"Don't Judge the Police Using 20/20 Hindsight" or: Forget Rational Thought Regarding Public Safety

The title of this post must be read with an understanding of what I'm talking about. In most mostly-white communities, the police are the people we depend on to help us create a sense of public safety. ('Public safety' actually existing and being a thing is its own debate, which I imagine I'll turn to at some point in the near-ish future.) They help find stolen items, solve violent crimes when they can, and generally can be seen and interacted with as officials that represent state-sponsored control. Or more generally, law enforcement officers (LEOs). I have known many LEOs through my friends who chose that career path, through dealing with police personally, through a whole bunch of second hand accounts, through my life as a sociologist and criminologist, and now through the lens of a law school grad. DISCLAIMER: for the most part, I personally believe that most LEOs are good people, and want to be good people, and want to be forces for good. This, I believe, is generally indisputable. That there are 'bad apples' or people who aren't actually good people at their core that also join police forces is also pretty indisputable. But there are problems with simplifying the issue down to the previous three sentences.

First, because those three sentences are generally indisputable, it does us little to no good to have that conversation. They are a given. Like gravity. Or that the earth is a spherical planetoid. Or that #mentoo is stupid, and men don't need to interject and include ourselves in women's fights for equity so that we can be included in the 'victim' column. (Women were standing up for male victims of sexual and interpersonal violence before it was cool.) Y'know, obvious shit.

Second, the 'good people' and 'bad people' issue is wholly unnecessary if we're talking about a systemic problem. Systemic problems are not started by just having 'bad people' around doing their 'bad people' stuff. It's a ridiculous argument to make that any police officer who does something shitty is just a 'bad person' and needn't be taken as a representation of a systemic problem. That's also an old argument that just...doesn't work anymore.

Third, if what people were really concerned about (as they addressed the issue of police violence in the US) were 'bad people' becoming and working as police officers, this conversation would be about HR practices and hiring metrics. This conversation is not about that. Humans, please.

The issue of unnecessary, unwarranted, and ultimately unjustifiable violence by LEOs is a systemic discussion. It is one that must start at the beginning (the first 'police' departments grew out of the tyrannically racist slave patrols) and continue through today (police departments as one arm of a criminal justice system that implicitly and explicitly negatively affects our larger society, but much more acutely communities that aren't mostly wypipo). The part of that discussion that no one wants to have is the one where juries of normal people continue to absolve LEOs of such unjustifiable violence. This absolution comes through our Supreme Court holding that the only requirement for the justification of homicide by LEOs is being afraid. On top of that, when juries are counted on to make these distinctions, they are only allowed to place themselves in the defendant officer's shoes within the moment of the violence. No 20/20 hindsight, no reasonable and rational look at whether the violence (often homicide) was reasonable and rational within our societal context. THIS IS A HUGE FU**ING PROBLEM.

First, if we are making the case that LEOs are better people than your average US citizen (as the case has been made during all this police officer hero worship), and we demand that these people receive extensive training about how to do the job well, how can the justification for homicide be, "I was afraid for my life." That is ludicrous. Simply, utterly, ludicrous. I'll even give you that LEOs are generally not better people than the rest of us, but they certainly do get trained to behave better. Even then, being afraid as a highly trained officer of the law cannot be enough to excuse homicide. It just cannot. LEOs ARE PAID TO BE AFRAID AND HANDLE IT BETTER THAN THE REST OF US. Popping off five shots into some guy because you can't handle the stress simply shouldn't cut it anymore. Your job is to deal with the stress the rest of us don't, and shouldn't, need to. The real absolution should only come after this additional jury instruction:

As a law enforcement officer trained in emergency management and subject de-escalation and control techniques, is it reasonable for this officer to have killed this person in this situation?

Even this would probably produce some questionable outcomes, but we sure do think police are mighty fine, and if they happen to kill some folks, well, they were probably askin' for it. But to instruct a jury, or anyone else for that matter, to drop rational thought when glaring back at a tragedy to determine whether violence was justifiable; it's idiotic. Humans, please. LEOs in general need to be held to a standard that demands they behave better than early homo-erectus. See a tiger running at you? Being scared is a fine reason to kill that tiger. It's a fu**in' tiger! But a person who's lying on the ground handcuffed or walking down the street while not being a white person? LEOs shouldn't get to fall back on fear as an excuse. Their job is to be better than we would. Their job is to overcome their base instincts, like we sometimes can't. Celebrate LEOs for saving people in burning buildings? Absolutely. And if those LEOs can suppress their base instincts to run into a burning building, they can suppress their base instincts in killing someone out of fear. If we as a society continue to allow LEOs to kill us because they were afraid for their safety while trained to overcome that fear and operate rationally in emergencies, 'public safety' is a joke. ('Public safety' already is a joke in many places where the majority of humans aren't white folks. This is a fact. And the police shouldn't be part of this problem.) This could be different. But it won't be different until our standards line up with our expectations, and our legal system brings accountability to our streets.

Zimmerman, Martin, and the Case for a Dose of Sanity

Over at the Book of Face, I've been adding to a small discussion prompted by Andrew Pegoda, a fellow academic and speaker on social junk and stuff. Check out his blog here. The original question was:

Should "double jeopardy" be OK in cases where it is quickly discovered the lawyers and/or judge put together a set of evidence and jurors that GUARANTEED the defendant would walk away. Consider the composition of the jury, statements by the jurors as they were selected (esp racist statements by B37 then, and now). Consider the directions they received [from the judge] (see first comment). I still wonder why we don't have a better system to decide supposedly clear cut issues [such as innocence or guilt]... [do typical juries] allow too much for prejudice, see second comment. Read, set, discuss! :)

I added the things in brackets. 

