed finding by Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey, about male bisexuality, under the headline "Gay, Straight, or Lying."
Especially troubling is the way the Times defended itself when approached by GLAAD which sought a retraction.
----------
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Action Alert
New York Times Suggests Bisexuals Are "Lying"
Paper fails to disclose study author's controversial history
7/8/05
In a lead article in the New York Times' July 5 Science section, headlined, "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," Times writer Benedict Carey reported that an upcoming study "casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men." In suggesting that men who claim a bisexual sexual orientation are liars, the Times relies heavily on a single study whose senior researcher has a career marked by ethics controversies and eugenics proposals--facts that were not presented to readers.
According to the Times, the study "lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation. People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. 'You're either gay, straight or lying,' as some gay men have put it."
In leaping to dramatic conclusions from a single study with a small population, Carey echoes the study's authors, who seem equally eager to generalize from scant evidence--and to confuse the study's assumptions with its conclusions. Carey quotes the study's senior author, J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, who acknowledges that bisexual behavior exists, but argues that "in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."
But that arousal equals orientation seems to be assumed, not proven. The study measured men's self-identified orientation against their physical arousal while watching various kinds of pornography; bisexual men's self-identified orientation did not correspond with their physical arousal, according to the study, with some being aroused much more by on-screen men and a smaller group responding much more to on-screen women.
This finding could just as easily be read as evidence that arousal in bisexual men does *not* equal orientation--that simple measurement of arousal does not predict people's behavior or identity. But the Times reporter himself uses the phrase "true bisexuality," which suggests that people with bisexual behavior and identity might still not qualify as "true" bisexuals.
Well into Carey's piece, some cautionary or critical viewpoints were aired. None of those viewpoints, however, gave readers any hint of Bailey's controversial history. In 2001 Bailey co-authored an article that argued that, if it became possible for parents to determine the sexual orientation of their fetus, "selecting for heterosexuality seems to be morally acceptable…. Selection for heterosexuality may tangibly benefit parents, children and their families and seems to have only a slight potential for any significant harm" (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2001). The fact that a researcher has promoted the eugenic elimination of homosexuality would seem to be relevant background for gauging the credibility of his studies of bisexuality.
Bailey more recently came under fire for his 2003 book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism," which defended the discredited theory that transsexual women are not female-gendered people born with male bodies, but "are extremely feminine gay men or are sexual fetishists who are 'erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women'" (Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/10/04). Bailey profiled a handful of transsexual women for his book, many of whom filed complaints against him for not getting their consent to be studied (Times Higher Education Supplement, 5/28/04).
The book shares remarkable similarities to Bailey's new study on bisexuality: In both, the researcher denies people's own evaluation of their identities, suggesting that bisexuals and transgender people are lying about who they are.
In fact, the Times' headline could have been taken from the press release for Bailey's book, which was headlined, "Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science Has the Answer." A new study by the same author, peddling a very similar theory, should have been a red flag to journalists, and readers should have been informed of the author's controversial history in order for them to better evaluate the study.
When the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation asked the Times to retract its inflammatory headline, the paper argued that "gay, straight or lying" is "a commonly used phrase among many gay people" (GLAAD.org, 7/7/05). It's unclear why a derogatory stereotype about one group--bisexuals--should be more acceptable in a headline because it is attributed to another group--gay people.
ACTION: Please ask the Times' new public editor, Byron Calame, to examine the Times' report on bisexuality, particularly the lack of relevant information about the senior researcher's controversial background and the headline's suggestion that an entire sexual minority is "lying."
CONTACT:
New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you maintain a polite tone.
Read the Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html
See also GLAAD's action alert: http://glaad.org/action/write_now_detail.php?id=3827
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2573
Especially troubling is the way the Times defended itself when approached by GLAAD which sought a retraction.
----------
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Action Alert
New York Times Suggests Bisexuals Are "Lying"
Paper fails to disclose study author's controversial history
7/8/05
In a lead article in the New York Times' July 5 Science section, headlined, "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," Times writer Benedict Carey reported that an upcoming study "casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men." In suggesting that men who claim a bisexual sexual orientation are liars, the Times relies heavily on a single study whose senior researcher has a career marked by ethics controversies and eugenics proposals--facts that were not presented to readers.
According to the Times, the study "lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation. People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. 'You're either gay, straight or lying,' as some gay men have put it."
In leaping to dramatic conclusions from a single study with a small population, Carey echoes the study's authors, who seem equally eager to generalize from scant evidence--and to confuse the study's assumptions with its conclusions. Carey quotes the study's senior author, J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, who acknowledges that bisexual behavior exists, but argues that "in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."
But that arousal equals orientation seems to be assumed, not proven. The study measured men's self-identified orientation against their physical arousal while watching various kinds of pornography; bisexual men's self-identified orientation did not correspond with their physical arousal, according to the study, with some being aroused much more by on-screen men and a smaller group responding much more to on-screen women.
