Sunday news: red edition

It's Sunday again!  There's a nice fall breeze in the air, and you know what that means:  a surge of evil left wingers are plotting the disastrous overthrow of life, liberty, and capitalism.  At least that's how the story goes.  Join us as we explore the downfall of humanity, subtly disguised as being nice to poor people.

• In Britain, the out-of-power Labour Party has a new leader, Red Ed Miliband, aka Miliband the Not-As-Cute.  He says that if in government, his party wouldn't dramatically slash the national budget deficit in one fell swoop, as the ORLY coalition is doing now, and thus would attempt to avoid wide-scale economic upheaval.  Clearly Ed is a commie, and should be vilified by the Daily Mail immediately.  Oh, wait.
• Yesterday in Washington, a rally endorsed by over 400 organizations called for more jobs, real justice, and genuine improvements in education.  Your humble blogger was in the midst of the fray, and can confirm that no marginalized groups were demonized even once during the festivities.  Obscenely wealthy corporate overlords didn't fair so well though.  Clearly these people are commies, and should be vilified by Glenn Beck immediately.  Oh, wait.
• Also here in Washington, our recent primary election has led to the likely downfall of our very own Tyrant Education Queen, Michelle Rhee.  This reality has made affluent, largely white, "concerned citizens" who in many cases don't actually have kids in DC schools piss their pants with fear.  This reality may also diminish the chance that the largely poor parents of children in DC schools will be talked to as though they were the peers of their children.  Clearly these parents are commies, and should be vilified by the Washington Post editorial board immediately.  Oh, wait.
• This Supreme Court opens its new term this week, and it's full of girls.  They'll probably want to rule on things.  They may even want their faces in a museum.  Clearly these lady justices are commies, and the ever-oppressed man should vilify them immediately.  Oh, wait.

So there you have it.  Go out and be a-feared, or something.  Oh, wait...

Sunday news: let's embrace our trashy side edition

Are you looking for something more?  Are you looking for something less?  Are you looking for anything at all?   Join me in today's somewhat-weekly exploration of things that make the world tick.

• Six reasons to have casual sex.  No additional comment is really necessary.
• U.S. to WikiLeaks dude:  We gon' find you.  Even if we have to make stuff up.
• It's a well known fact that visitors to U.S. National Parks have an average IQ of -12.  With a cell phone, this goes down to -57.
• More in the e-readers are cooler than books saga. 
• Tired of motorcades?  Blame Theodore Roosevelt. 
• So Obama is the next Reagan?  Yee haw.  Let me just start packing my bags now.
• Coverage of Australia's PM has a sexist bent.  Are we supposed to be surprised?
• Speaking of Australia and it's super weird electoral system, they're in electoral limbo for an indefinite period.
• Continuing on the sexist line, were you aware that women are fully capable of managing tough things like nuclear weapons policy?  O.  M.  G. 
• DC Mayor Adrian Fenty has determined that being a dick to the entire human race may not be the best strategy, so he's gonna do better next time 'round.  I don't buy it.

Well now, that's that.  Don't you feel enlightened?  Ladies, don't go nuke anything.

My question for the final DC mayoral debate

The Washington Post, WAMU and NBC 4 are hosting the final debate for the DC mayor's race at high noon on Wednesday, September 1.  Because I'm a nerd, I managed to get a ticket to the event before they were all gone.  Even better is that members of the public can submit questions in advance by email.

As you know, I do some grassroots organizing work with members of DC's trans community.  As an activist, I've always been into fighting for rights and justice, and I'm usually drawn to struggles that don't always get the attention they should.  I've written several times before that the fights over gay marriage or Don't Ask Don't Tell have never animated me, for a variety of reasons.  There are much more basic rights that are denied every day to LGBT people who are poor, rural, trans, youth, people of color, to name a few.  Those categories don't necessarily apply to me, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't join the fight against such discrimination, and I frankly believe that you should too.

I know I've got a snowball's chance of getting this answered in what's sure to be a madhouse event with a packed agenda, but nonetheless, my question: 

Mayor Fenty:  In 2008, your administration tried to exempt District custodial agencies from complying with the gender identity and expression provisions of the Human Rights Act.  Your administration failed to report hate crimes against transgender people and failed to include the same population in your recent LGBT health report.  Your Office of Human Rights persistently refuses to enforce laws allowing transgender people to safely access public accommodations.  Overly aggressive enforcement of prostitution free zones has led to rampant and blatant profiling of transgender people as sex workers.  And in 2009, a year in which a transgender woman was brutally murdered in broad daylight, your LGBT affairs director refused to attend the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance because he had hockey tickets.  Is there a particular reason your administration is targeting an already extremely disenfranchised part of the population for additional abuse?  For both Mayor Fenty and Chairman Gray, how do you intend to rectify these problems, including addressing persistent unemployment in the transgender community and the growth of hate violence against transgender people of color?

I'm sure you'll be hearing from me again on September 1 to see whether or not it gets answered.  

You should submit a question too!   Blog it, tweet it, facebook it.  Too often people have said that the race between Fenty and Gray is about style, not substance.  But in this, and in other areas, there are real substantive problems that need to be addressed. Let's make sure those problems see the light of day before this race is over. 

Meanwhile, the rest of the world wants assimilationist gay figure skaters

Since I've already raised the subject in another post, I thought I'd point you to this informative video about Johnny Weir, whom I've recently decided I adore (and, frankly, would boink).  

Again with that whole systemic discrimination thingy.

The NYT loves assimilationist gay theater

Or, one of the stupidest reviews I've ever read.