Interesting discussion. At the latest point, one person asked, "...it sounds like you went into this case knowing the outcome you wanted." A little later, "Of course, you had no opinion before this?"

I think this is disingenuous, to assume anyone is objective, without opinion. Further, to think race played no part in all of this is purely bullshit, whether intentionally bullshit or not. Here's what I said:

 We all have opinions. This discussion seems similar to the argument for 'objective analysis' or 'objective science'. No one is completely objective, or devoid of opinions, in any situation, ever. No one lives in a vacuum. This point is completely unnecessary. What makes most science, or social science or law 'good', is the attempt to be willing to change one's mind based on the observed stuff that happens. 

I figure it's not a real thing that Bigfoot exists. Haven't seen much solid evidence for that claim. But if there was a whole lot of solid evidence that bigfoot existed, as a social scientist I then change my perspective and assumptions to meet the reality of the observed stuff. This whole 'racism isn't a thing anymore in America' is contrary to the decades of social science evidence both in legal and social aspects. To say a grown man can chase an unarmed teenager, only doing so because of institutionalized presumptions about racial tendencies (and a keen fear of 'others' as we like to use in sociology), kill him, and then not at least be held a little legally accountable, is sheer madness. 

Yeah, they'd had break-ins. I get it. It sucks, I've had my stuff stolen, been jacked at knifepoint, it ain't fun. But I don't see anyone demonizing white men for being perpetual white collar criminals, who by far and away are almost the only white collar criminals in the U.S., with far greater reaching impacts on human beings than your typical street-level criminal. The real clothing I fear? White shirts and ties. Hoodies don't scare me. So yeah. Race had nothing to do with it.

What say ye? 

Generally Speaking...

I have students in a number of my courses submit reading responses as part of their overall course experience. With permission, I'm posting the text of one assignment from my Social Problems course at UH Manoa this semester. If you read through it, I'm sure you'll see why I'm putting it up for all to see; this kind of work should be shared, not hidden away in the deep recesses of my downloads file.

The topic covered by the text was poverty and homelessness. Check it:

"The problem with welfare as we know it, is we’re so full of shit. Not only do we have rich people who fucking complain about being taxed for having millions of dollars, they also have the damn nerve to say that the government is spending too much “their” money on welfare programs. How fucking greedy and envious do you have to be to think of treating people this way. These clowns never had to spend a day in the damn streets working for a piece of bread. They are in their nice warm luxurious offices complaining about how they don‘t have enough. In fact, we barely spend any money on welfare compared on how much of an income the government receives. The poor that do pay their taxes are returned just a bit of what they are asked to give. And of course the media is covering their fuckery up. And even the people that aren’t piss rich are so confused with all the crap that the media shows them that they believe all these lies that makes them think that the poor are a bunch of lazy, sorry, good for nothing people that try to cheat their way to a “perfect” American dream. Oh and to add a bit of truth to these big fucking lies lets blame it on the minorities as well. They are already known for being a bunch of savage people who like violence and drugs, let’s tell everyone that they are also the ones that use up all the welfare money and don’t pay any back. Matter of fact lets go deeper into this lie and point out the single black teen mothers and call their children “mistakes” that everyone has to pay for. Oh and by the way, Diane Sawyer can eat a bag of rusty nails. Who the fuck gives her the right to judge all mothers? No one knows what these girls have gone through in their lives. Show all the blacks in magazines and TV shows all you want. The truth will always be the truth. Media is a bunch of shit put on the television and paper to fuck with people’s minds. Call them myths all you want, they are all lies. And I don’t give a fuck about what the technical difference is between poverty and homelessness. I could honestly give a rat’s ass. They both mean the same thing: human beings that are struggling in life who need help. Ever seen the homeless here in Honolulu? The other day I bought a man a sandwich and a Gatorade. When I went to give it to him, he threw it back at me. Did I get angry and take it from the ungrateful piece of shit? Of course not, this person is a human being. Their prides aren’t asking for anything, especially not a welfare check. I walked away and returned after about an hour. He had the sandwich in his lap and Gatorade next to him. He could barely accept a free sandwich and people honestly give a fuck about the definitional differences between poverty and homelessness. Something is clearly wrong.  God, how many people are there out there that are like Murray Barr. Decent, loving people whose lives are in a black hole. And this can happen to anyone, in any city, town, state, country. No one ever wishes to live that life. It’s a disease for them. And boy does it cost millions of dollars on housing and medical bills. And surprisingly there aren’t that many of them when you really look at it. Life is not perfect by all means but if we all just chipped in a bit then something could really happen. We all own what we came into this world with and will leave with, our human bodies. Everything else is temporary possession and if you think you’re entitled to everything then you are in for a big surprise the day of your funeral."

See? Brilliant. In my courses, while I do want good scholarship more often than not, these assignments ask for students to reflect on the topics and concepts, and explore their own perceptions and beliefs. One assignment like this is appropriate for this course, given what i ask of them. Seems pretty blogworthy, yeah? And worth all the possible points. Good work, anonymous Social Problems student.