This finding could just as easily be read as evidence that arousal in bisexual men does *not* equal orientation--that simple measurement of arousal does not predict people's behavior or identity. But the Times reporter himself uses the phrase "true bisexuality," which suggests that people with bisexual behavior and identity might still not qualify as "true" bisexuals.
Well into Carey's piece, some cautionary or critical viewpoints were aired. None of those viewpoints, however, gave readers any hint of Bailey's controversial history. In 2001 Bailey co-authored an article that argued that, if it became possible for parents to determine the sexual orientation of their fetus, "selecting for heterosexuality seems to be morally acceptable…. Selection for heterosexuality may tangibly benefit parents, children and their families and seems to have only a slight potential for any significant harm" (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2001). The fact that a researcher has promoted the eugenic elimination of homosexuality would seem to be relevant background for gauging the credibility of his studies of bisexuality.
Bailey more recently came under fire for his 2003 book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism," which defended the discredited theory that transsexual women are not female-gendered people born with male bodies, but "are extremely feminine gay men or are sexual fetishists who are 'erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women'" (Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/10/04). Bailey profiled a handful of transsexual women for his book, many of whom filed complaints against him for not getting their consent to be studied (Times Higher Education Supplement, 5/28/04).
The book shares remarkable similarities to Bailey's new study on bisexuality: In both, the researcher denies people's own evaluation of their identities, suggesting that bisexuals and transgender people are lying about who they are.
In fact, the Times' headline could have been taken from the press release for Bailey's book, which was headlined, "Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science Has the Answer." A new study by the same author, peddling a very similar theory, should have been a red flag to journalists, and readers should have been informed of the author's controversial history in order for them to better evaluate the study.
When the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation asked the Times to retract its inflammatory headline, the paper argued that "gay, straight or lying" is "a commonly used phrase among many gay people" (GLAAD.org, 7/7/05). It's unclear why a derogatory stereotype about one group--bisexuals--should be more acceptable in a headline because it is attributed to another group--gay people.
ACTION: Please ask the Times' new public editor, Byron Calame, to examine the Times' report on bisexuality, particularly the lack of relevant information about the senior researcher's controversial background and the headline's suggestion that an entire sexual minority is "lying."
CONTACT:
New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you maintain a polite tone.
Read the Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html
See also GLAAD's action alert: http://glaad.org/action/write_now_detail.php?id=3827
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2573
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Stephanie Coontz wrote an op-ed that appeared in Tuesday's New York Times under the headline The Heterosexual Revolution
It's a good column and makes an important argument.
Also, it's not really right in my view to say that "Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too." This formulation is problematic in three ways. First, it treats "heterosexuals" (a word she uses over and over again) and "gays and lesbians" as existing transhistorically across periods for which those terms should not be used at all. Second, it ignores the fact that many "gay and lesbian" people lived (and still do) in cross-gender marriages and thus were inside the "heterosexual revolution" rather than outside looking in. And third, relatedly, it denies the ways in which changes in sexual categories themselves, such as the develoopment of hetero and homo, were profoundly constitutive of people's understandings of marriage. Put another way, we wouldn't have gay marriage without gay activism and self-identified gay people. You can't just bracket, as she does, the question of where "gays and lesbians," and "heterosexuals," come from. Finally, giving "Enlightenment thinkers" credit for starting off the decline of traditional marriage seems too generous to me.
All that said, I'm glad this appeared in the Times.
The most deeply moving part of the critical milestones of gay rights in those two countries is the stunning speeches of the two countries' prime ministers, both of which cast gay equality as an integral part of some larger drama of freedom and national purpose. Two powerful heads of government, the kind of men with whom George W. Bush and even Benedict XVI may someday have to appear in public, have declared in effect that the President and the Pope are on the wrong side of history. It is moving because it represents a majority standing up for the rights of a minority, and it is inspiring because it represents a nation attempting to be a model for the rest of the world instead of invading and occupying it.
From Doug Ireland's blog:
SPANISH PREMIER ZAPATERO'S REMARKABLE GAY MARRIAGE SPEECH
When the Spanish parliament yesterday took its historic vote
legalizing both gay marriage and adoption of children by gay
couples, Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero (left) -- who put the full prestige of his office
and party behind passage of the gay human rights
legislation -- made probably the most remarkable speech in
favor of full equality for those with same-sex hearts ever
delivered by a head of government anywhere, in which he
quoted two of the most illustrious gay poets in history.
Here are excerpts from Zapatero's speech:
"We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far
away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity
for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends
and, our families: at the same time we are making a more
decent society, because a decent society is one that does
not humiliate its
members.
"In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda
(left) was sorry because, 'How does man live in denial in
vain by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?'
"Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people
who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights
have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their
identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the
Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve,
recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms
their identity, and restores their liberty.