Apparently, some of the new gay-themed plays this opening this year in New York are somehow "liberated" (and thus better) because they're not overtly political, and nobody dies of AIDS.

What an effing moron.

First, contrary to what one may believe, gay politics consist of much more than marriage, adoption, and being legally allowed to serve as cannon fodder in imperialist wars. It's called systemic discrimination you idiot, and just because a particular playwright didn't beat you over the head with it, it's still there.

Secondly (et quelle surprise), not all gay people have AIDS. Really! I know lots of them! Also, we are perfectly capable of having conflict in our romantic relationships that doesn't center around one of us dying some unspeakable, dreary, slow, agonizing death, like an opera on steroids.

Apparently, these plays are to be applauded for showing gay couples as "just like everybody else." And, in a sense (though not totally -- myriad issues arise that are a product of said systemic discrimination), gay couples are just that. But don't laud the success of stupid political efforts and ridiculously bigoted assumptions about our health by going out and throwing a big party because somebody wrote a play that didn't involve those things.

I'm not a writer or an artist of any kind, but maybe evaluate these gay-themed plays on their artistic merits, rather than their depictions of "normalcy."

Oh, wait, systemic discrimination...

Sometimes political blogging is hard

Especially when all the good stuff is said by other people. As the Sarah Palin drama has unfolded in all its "the Clampetts go to Jerry Springer" glory, you will note that a mere whiff of a notion of a possible bit of a critique of Governor Palin's record is immediately refuted by "that's sexist" from people (read: fat old rich white guys) who couldn't even find sexism in the dictionary before last Friday. Rather than say more on this hypocrisy, I'm simply going to defer to Jon Stewart.

Things to think on

Re: nationalism and patriotism.

Thing one, by Howard Zinn (thanks Daniel).

Thing two, by Anne-Marie Slaughter (thanks to Passport).

Read both things in the order I posted them here, like I did this morning. They inadvertently play off each other, I think. I lean towards Slaughter's position, though Zinn certainly brings up some valid points. Both leave out a few things. Nonetheless, you be the judge of that. I'm just passing on things that made me ponder.

NoVa and RoVa: not so different after all

A few months back, the Post published a glaringly offensive piece comparing the alleged differences between Northern Virginia (NoVa) and the rest of Virginia (RoVa). Aside from being painfully classist, smug, and elitist, the piece is generally not deserving of comment because it's so grossly exaggerated. Nonetheless, the point was that NoVa was this bastion of liberal modernity while RoVa was full of dirt eating hicks who do math on their fingers and can't really spell. In a season of particularly intense political campaigning in the state, the point of the piece seemed to be that NoVa really is superior, even if its political desires (electing liberal Democrats) somehow were to be drowned out by RoVa's clamor for conservatism. One particular gem including this line:

In RoVa, they hope the South will rise again. In NoVa, they hope the souffle will.

After the election, there was even talk of NoVa seceding from RoVa because it was so liberal, unique, and incredibly different. The accusation was that the legislature in Richmond was just using NoVa for its hordes of tax revenue, while denying it an appropriately elitist, holier than thou voice in state affairs.

Why do I bring this up now? Because this past Sunday, NoVa sent word that it's not so different from RoVa after all. Seven parishes of the Episcopal Church, most of them located in NoVa, voted to leave the Episcopal Church of the United States of America and instead place themselves under the jurisdiction of a radical social conservative archbishop in Nigeria, who opposes the rights of gay people to even eat together in public, among other virtues. Two of those congregations are among the oldest and largest in the United States, and none other than George Washington was a member of one.

What does this mean about the NoVa/RoVa dichotomy? Simply put, social conservatives are all over the state of Virginia (and a lot of other "blue" states/counties/cities) and thus maybe NoVa should stop being so damn smug. Just because your cars, houses and incomes are bigger than those of your compatriots further south doesn't make you special. I should also remind you that Virginia's recent bizarro anti-gay marriage amendment passed with some 57% of ballots cast. Therefore even if you do deserve some credit for electing left-leaning types like Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb, don't construe this as making you somehow better than other people. If anything, voting in this country should be the great equalizer, not the great specializer.

You would think that I would be more bothered by other, more obvious aspects of this little saga. For instance, I grew up gay in a part of Tennessee not all that different from RoVa. Yet I maintain that people have the right to believe and vote as they please, even if I disagree with it and/or think some of their decisions will bear disastrous fruits. Though I'm one of those much beguiled bleeding heart liberals, I believe that conservatives are basically good people (as all people are), they just think differently from me, and that's ok. I believe that one of these days, various social issues will be worked out in ways amenable to the rights of all Americans.

In short: NoVa should get off its high horse, especially in light of these recent events. In the meantime, if NoVa wants some sort of voting in the state legislature based upon dollars contributed, they should consult the World Bank, and remember how well that's worked out for poor people.

Honestly, did you have to add that detail?

The lead story on yesterday's Washington Post email bulletin was this article about the investigation that led to the arrests of alleged terror plotters in England. Aside from being a rather ordinary piece about a lengthy investigation, the article isn't really all that noteworthy, except for something the opening paragraph.

It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

Did they really have to put "a worried member of the Muslim community"? Wouldn't it have simply sufficed to say that an anonymous person reported suspicions about someone they knew? Is there even any hard evidence that it was a Muslim individual who made the call? And why not just put that a neighbor or community member (without qualifiers) called in the suspicions.

Honestly, I don't know whether the Post is trying to paint all terrorists as Muslims, or demonstrate that not all Muslims are terrorists. Obviously, the former is false and I don't think that's just gist; probably they were aiming at the latter, but just did it badly. Still, I think it's a little much is all.