Casey Anthony

I know it's been a couple weeks, and so this isn't news anymore since nothing lasts for more than a few public seconds...but I had an email exchange with a former student of mine, and if anyone else would like to chime in, please do. Here's what I think about the case:

Casey Anthony was innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This was a criminal case, so that was the standard for the jury to use as a litmus test. Was there any way that someone else could have done the crime, in a reasonable person's mind? The jury in this case believed so. I would say the justice system prevailed here; a jury would have had to be party to a miscarriage of justice if they had voted for a guilty verdict. Thinking someone did something criminal, and knowing it to be true intrinsically, is not equal to a guilty verdict in a courtroom.

Here's an example from history: an African American male is accused of raping a white woman. Because 'everyone knows' that it had to be true, then a guilty verdict is an easy affirmative. Now, we can make the argument that racism might be different than what we saw in the case against Casey Anthony. However, if we were to take it on faith that she killed her kid, since any and all factual evidence was either inadmissable or nonexistent, then we would be making the same kind of legal leap of injustice that we have perpetrated for hundreds of years.

That being said, if she came into my bar I wouldn't stop another lady from kicking her ass, because I'm pretty sure she's either indifferent to her daughter's violent death or she did it herself. But, I sure wouldn't want to be convicted on circumstantial evidence, nor would I want my friends or family or anyone for that matter convicted circumstantially, especially if they didn't actually do the crime.

So it's a toss-up. It can feel messed up, yet it is the purpose of the justice system to allow for average folks on a jury to make this kind of decision this way. They did good; the prosecution sucked some yucky testicles. And even then, only having circumstantial evidence isn't the complete fault of a prosecutor's office. Sometimes we just don't have the evidence to convict someone. it would be nice if we saw this pattern forming across racial lines, but we're still a very racist nation-state (as I'm sure people of color know better than I).

I also think that if we always look for some deep, deviant psychological reason for a mother harming her children, instead of ascribing the behavior to just bad behavior, we're not being fair either. Our assumptions about women and criminal behavior are still very gendered, and my argument is this: couldn't she have killed her kid, or been indifferent to the murder of her kid, because she's a self-centered asshole? Again, I'm not saying that this is a fact, but it's a possibility that we don't seem to be entertaining. Like, ever.

It's also sad that she was news to begin with. But we're still baffled at the fact that mothers are people, and sometimes do crappy things (or might be partly responsible for crappy things happening).

Those are my thoughts on this. Cheers.

Admittedly, this is also good, for a different reason

Look, I'm pro-human. And seriously, if you're a true American, you are too. This was also very well put together, albeit not as humongous or sexy, but definitely with just as much merit and written beauty. It is from a couple years ago, so those of you who have seen this, please forgive my straight and entitled ignorance...I'm still learning as I go. Enjoy from here or hyperlink this: http://www.alternet.org/sex/86347/

Why I Fought for the Right to Say 'I Do'
The right to marry will change how we feel about society and our place in it. And it will change -- officially -- how society feels about us.
May 26, 2008
As you all no doubt know unless you've been hiding under the blankets for the last week and a half, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the state Constitution. In a little less than a month, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in California.

My partner and I are going to be one of those couples.

And I want to talk a little bit about why.

One of the questions that gets raised a lot when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up is, "Why is marriage so important? Why aren't civil unions or domestic partnerships good enough?"

The usual answers are practical ones. And I'll certainly second them. Marriage is recognized around the country and around the world, and all its practical and legal rights and responsibilities get carried with you everywhere you go in a way that is most emphatically not true for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Besides, it's a well-established principle that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal. The very act of saying, "No, you can't have this thing that everyone else can have, but you can have that other thing we created just for you that's almost exactly like it -- isn't that special?" It's the creation of second-class status, pretty much by definition.

But I want to talk about something else today. I don't want to talk about the legal and practical benefits of marriage. I don't want to talk about hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, inheritance rights, tax benefits, all that good stuff. That's all important, but it's also well-covered ground.

I want to talk about something more intangible. I want to talk about why we're getting married apart from all that.

Marriage is an unbelievably old human institution and human ritual. My parents did it. My grandparents did it. My great-grandparents did it, and theirs, and theirs. The word and the concept carry a weight, a gravitas, intense and complex social and emotional associations, from centuries and millennia of people participating in it. And as far as I know (admittedly my anthropology is a bit weak), it's existed in one form or another in almost every human society, in almost every period of human history. There may be exceptions, but I don't offhand know of any. Getting married means being a link in a chain, taking part in a ritual that's central to human history and society.

Yes, much of that history and many of those associations are awful. Sexist, propertarian, oppressive. But the evolution of the institution from its complicated and often terrible history into what it is today is part of what gives it its weight. The history of marriage, and its growth away from ownership and towards equal partnership, is the history of the human race's maturation. Participating in it means participating, not just in the history and the ritual, but in its growth and change.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships just don't have that.

Let's look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in California. Let's look at what it won't change for my partner and me and what it will.

On a day-to-day level, it probably won't change much. We're domestic partners, and California domestic partnership does afford most of the legal rights and responsibilities that marriage offers. Within the state, anyway. As long as we stay in the state, not much changes in any practical sense. And I doubt that much will change between her and me. We had a commitment ceremony two and a half years ago: a joyful, exuberant, larger- than-we'd expected celebration that we spent many months planning. That ceremony and celebration, and everything we went through to make it happen, did change our relationship, profoundly, and very much for the better. I doubt that our legal wedding in June will have anywhere near that same impact on how we feel about each other.

