Obama and Homophobic Violence

Barack Obama is a very intelligent man.  Which is why his invitation of Rick Warren is such a confusing move.  Its his latest fuck you note pinned to the hope that swept him into office  (Jesus’ General has a short and brilliant synopsis).  It would also appear to be a fundamentally naive misunderstanding of what Rick Warren represents.  Rick Warren is an ultra conservative Christian who is actively working to put a mainstream spin on fundamentalist ideas.  As Lindsey Beyerstein notes:

Giving Warren even more mainstream cred is not just a cost-free nod to evangelicals. It’s a boost for someone who actively opposes Obama’s agenda and who is eager to influence secular affairs.

That mainstream cred may be cost-free to the evangelicals, but it comes at a deadly cost to the LGBT community…

Read More…

Posted under News, Politics, Religion, Sexuality

This post was written by Dan on December 27, 2008

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About these “union bosses”

“Union boss” is a common epithet used by people who despise unions, seek to weaken unions, or are involved in a particular anti-union campaign. Despite my having observed many campaigns against the leadership of a particular union, and once having participated in such a campaign, I have not heard the term “union boss” used by union members who acknowledge the value of unions, no matter how bitterly antagonistic their relationship with the union leadership.

This suggests that “union boss” is a term of abuse and/or propaganda, not of analysis. My question here: are there circumstances in which the term is legitimately used?

Read More…

Posted under Culture, Economy, Politics, Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on December 22, 2008

Tags: , ,

Why Rick Warren Won’t Be Uninvited

The controversial Reverand Wright was uninvited on account of his inflammatory sermons.  Pam Spaulding wonders why Rick Warren won’t be:

So apparently Wright can be given the hook when Obama’s doing political risk assessment, but not Rick Warren. You can draw your own conclusions as to why it’s now possible, even in light of the incredible mother lode of evidence of the extreme anti-gay views of Rick Warren, that Barack Obama doesn’t feel politically inconvenienced enough to dump the Saddleback bigot.

Two reasons jump out at me.  One, that team Obama expects Warren to behave during the inauguration.  The idea is for a voice of the religious right to champion causes he shares with the incoming administration.  Obama is consensus building.  Which leads us into the second reason. Obama isn’t a liberal, no matter how fiercely he was championed by liberals (myself included) and vilified by conservatives.  He is a centrist (albeit an unusually pragmatic one with definite liberal leanings).  As such he has a much wider and more optimistic view of “his base”.  Barack Obama wants to bring evangelicals to the table.  By bringing one of their own to the stage and emphasizing where they are natural allies, perhaps he believes he’ll be able to bridge the many gaps between religious conservatives and the political mainstream.

Since there isn’t likely to be an uninvite with all that at stake, time will tell how well this move plays out.  From the painful experience of being a Democratic, Obama is supremely unlikely to mollify the religious conservative leadership no matter how much he reaches out.  But perhaps this one symbolic act in January will speak the rank and file faithful louder than their conservative religious leadership’s weekly sermons and daily rants.  Perhaps it will be worth the alienating the people who worked so hard to get him into office.

Posted under Politics, Religion

This post was written by Dan on December 20, 2008

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Revolution in Greece?

Banner: Stop Watching, Get Out Into the Streets

Banner: Stop Watching, Get Out Into the Streets

The riots and protests that started almost two weeks ago in Greece are not only persisting, but intensifying.  In addition, there doesn’t seem to be any particular organization or political figure leading the protests – it appears that the resistance is non-hierarchal (thus causing news organizations to term what’s happening as “anarchy”).  Information (at least in the English press) is not very prolific, but of note are the following:

  • After breaking into the state TV studio (NET), protestors blocked the broadcast of a speech by the prime minister, unfurled a banner (seen above).  They released a statement:

    “Our action is the result of an accumulated pressure which is robbing us of our lives, and not only an emotional explosion based on the murder of Alexis Grigoropulos by the police. We are one more collective, a piece of the revolt which is taking place.

    Against pacification by the mass media, we are carrying out an intervention-interjection in the flow of the program of ERT [state television]. It’s our view that the mass media systematically cultivates fear. Rather than informing, they misinform. They are presenting a multifaceted revolt as a blind release.

