TN SB49 “Don’t Say Gay” and George Takei

Yesterday the Tennessee State Senate passed Republican Senator Stacey Campfield's Senate Bill 49, the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill, by a vote of 20-10. (Some are reporting the final vote as 19-11. I’m unsure of the official results. Either way, the bill passed.) The bill has received controversial attention over the past several weeks (months and years) over the appropriate place of government to limit dialogue in classrooms. The bill’s original language (pdf, one page – very short) stated that "No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." The bill was then amended such that it could only be adopted after a review by the state board of education of "the current curriculum standards for the teaching of sex education or for the teaching of other subjects in which the discussion of human sexuality may occur incidental to the subject" (pdf, 1 page).

On Friday an amendment (for which I cannot find the official text) was submitted, and then adopted – leading to the passing of the bill – with at least two changes from the original. First, the phrasing "sexual orientation other than heterosexuality" was stricken and replaced by limiting discussions to only "natural human reproduction science."  (This change was fine with Campfield who said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat.… I got what I wanted.… Homosexuals don't naturally reproduce.") In addition, the amendment loosened the scope of the bill such that educators could respond to student questions about homosexuality without punishment, but still cannot offer materials or engage curriculum or instruction inclusive of homosexuality.

According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, "Companion legislation in the state House of Representatives has not advanced out of committee, and supporters of the bill do not intend to bring it up again until 2012."

As a practicing teacher of Kindergarten students, my concerns and fears about this bill are stacking up. Limiting the possibility for discussion and dialogue on any subject typically has dangerous results. Even hypothesizing the consequences of this bill, the following are a few of my concerns. If I were teaching in Tennessee (which I am not):

• The bill would prohibit my inclusion of curriculum and dialogue that acknowledges the lived experiences of my current students who have gay parents or other gay family members or friends.
• The bill would prohibit my colleagues who work with older elementary and middle school students from including dialogue or curricular material that acknowledges and supports students who may be gay or questioning or who have gay family members or friends.
• The bill would limit our inclusion of curriculum in which sexual orientation or identity is relevant to understanding. For example, a discussion of race, ethnicity, and power is relevant to understanding slave narratives or narratives by native peoples (both of which are currently part of our third grade curriculum, by the way). This bill prohibits a similar discussion of sexuality and power as it relates to understanding  historical and cultural events, social structures and consequences, literature, poetry, other creative works, and so on.
• The bill severely limits and/or prohibits teachers and counselors from sharing gay-positive materials with gay and questioning students (who do exist in middle school, and sometimes even late elementary school).
• The bill severely limits and/or prohibits both offensive and defensive efforts to address bullying around issues of sexuality or perceived sexuality.

In addition, the bill seems reliant on at least two faulty assumptions. First, the bill suggests that sexuality is a non-issue before ninth grade. As anyone who knows anything about human development can confirm, sexuality has a place in the lives of all people at all points in their life, both personally and contextually. This looks very different at different ages, but has a presence nonetheless. For example, my students are four and five. Generally, they are not dealing with issues of their own sexuality, but the sexuality of their parents, older siblings, extended family members, family friends, and so on, plays an important role in shaping the cultural and social contexts in which they live. I have a responsibility to help my students understand the world they see around them – a world in which diversity has an active presence (as relates to sexual orientation and a billion other identity markers). Sexuality has consequences for our social structures and the lives of my students. As such, sexuality is a relevant issue prior to ninth grade and being able to address it in age-appropriate ways is vital for supporting healthy students, families, and communities.

Second, the bill seems to suggest the idea that NOT talking about homosexuality means it doesn't exist or will disappear. Sorry to say, that’s not true. Campfield says his bill is morally and ethically neutral, but banning the discussion of one thing while allowing continued discussion of another is not neutrality. It is blatant bias. And, looking through the examples of history, intentionally creating silence around an issue won’t silence those fighting the injustice of hatred.

And in times of blatant hatred, sometimes a little tongue-in-cheek comedy is a helpful way to take action. Thus, props to George Takei. I’m on board. "It's OK to be Takei!"


Plus, as an ironic side note, yesterday (before I knew about SB49 passing) I read And Tango Makes Three with my students. It’s a children’s book that’s been banned all over the place because it “promotes the gay agenda.” It’s a true story about two male penguins in NYC's Central Park Zoo who adopt an egg in need of care and raise the resulting chick, Tango. We read the book because it integrated perfectly into our current curriculum. We’ve been talking for months about families – what a family is, who’s in a family, and really working to acknowledge the idea that no two families are the same, that all family compositions and identities are ‘real’ families, and that we can find similarities between ourselves and others, just as we can find differences. In addition, this week we were talking about zoos – as we focused on the letter Z, continued investigations about animals, and visited the zoo one block from our school. AND, we’ve been preparing the children for their eventual transition to the next grade level. We’ve been visiting the classrooms they may be in next year and the students in those rooms have been studying bird life cycles, so have been hatching chicken, duck, and quail eggs. My kids loved hanging with the baby birds. As such, And Tango Makes Three touches on all these curricular topics – families, zoos, animals, baby birds. How could I possibly have found a better curricular match?! “Gay themes” be damned. And what did the kids want to talk about when we finished the book? How cute penguins are and how parenting penguins prepare and then care for their baby chicks. Very controversial stuff.