But it will almost certainly change how we feel about society, and our place in it. And it will change -- officially -- how society feels about us.

When we get married in June, the State of California will officially recognize that our relationship has the same weight as our parents' did, and their parents', and theirs. It will officially drop this "separate but equal" bullshit. It will officially stop seeing us as kids at the little table, poor relatives who should be content with leavings and scraps, second-class citizens. It will officially see us as actual, complete, honest-to-gosh citizens.

Now.

Look at the patchwork of laws around this country regarding same-sex marriage. Look at the states that have banned it, and the ones that have gone so far as to ban the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Look at the fact that if my partner and I travel to Alabama or Michigan, Alaska or Pennsylvania, or any of over two dozen other states, our marriage will be seen as not having existed at all. Null. Void. Look at the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1996, stating that the Federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages, even if they're completely legal in the state where they were performed.

What does that tell you about how those states, and the country as a whole, sees us?

That's the weird paradox of the California ruling. It's thrilling. It's unbelievably great news. It's a huge historical step. But at the same time, it throws the true meaning of this legal patchwork into sharp focus. It makes it that much clearer that queers in this country are, in a very literal sense, second-class citizens. We pay taxes, we serve on juries, we have to obey the same laws that everyone else does, but in a very practical, codified- into-law sense, we just don't count for as much.

Legalizing same-sex marriage isn't just about the legal and practical recognition of our love and our partnership. It's about social recognition. It's about being seen as a full member of society. Kudos for the California Supreme Court for understanding that. Let's hope the rest of the country figures it out eventually.

Important note: As powerful and historic as this step is, it could be undone. In November, there will almost certainly be an initiative on the California ballot, asking voters to amend the state Constitution and ban same-sex marriage. If you think this issue and this movement are important, please consider supporting Equality California.

Damn, this is good

I already posted this as a link on Facebook, but honestly it deserves some re-blog play too. Absolutely beautiful execution here as a fellow blogger and writer on things important. And I don't think I could have gotten here. No way; I'm a straight, white male, and that's a big-time triple-threat. Please, take the time to read this and allow yourself to understand not only the nuance and craft of the writing itself, but the intent behind the effort. At least to me, it's astoundingly honest and wonderfully powerful, with some 'focused rage' (to borrow a quote from Time Wise, who I think borrowed it from a writer who is probably a person of color) to boot.

Here's the hyperlink to the original: http://www.mattildabernsteinsycamore.com/gayrights_lip.html

Sweatshop-Produced Rainbow Flags and Participatory Patriarchy: Why the Gay Rights Movement Is a Sham

Mattilda, a.k.a. Matt Bernstein Sycamore

The Assimilation Success Story

As legends go, San Francisco is the place for sexual debauchery, gender transgression and political deviance (not to mention sexual deviance, gender debauchery and political transgression). The reality is that while San Francisco still shelters outsider queer cultures unimaginable in most other cities, these cultures of resistance have been ravaged by AIDS, drug addiction and gentrification. Direct on-the-street violence by rampaging straights remains rare in comparison to other queer destination cities like New York, Chicago or New Orleans, but a newer threat has emerged. San Francisco, more than any other US city, is the place where a privileged gay (and lesbian) elite has actually succeeded at its goal of becoming part of the power structure. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), members of the gaysbian elite use their newfound influence to oppress less privileged queers in order to secure their status within the status quo. This pattern occurs nationwide, but San Francisco is the place where the violence of this assimilation is most palpable.

I first moved to San Francisco in 1992, just before my 19th birthday, and was completely terrified by the conformity, hyper-masculinity, and blind consumerism of the legendary gay Castro district. I quickly figured out that this could never be my "community," and always assumed that it wasn't anyone else's, either. Then one day, just recently, I was walking through the Castro with a friend of mine, whose social group includes a number of gay white men in their fifties, and everywhere guys were smiling at him and reaching out with great big hugs. I realized, then, that the Castro was somebody's community, and this was, for a moment, a revelation.

What is sad about the Castro (and similar gay neighborhoods across the country and around the world), and indicative of what gay people do with even a little bit of power, is that these same smiling gay men have failed to build community for queers (or anyone) outside their social groups. Many gay men (even in the Castro) still remain on the fringes, either by choice or lack of opportunity. But as the most "successful" gays (and their allies) have moved from outsider status to insider clout, they have consistently fought misogynist, racist, classist, ageist battles to ensure that their neighborhoods remain communities only for the rich, male and white (or at least those who assimilate into white middle-class norms). They've succeeded in clamping down on the anger, defiance, flamboyance, and subversion once thriving in queer subcultures, in order to promote a vapid, consume-or-die, only-whites-need-apply version of gay identity. Homo now stands more for homogenous than any type of sexuality aside from buy buy buy.

In 1992, there were still a few slightly interesting things about the Castro: a gay bookstore with current queer 'zines, and freaks and drag queens on staff; a used bookstore with a large selection of gay books; a cafe with live cabaret shows; a 24-hour donut shop with a rotating cast of tweakers; a tiny chocolate shop filled with delicate creations; a dyke bar; and a cruising park where faggots actually fucked. These meager (and mostly fag-specific) resources have disappeared, as rents have skyrocketed and corporate chains have replaced local businesses. A glittering Diesel clothing store now dominates Harvey Milk Plaza, the symbolic heart of the Castro, and the historic Castro Theater shows Eating Out, a movie about a straight guy pretending to be gay in order to get the girl with the gay friends (The tagline reads, "The fastest way to a girl's heart is through her best friend.").