    They are explaining the social explosion in penal rather than political terms. They are selectively concealing the actual facts. They are representing a revolt as another spectacle which we should simply follow until the next soap opera begins. The mass media is daily turned into a means of suppressing free and public thought.

    Let’s organize ourselves. No authority can offer solutions to our problems. We need to meet with other human beings. To turn our public places, the streets, the squares, the parks, the schools, into places of unmediated expression. To find ourselves face to face so that we can transform together our thought and actions.


    Let’s not be afraid. Let’s turn off our televisions, go out of our houses, continue to lay claim to our life, to take it into our hands.

    We condemn the police violence, immediate release of the arrested demonstrators. For human emancipation and freedom.” (translation by Amee Chew from Dollars and Sense)

  • This is not confined to one area – clashes with police are taking place in Athens, Thessaloniki, and other parts of the country.  Banks are being targeted with gas bombs, as well as government property and offices.
  • Political figures seem eager to attribute this to a small segment of society:

(Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis): I expected something like this would happen sooner or later. We have a group of people with ultra-leftist ideologies, the active Black Bloc anarchists. There have recently been repeated clashes with them. As of late, their organization has been improving and becoming more flexible, they are using the Internet and text messages. At the same time, we have to weather difficult reforms. That is the deeper reason for the protests, this is why the anarchists have suddenly been joined by disgruntled young people. (Speigel, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,596439,00.html)

  • Major sectors of society have been brought to a standstill by the people working in them.  Not only are many universities and high schools occupied and closed, but radio stations are being taken over, air traffic controllers are on strike, and so on.

One shared misconception by many media sources is the “spontaneous” nature of the protests.  But after the conviction of 8 police officers for abusing a youth a few years ago, combined with rising discontent about the ordering of Greek society in general, previous roadblocks by farmers, protests by dockworkers, it appears this is a long time coming.  The key question is – what will be shaped from all of this foment?

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Jeff Napolitano on December 18, 2008

Why Do We Have Lame Ducks?

President Bush’s actions since November 4th represent a desperate attempt to defend the status quo at all costs.  With voters so overwhelmingly going for change, his actions go directly against the clear will of the American people.  This begs the question: “Why do we have a lame duck President?”.

Prior to 1933 we had a lame duck Presidency for an even longer period of time.  The passage of the 20th ammendment shortened that period considerably to reflect the then modern changes in our electoral process.  There is no reason we cannot make such a change again.

The last minute laws and appointments President Bush is making no longer have the legitimacy of the vote behind them.  The simplest solution isn’t reforming the appointment process (although one would expect that contrary to Musgrave’s opinion, increasing the executive’s power to fire rather than hire would be the common sense move), it is removing or drastically reducing the period in which lame ducks have the opportunity to oppose the will of the people.

Posted under Politics

This post was written by Dan on December 10, 2008

Tags: , , ,

Obama’s Victory or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Government

I am proud to live in Obama’s America too. Long time coming. Let’s work together now to bring us back into the international fold.

- Steve, November 4, 2008

There are many lessons to be learned from the recent U.S. Presidential election – but many more lessons commentators claim we have learned.  It’s been a month since the election, and it’s time to look back with some perspective.

  • It was a historic election – this should not be understated.  A Black man was elected to the highest office in a country where 2nd-class citizenship and economic inequality was written into our laws just 55 years ago.  A woman was a serious competitor for the candidacy of one of two major parties in a country where gender inequality is still rampant and largely unaddressed.  This represents progress along racial and gender lines.
  • It was a historic election – but this should not be overstated.  Despite the competitive candidacies of a person of color and a woman, racial and gender disparities are real and ongoing.  They are not merely anecdotal, but devastatingly economic.  The average white household made $48k last year; the average Black household made $30k.  The fact of Obama as president is not going to close that gap. Read More…

Posted under Culture, Economy, Politics

The Chicago Factory Sit-In

Hundreds of laid-off factory workers are organized and protesting in Chicago. They have occupied the Republic Windows and Doors factory where they worked and plan to remain there until they receive what’s theirs–vacation and severance pay.

Union leaders say the company failed to give workers the 60 days’ notice required by federal law, and that its bank, Bank of America, barred Republic from paying for the 60-day period or for vacations. The leaders also criticized a Wall Street bailout they say is leaving laborers behind.