"It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph
is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who
oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet:
because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes
all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it
makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no
damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing
two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary,
what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the
potential to organize their lives with the rights and
privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the
institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this
law enhances and respects marriage.
"Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a
profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I
wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage
code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil,
that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless
suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids
senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better
society.
"With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another
step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by
the democratic change of government. Our children will look
at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our
mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them
that people had to stay married against their will even
though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can
offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each
access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and
sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and
praise.
"Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can
better themselves and can cross barriers and create
tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and
humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our
countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great
Greek gay poet, left ] one century ago:
'Later 'twas said of the most perfect society/someone else,
made like me/certainly will come out and act freely.' "
It's a good column and makes an important argument.
Also, it's not really right in my view to say that "Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too." This formulation is problematic in three ways. First, it treats "heterosexuals" (a word she uses over and over again) and "gays and lesbians" as existing transhistorically across periods for which those terms should not be used at all. Second, it ignores the fact that many "gay and lesbian" people lived (and still do) in cross-gender marriages and thus were inside the "heterosexual revolution" rather than outside looking in. And third, relatedly, it denies the ways in which changes in sexual categories themselves, such as the develoopment of hetero and homo, were profoundly constitutive of people's understandings of marriage. Put another way, we wouldn't have gay marriage without gay activism and self-identified gay people. You can't just bracket, as she does, the question of where "gays and lesbians," and "heterosexuals," come from. Finally, giving "Enlightenment thinkers" credit for starting off the decline of traditional marriage seems too generous to me.
All that said, I'm glad this appeared in the Times.
The most deeply moving part of the critical milestones of gay rights in those two countries is the stunning speeches of the two countries' prime ministers, both of which cast gay equality as an integral part of some larger drama of freedom and national purpose. Two powerful heads of government, the kind of men with whom George W. Bush and even Benedict XVI may someday have to appear in public, have declared in effect that the President and the Pope are on the wrong side of history. It is moving because it represents a majority standing up for the rights of a minority, and it is inspiring because it represents a nation attempting to be a model for the rest of the world instead of invading and occupying it.
From Doug Ireland's blog:
SPANISH PREMIER ZAPATERO'S REMARKABLE GAY MARRIAGE SPEECH
When the Spanish parliament yesterday took its historic vote
legalizing both gay marriage and adoption of children by gay
couples, Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero (left) -- who put the full prestige of his office
and party behind passage of the gay human rights
legislation -- made probably the most remarkable speech in
favor of full equality for those with same-sex hearts ever
delivered by a head of government anywhere, in which he
quoted two of the most illustrious gay poets in history.
Here are excerpts from Zapatero's speech:
"We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far
away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity
for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends
and, our families: at the same time we are making a more
decent society, because a decent society is one that does
not humiliate its
members.
"In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda
(left) was sorry because, 'How does man live in denial in
vain by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?'
"Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people
who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights
have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their
identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the
Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve,
recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms
their identity, and restores their liberty.
"It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph
is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who
oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet:
because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes
all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it
makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no
damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing
two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary,
what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the
potential to organize their lives with the rights and
privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the
institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this
law enhances and respects marriage.
"Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a
profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I
wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage
code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil,
that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless
suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids
senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better
society.
"With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another
step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by
the democratic change of government. Our children will look
at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our
mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them
that people had to stay married against their will even
though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can
offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each
access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and
sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and
praise.
"Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can
better themselves and can cross barriers and create
tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and
humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our
countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great
Greek gay poet, left ] one century ago:
'Later 'twas said of the most perfect society/someone else,
made like me/certainly will come out and act freely.' "
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Sandra Day O'Connor
All in all, Ronald Reagan could have chosen someone far, far worse.
On Friday I received a deluge of emails about the Supreme Court vacancy, and I gave $25 online to NARAL Pro-Choice America. I'm going to try to go to a pro-choice rally in the Loop on Tuesday afternoon.
The other thing I did was sign up to get a text message from MoveOn as soon as Bush announces a nominee.
On Friday I received a deluge of emails about the Supreme Court vacancy, and I gave $25 online to NARAL Pro-Choice America. I'm going to try to go to a pro-choice rally in the Loop on Tuesday afternoon.
The other thing I did was sign up to get a text message from MoveOn as soon as Bush announces a nominee.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Spain
"Matrimony shall have the same requirements and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex." - Spanish law
"I don't like marriage. I am not going to get married. But it is important for this to be called marriage so people know that it is the same thing for everyone." - Pedro Almodovar
"We are not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality.....We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote, unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives." - Prime Minister Jorge Luis Rodriguez Zapatero
"I don't like marriage. I am not going to get married. But it is important for this to be called marriage so people know that it is the same thing for everyone." - Pedro Almodovar
"We are not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality.....We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote, unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives." - Prime Minister Jorge Luis Rodriguez Zapatero
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)