Gay bar owners routinely call for the arrest of homeless people, many of them queer youth, for getting in the way of happy hour. Zephyr Realty, a gay-owned real estate company, advises its clients on how best to evict long-term tenants, many of them seniors, people with HIV/AIDS and disabled people. Gay political consultants mastermind the election of anti-poor, pro-development candidates over and over and over.

In 1998, wealthy gay Castro residents (don't forget lesbians and straight people!) fought against a queer youth shelter because they feared it would get in the way of "community property values." They warned that a queer youth shelter would bring prostitution and drug-dealing to the neighborhood. For a moment, let's leave aside the absurdity of a wealthy gay neighborhood, obviously already a prime destination for prostitutes of a certain gender and drug-dealing of only the best substances, worrying about the wrong kind of prostitutes (the ones in the street!), and the wrong kind of drug dealers (the ones who don't drive Mercedes!) arriving in their whitewashed gayborhood.

One sign of the power of San Francisco's gay elite is that any successful mayoral candidate must pander to the "gay vote," so it was no surprise when, in February 2003, Gavin Newsom, a straight, ruling class city council member representing San Francisco's wealthiest district, hosted a lavish, $120-a-plate fundraiser for the new $18 million LGBT Center. At that point, Newsom was most famous for a ballot measure called "Care Not Cash," which took away homeless people's welfare checks and replaced them with "care." Gay Shame, a radical queer activist group, gathered to protest Newsom's agenda of criminalizing homeless people in order to get ahead at the polls, as well as to call attention to the hypocrisy of the Center for welcoming Newsom's dirty money instead of taking a stand against his blatantly racist and classist politics. Whose Center was this, we asked? Was it a center for marginalized queers, queers of color, homeless queers, trans queers, queer youth, older queers, disabled queers, queer artists, queer activists, queer radicals... -- or a Center for straight politicians to hold dinner parties?.

Our questions were answered when police officers, called by the Center, began to bash us as soon as they escorted Newsom inside. One officer hit a Gay Shame demonstrator in the face with his baton, shattering one of her teeth and bloodying her entire face. Several of us were thrown face-first into oncoming traffic; one protester was put into a chokehold until he passed out. As four of us were dragged off in handcuffs for protesting outside "our" Center, Center staff stood -- and watched -- and did nothing to intervene. Neither Newsom nor the Center has ever made a statement condemning the police violence of February 2003. In fact, one year later, newly-elected Mayor Gavin Newsom rewarded the powerful gays who stood on the Center balcony and watched queers get bashed. Newsom grabbed national headlines and solidified his San Francisco support base by "legalizing" gay marriage, and throngs of gay people from across the country descended upon City Hall at all hours of the day and night, camping out, sharing snacks and wine, and toasting Gavin Newsom as the vanguard leader of gay civil rights.

I Think We're Alone Now... Citizenship, Gay Marriage and the Christian Right

In the fall of 2004, Marriage Equality, a brand new brand of "nonprofit," held two amazing benefits in New York City and Washington, DC. Called "Wedrock," these star-studded events featured numerous celebrities, major-label activist rockers from Moby to Sleater-Kinney, Bob Mould to Le Tigre. Just to get people all excited about marriage equality, the promotional email for the events concluded by stating, "Get angry, protect your citizenship."

If gay marriage is about protecting citizenship, whose citizenship is being protected? Most people in this country -- especially those not born rich, white, straight and male -- are not full citizens. The not-so-subtle demand to "protect your citizenship" evokes images of George W. Bush's screeds against "enemies of freedom." Gay assimilationists want to make sure they're on the winning side in the citizenship wars, and see no need to confront the legacies of systemic and systematic US oppression that prevent most people living in this country (and everywhere else) from exercising their supposed "rights." This willful participation in US imperialism is part of the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power.

Gay assimilationists have created the ultimate genetically modified organism, combining virulent strains of nationalism, patriotism, consumerism, and patriarchy and delivering them in one deadly product: state-sanctioned matrimony. Gay marriage proponents are anxious to discard those tacky hues of lavender and pink, in favor of the good ol' stars and stripes, literally draping themselves in Old Glory at every pro-marriage demonstration as the US occupies Iraq, overthrows the only democratically-elected government in the history of Haiti, funds the Israeli war on the Palestinians, and makes the whole world safe... for multinational corporations to plunder indigenous resources.

A gay elite has hijacked queer struggle, and positioned their desires as everyone's needs -- the dominant signs of straight conformity have become the ultimate signs of gay success. Sure, for white gays with beach condos, country club memberships, and nice stock portfolios with a couple hedge funds that need trimming every now and then (think of Rosie O'Donnell or David Geffen), marriage might just be the last thing standing in the way of full citizenship, but what about for everyone else?