“We’re doing something we haven’t done since the 1930s, so we’re trying to make it work,” declared Leah Fried, an organizer with the United Electrical Workers.

From the New York Times:

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said from the shuttered plant that he would talk to fellow senators about reminding banks that taxpayer dollars are not for dividends or executive salaries.

”We have been sending billions of dollars to banks like Bank of America and the reason we have sent them the money is to tell them that they had to loan this money out to companies just like Republic so that we can keep these companies in business and not lose these jobs here in the United States,” he said.

The governor, meanwhile, said the state plans to pursue a court injunction Tuesday to make sure federal law is followed in giving workers benefits. And state Attorney General Lisa Madigan was investigating the company.

Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican writes a little about “how this type of strike has long been a function of Latin American worker solidarity” and also points out some of the ways that The New York Times coverage of the story quietly continues to change (their first on-line publication noted that “Most of the factory’s workers are Hispanic.”) Hmm.

In a positive turn of events, Obama has expressed support for the workers.

Posted under Economy, Politics

This post was written by Emily on December 8, 2008

Tags: ,

On The Meaning Of The Amazon

I apologize for my lack of a post last week — I was visiting Emily in New York, and the disruption of all my usual routines caused me to forget many of my responsibilities. This week, I’m right in the middle of my finals, strapped both for time and for brainpower. Nonetheless, I have prepared short rumination for you.

I’m thinking today of the mythical Amazons. I say “mythical” not to make any statement about their actuality, but because I’m thinking specifically of the mythology. That is, what does this mythic idea mean?

The idea is of a woman warrior, but she’s more than that. She is a person who occupies the space between sexes. She cuts off one breast, the better to shoot arrows, but leaves the other: a combatant who can nurse children. All her life is dimorphic. Women are her friends and comrades, men her enemies; her daughters are treasured children, her sons left out to die.

I am being somewhat ahistorical here. I’m interpreting this idea from my vantage point as a 21st century dyke, wondering what the symbol means today — I find its simple endurance as an idea noteworthy — and, to a lesser (and less informed) extent, what it might have meant once, what purpose this idea serves.

So. The Amazon is, I think, the visceral reaction to the gendering of violence. We code violence as male and tenderness as female and, therefore, men as dangerous and women as nurturing. Trapped in such a system, people respond in many ways — most frequently by performing these roles and behaving as if they are natural and inevitable. But I don’t think of any of us is truly comfortable with this incredibly reductive picture of human nature. The life of the Amazon is a life of both protest against this system and capitulation to it: a rejection of the system on the system’s own terms. The Amazon is following an older, crueler Golden Rule — treat others as they treat you. In a world where men, and only men, are brutal, and women, and only women, are kind,* the Amazon, in an imperfect stand against cruelty, becomes callous to men and considerate to women.

This is a profound assent to the premises of the gender system — she accepts that women are one way and men another. But it also, inevitably, gets her kicked out of that same institution. As soon as she practices both violence and tenderness, even in her sexist way, she is no longer qualified for membership in the group “woman.” This contradiction embodies the essence of life under this regime: we are trapped and re-trapped in the system even as we are constantly kicked out of it, constantly deemed unworthy of our assigned class. And that’s the real cruelty of it.

Even in exile there is no escape.

* This is not the real world. It is the world the gender system tells us we live in, though.

Cross-posted at Our Descent Into Madness.

Posted under Culture

This post was written by Daisy on December 3, 2008

Tags: , ,

The Failure of Zionism

I’m studying for exams and trying to finish a major paper all in the next few weeks. So instead of posting something original I’ll just post this letter I wrote to the editor of my school paper, and add a comment or two.

This past week was Palestine Awareness Week, when members of Students for Justice in Palestine worked to present facts and viewpoints that run counter to the traditional negative portrayals of Palestinians. As part of the effort, the organization created posters presenting facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict that would surprise most Americans, like facts illustrating the enormous disparities in military strength between the Israeli army and the Palestinian people, and between the magnitude of the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians and those committed by the Palestinians against Israelis.

Read More…

Posted under Culture, History, Politics

This post was written by Uri on December 1, 2008

Tags: , , , , ,