Even when the "gay rights" agenda does include real issues, it does it in a way that consistently prioritizes the most privileged while fucking over everyone else. I'm using the term "gay rights," instead of the more popular term of the moment, "LGBT rights," because "LGBT" usually means gay, with lesbian in parentheses, throw out the bisexuals, and put trans on for a little window-dressing. A gay rights agenda fights for an end to discrimination in housing and employment, but not for the provision of housing or jobs; domestic partner health coverage but not universal health coverage. Or, more recently, hospital visitation and inheritance rights for married couples, but not for anyone else. Even with the most obviously "gay" issue, that of anti-queer violence, a gay rights agenda fights for tougher hate crimes legislation, instead of fighting the racism, classism, transphobia (and homophobia) intrinsic to the criminal "justice" system. Kill those criminals twice, this logic goes, and then there won't be any more violence.

The violence of assimilation lies in the ways the borders are policed. For decades, there has been a tension within queer politics and cultures, between assimilationists and liberationists, conservatives and radicals. Never before, however, has the assimilationist/conservative side held such a stranglehold over popular representations of what it means to be queer. Gay marriage proponents are anxious to discard generations of queer efforts to create new ways of loving, lusting for, and caring for one another, in favor of a 1950s model of white-picket-fence, "we're-just-like-you" normalcy.

The ultimate irony of gay liberation is that it has made it possible for straight people to create more fluid gender, sexual and social identities, while mainstream gay people salivate over state-sanctioned Tiffany wedding bands and participatory patriarchy. Many straight people know that marriage is outdated, tacky and oppressive -- and any queer who grew up in or around marriage should remember this well. Marriage still exists as a central site of anti-woman, anti-child and anti-queer violence, and a key institution through which the wealth and property of upper class (white) families is preserved. If gay marriage proponents wanted real progress, they'd be fighting for the abolition of marriage (duh), and universal access to the services that marriage can sometimes help procure: housing, healthcare, citizenship, tax breaks, and inheritance rights.

Instead, gay marriage proponents claim that access to marriage will "solve" fundamental problems of inequality. This is not surprising, given that the gay marriage movement is run by groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, who have more in common with the National Rifle Association than any sort of left agenda, queer or otherwise. These are the same gays who routinely instigate police violence against people of color, homeless people, transgender people, sex workers and other marginalized queers, in their never-ending quest to "clean up" the neighborhoods they've gentrified. Their agenda is cultural erasure, and they want the full Monty.

For a long time, queers have married straight friends for citizenship or healthcare -- but this has never been enshrined as "progress." The majority of queers -- single or coupled (but not desiring marriage), monogamous or polyamorous, jobless or marginally employed -- would remain excluded from the much-touted benefits of legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, in order to access any marriage benefits, those not entirely "male" or "female" would need to accept gender tyranny. As gay marriage continues to dominate the mainstream gay agenda, resources are directed away from HIV prevention, AIDS services, drug treatment, domestic violence services, and other programs desperately needed by less privileged queers -- millions of dollars are being poured into the marriage coffin. The fight between pro-marriage and anti-marriage queers is not a disagreement between two segments of a "community," but a fight over the fundamental goals of queer struggle.

Gay marriage proponents are anxious to further the media myth that there are only two sides to the gay marriage/assimilation debate: foaming-at-the mouth Christian fundamentalists who think gay marriage marks the death of Western civilization, and rabid gay assimilationists who act as if gay marriage is the best thing since Queer Eye for the Straight Girl. It is no coincidence that queers who oppose gay marriage are shut out of the picture, since it's much easier for a gay marriage proponent to win an argument with a crazed homophobe than with an anti-marriage queer. And every time some well-meaning straight leftist thinks they're being open-minded by taking the gay marriage side, they need to go back to Feminism 101.

Of course, Christian fundamentalists make no distinction between diesel dykes and Diesel jeans, or, to be more direct -- they think all queers are gonna burn in hell, Tiffany or no Tiffany. (as in, "I think we're alone now...). Every time gay marriage proponents patiently explain to Fundamentalists, "One, two -- we're just like you -- three, four -- we bash queers more!" the Christian Right gains authority. But this false polarization serves gay assimilationists as well, by silencing queers who threaten the power that lies behind their sweatshop-produced nylon rainbow flags.

When gay assimilationists cheerfully affirm, over and over again, to lunatics who want them dead, that of course gay identity is not a choice, because who would choose it, they unwittingly expose the tyranny of simplistic identity politics. Not only have the dominant signs of straight conformity become the central goals of the gay assimilationist movement, but assimilationists see a threat to Christian fundamentalist security as a threat to "progress." Forget about choosing our gender, sexual or social identities, forget about building community or family outside of traditional norms, forget about dismantling dominant systems of oppression -- let's just convince the Christian right to accept us on their own terms.

Movement Rights, Civil Community

On January 13, 2005, 22 national LGBT rights organizations (including all the above, and more!) issued a joint statement with the leaden title, "Civil Rights. Community. Movement." Unsurprisingly, this document is filled with empty rhetoric such as, "We, literally, are everywhere," and "Stand up. Spread the word. Share your story." It even quotes gay rights pioneer President George W. Bush from an interview in People, where he agrees, in spite of his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that a couple joined by a civil union is as much of a family as he and Barbara.

"Civil Rights. Community. Movement." opens by defining "civil rights" as "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship [italics added]." Here we can already glimpse the exclusionary agenda of the gay rights movement. Instead of calling for universal access to benefits generally procured through citizenship (such as the right to remain in this country), this document seeks to secure a gay place at the red-white-and-blue table of normalcy, on the fashionable side of the barbed wire.

This opening paragraph also attributes the successes of civil rights movements to "the complex interweaving of legal victories, political progress and advances in public opinion." Even a mainstream liberal would agree that many "civil rights" victories came about in large part through mass protests and extensive civil (and uncivil) disobedience campaigns. But the LGBT movement prefers empty terms like "political progress" and "advances in public opinion" to any recognition of direct action struggles. You don't want to frighten the funders!

The document continues by talking about challenging the family values rhetoric of "a small but powerful group of anti-gay extremists" by "[opening] America's eyes to the true family values that LGBT couples, parents and families are living and demonstrating every day." This is where "LGBT rights" becomes most sinister. In allegedly attempting to challenge the "radical right" (they're not Christians anymore, but worse -- radicals!) this document still insists on defining "family values" along heteronormative lines, rolling back decades of queer struggle to create chosen families that do more than just mimic the twisted ones assigned to us at birth.

When the report notes that "Binational LGBT couples and families can be cruelly torn apart by deportation and immigration laws that treat them as legal strangers," we are led to believe that marriage is the only solution to this citizenship dilemma. No mention is made of non-coupled queers who are deported while seeking asylum, of systemic racial profiling in citizenship decisions, or of routine murders of undocumented immigrants on US borders. Instead, the document states, "We must fight for family laws that give our children strong legal ties to their parents." One must infer that this pertains to the cases of lesbian (and gay) parents who lose custody of their children due to homophobic courts, though this is, astoundingly, not mentioned. While a shortsighted focus on parental control should be no surprise when coming from a "movement" centered around marriage, it is particularly striking given the extremely high rates of suicide, drug addiction and homelessness among queer youth, especially those escaping scary families of origin. What about family laws that allow children to get away from abusive parents? What about providing support systems for queer youth, who have extremely high rates of suicide, drug addiction, and homelessness?

The organizations behind this document prefer to talk about the "true family values" of straight-acting gays than to resist the tyranny of assimilationist norms. Apparently, "true family values" call for more inclusive hate crimes legislation, but no challenge to the prison industrial complex. "True family values" call for overturning the military's "anti-LGBT" ban instead of confronting US imperialism. "True family values" require all of us to "invest" in the movement, "invest in our future." That's right -- send in your check NOW, before you get priced out.

_________________________________

I couldn't create this myself. It's much too genuine for me to have been able to come up with. (Because, as mentioned before, I'm straight, caucasian and male, and I have more privilege than I know what to do with.) But hell, I'll make sure it gets as much play as I can, because if we don't start trying to think differently, we never will. And it's important to our survival as a people to start thinking differently. 'nuf said.

Health care, a patient's perspective II

I wanted to write a little bit about how insane Ann Coulter is, but I think I'll leave it to all the others who are doing a great job: Glynnis MacNicol from Business Insider and Frances Martel from Mediaite featured on Talking Points Memo. Onward, to my next official blog post which hasn't happened since...crap, since I posted my last quickie for a class last semester.

This edition of Health care from a patient's perspective is going to focus on what happened when I tried to get insulin here in Hawaii. I gotta tell ya, my Weird Shitometer went batshit crazy. Here's the deal:

Last semester I didn't have health insurance...in fact, I didn't have health insurance from July 2010 until last week. I do feel lucky, in that calling up the health insurance folks who enroll us Instructors in the plans did move things along extremely fast, so thank you HMSA/EUTF employee I spoke with last week. Back to reality: I was running rully, rully low on 'slin. For those of you who know what I'm talkin bout, that ain't good. I saw my doc on campus, which cost me $20...doesn't seem like much, but hey, I was broke-ish. My bottle of Humalog was gonna cost me almost $150, and I'm grateful to my girlfriend who covered it for me at the time. Really grateful; I think I still owe her a couple foot massages.

After seeing the doc, I got my script, and headed to Walgreens here in Honolulu. As I was trying to pick up the insulin the first time, I started getting weird questions.
Pharmacy tech: "This doesn't say how much you're supposed to take per day."
My reply: "yes it does; it says I have an Insulin pump for a basal, and to take boluses by sliding scale with meals as needed...it changes based on how many carbs I'm eating, my exercise/activity, other factors..."
Pharma: "no, that won't work. We need to have specific directions otherwise we can't give you this lifesaving health product that you won't survive without. Sorry. Better luck tomorrow when the doctor's office opens and we can confirm."
Me: "uhh...ok? What's the deal, yo? I've never heard of this kind of weirdness before."
Pharma: "It's Hawaii law, so we can't get sued if you overdose."
Me: "Really? Is this state this weird? I've had diabetes for two decades, I'm in great shape and I'm really healthy. I think I'm capable."
Pharm: "Sorry, can't do it. We have to know that you know what you're doing."
Me: "20 years as a diabetic. Seriously. If I fuck up my own diabetes care, what am I suing you for? Irresponsible pharmaceutical activities? Slangin the wrong 'slin to a shady character such as myself?"
Pharm: "We'll call their office tomorrow, and we'll see you after."
Me: "Right on. I know this isn't your fault, but I'd love to know what the background is..."

So that's my Hawaii diabetes weirdness that sent my Weird Shitometer off the scales. Anyone else seen something funky like this?

Nationalism: the poison of belonging

It's been a while since I posted. I know this Will Austin. I've come up with a bunch of really interesting topics to blog out. But alas, 'tis the end of a semester. I'm in the midst of a big ol' paper for Social Stratification, and it's really fun. It has taken over my life as of now, and so I must be honest about getting back to bloggin' come mid-December. So, I'm posting my final short paper for Social Stratification. The book was written by the professor of the course, who at first seemed a little over-the-top critical, but as the semester has progressed I have gained a whole lot of respect for her style. She not only tackles subjects with tenacity, and doesn't let us get away with anything, but also acknowledges her own limitations regarding subjectivity. She's a damned good editor as well-I can't remember a professor since 7/8th grade English that really took my writing to task. If you attend UH Manoa and need some Sociology coursework, I'd highly recommend taking courses Nandita Sharma is teaching.

So, even though I've already gotten feedback from her about this shorty, I'm posting it as-submitted. Hope someone enjoys it.

SOC 754, Social Stratification

Due: 11/18/10

Evaluation of: Home Economics: Nationalism and the Making of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada

            Why is citizenship in a capitalist nation-state so coveted? What are the benefits of citizenship in a capitalist nation-state? First, we must truthfully admit that in first world capitalist nation-states, the benefits of citizenship can include certain protections as an employee, and fewer personal restrictions on movement within and without the nation-state. Further, citizens are far less likely to face discrimination in as many forms, and can find that there are solutions to some complicated issues available to citizens that are not available to non-citizens. Citizenship certainly does not alleviate racial, gender, and sexuality biases; however, being a citizen means there is one less category in which to find the self punished for naturally occurring realities. When acclimating to a new place to live, work and engage in socialization and social mobility of some kind, being classified as a non-citizen can be extremely damaging. Employment opportunities cease to be viable for legal or social reasons; education can be almost impossible if not incredibly difficult to obtain and maintain. However, in terms of access to basic lifestyle resources, non-citizenship in a society favoring nationalism creates a severely limiting situation.

            Canada seems no different from any capitalist nation-state in terms of political action against marginalized peoples who move there from other nation-states in order to better their lives. Groups of citizens who hold seats of power use fear tactics such as blaming economic challenges on ‘immigrants’. To say that immigrants are ‘stealing’ opportunities from citizens is ludicrous at best, at worst a way to ingrain a constant feeling of fear of an ‘other’. The creation of the Canadian person as a non-immigrant is also a false representation of ownership of place, if we take into account that peoples of European descent are not the first folks to inhabit the physical land designated as Canada. Further, race is always a factor in the operationalization of placing nationality upon a person, regardless of their compliance with state-mandated requirements regarding citizenship. Not to mention the never-ending and forever progressive requirements of attaining legal citizenship, let alone being forced into a perpetual state of legal non-citizenship worker status. People who look different than what is assumed to represent a ‘proper’ idea of a citizen are marginalized within the social order of Canada, such as we might see from looking at the social order of the United States. The structure of the nation-state of Canada has allowed for peoples of European descent who migrated to Canada to attain a position of political and social dominance over others that are labeled and therefore publicly assumed to be ‘others’. With this in mind, a very interesting discussion emerges: the framing of internal ‘us’ and external ‘them’ within the context of globalization.

            In Canada as well as in the United States, people moving to the capitalist giants with the intention of staying, do so at great personal risk. Not only can things go wrong during a transition to a different country, but upon arrival in the new place creating a life may prove to be more challenging than anticipated. Especially when we consider that nationalist tendencies involve some very strong xenophobia. This seemingly natural xenophobia, when coupled with the fear of globalization, makes for a much more difficult daily life, and far fewer options as a newly relocated resident. If the local culture is such that nationalism has overridden a sense of hospitality towards newcomers, the reality of not only marginalization but exclusion will settle in. Laws regarding the restriction of citizenship can start to emerge and be seen by mainstream society as commonplace to a society such as this one. Restrictions may limit citizenship to those who are ‘natural born’ or born when the parent is in the country. Some countries may even restrict citizenship to people born to parents who are already citizens, making the attainment of citizenship practically impossible. All these restrictions or threats of restriction stem from a nationalist perspective of wanting to minimize the ‘pollution’ of the presumed existing strong natural nation-state. The perceived damage done by an influx of folks moving to a country that holds the promise of wealth becomes folklore with assumed truth associated with it. This in turn creates a seemingly natural fear of outsiders, or those not associated with appropriate levels of nationalist spirit are cast out of the potential area for belonging, and the comfort of home is forever unattainable. But now I ask: when nationalism assists in a fight for release from oppression, should we argue against the retention of the language of nationalist movements, in exchange for a global inclusion?

            My only critique of this text is this: how can we de-nationalize nation-states to create a global community? It is certainly a much more civilized and compassionate way to think about the population of the earth. But with nationalism in such a place of significance, what could we do to eliminate this fundamental part of understanding who we are? If we were to eliminate the need for identity politics of all kinds, how would we bring about the kind of global change that would make nation-states obsolete? I am not saying I do not support the thesis; I am saying that the challenges associated with the pure emancipation of the singular person from an identifiable and definable collective would, I imagine, prove to be spectacularly complicated. Though I believe the difficulties within this process would stem from a lack of understanding of how to relate to others without the defining factors of nationality, and not from a lack of desire to expel exclusionary and compassionless politics. In a post-nationalist global society lies a world of true democratic purpose and freedom; the way to reach this kind of almost-utopian world is still out of reach within a capitalistic structure of the ultra-comfortable vs. the perpetually exploited.

What if the Tea Partiers Were Black...

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.