For other (blatantly anti-SB49) videos, you can check out Jon Stewart and the folks at FCKH8.

Queering pop culture

I like Glee.  It’s my guilty pleasure and the only TV show I watch faithfully. 

And this week’s episode struck a chord with me.  To catch you up, in case you aren’t a regular watcher, Kurt Hummel is the only openly out gay student at McKinley High.  And he faces relentless bullying, overt and subtle – gay jokes and taunts, getting thrown in the dumpster, being slammed into lockers, the whole gamut.  This week’s episode in particular really highlighted the overwhelmingly oppressive darkness that results from being treated with less than your full humanity, and how sometimes even the most well-meaning friends, teachers, and family-members can’t quite get past the “Sorry you’re having a hard time, but if you’re gay, things are gonna be rough” into a place where they reject the norm of intolerance, declare it unacceptable, and live that resistance in word and deed.

This week, in the midst of feeling utterly alone, Kurt met a new ally in Blaine, an openly out student at another high school, who offers Kurt courage, hope, and assurance that change is possible and life gets better.  Plus, Blaine can SING.  (And DANG, can he sing!  We know how I have a ridiculously intense sweet spot for men’s a cappella, and the Dalton Academy Warblers bring it, singing a cover of Katy Perry’s “Teenage Dream.”  I’m fairly certain this pushes my previous Glee favorite song – Lea Michele and Idina Menzel’s rendition of Lady Gaga’s "Poker Face" to number two!) 


As you may have noticed, I titled this post “Queering pop culture.”  In the realm of feminist theory and resistance, to ‘queer’ something means to change the way it’s seen, to shake the assumptions that hold social constructions in place, to deviate from what is socially understood as normal, and sometimes to even try to redefine what normal is.  For me, to queer something can be a very positive thing – it can jolt folks out of their ‘normal’ experience long enough to (sometimes, we hope) be critical about why we do what we do, who it benefits, and who it limits.  When we queer our understanding of the world, it can free up space for all people to freely be more wholly who they are.

What I like about this episode of Glee (and several others – several with Kurt’s dad come to mind), is that it (intentionally or unintentionally) has the potential to queer viewers’ ways of understanding the world (which, I believe, is a good thing).  Merely because of its willingness to place marginalized experiences, like Kurt’s battle with bullying, at the center of the public’s view, those stories can be told through the eyes of those living them rather than through the eyes of those who fit into the social norm.  (For feminist theory folks, we’re talking margin-to-center stuff here, and pushing into the power of standpoint theory.)  Listening to marginalized voices tell their own stories tends to show the deep complexities of oppression, power struggles, and lived experiences in ways that are often erased when dominant voices frame the story.  (This is the same concept often talked about in the context of history.  “The victor writes the history books.”  How is Columbus’s arrival in the Americas told differently through the eyes of native peoples?  How would understanding change if racism were talked about as not merely individual, but also historical, structural, and institutional? You get the idea.)

So, I am grateful that this piece of Kurt’s story, as told through his eyes and his experiences, (alongside and in conjunction with other stories in other places) has the potential to complicate general understanding of the human experience.  While Kurt’s story is not necessarily unique, nor the first time that such material has been on television, its presence on a popular, prime time, network television show is noteworthy and worthy of recognition.

Plus, they sing and dance! 

Even so, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a few of the frustrations I felt in watching how Kurt’s story played out on Tuesday’s episode and how those things relate to larger concerns in society.  In the show, after Kurt sees the Warblers sing, he has a short conversation with Blaine and two other Warblers over coffee. 

First, one of the students explains that at Dalton everyone is treated the same because they have a zero tolerance harassment policy.  While I understand the impulse to suggest ‘easy’ fixes to issues of bullying, harassment, and abuse, adopting a zero tolerance policy is not enough.  To create a safe environment for all students requires the changing of minds, the disruption of prejudices and biases, and a communal commitment to holding one another accountable to treating all people with their full humanity.  And those efforts require continual work to learn how to think and act differently (because it does NOT come naturally in a society like ours built upon prejudice and inequality).  So, adopting a zero tolerance policy is not a cure-all.  It is surely a beginning step, but does not and will not create safe spaces for all students without intense, committed, and continuous work.

Second, when explaining how the school’s zero tolerance policy works, one of the students said, “Everybody gets treated the same, no matter what they are.  It's pretty simple.”  In the ideal world, it would be simple.  In the real world, it’s not.  Even in his statement, the student uses language that can feel dehumanizing.  My hope would have been that he said, “Everybody gets treated the same, no matter WHO they are.”  While this could be chalked up to a simple grammatical slip-up, it is important to be thoughtful about language use.  We want to always aim to use language that honors individuals’ full humanity, rather than reduce people to objects (WHO you are vs. WHAT you are).

Third, Blaine offers Kurt some advice.  He says, “You can refuse to be the victim. Prejudice is just ignorance, Kurt.  And you have a chance right now to teach him.”  I agree; prejudice is ignorance.  But, prejudice is often backed by power.  In our society, individuals, groups, institutions, etc. get away with homophobia, racism, sexism, and so many others, because our social systems support them.  Society is not inherently neutral.  Lines were drawn long before we showed up on the scene, and while we didn’t pick the setup, it’s been laid out for us.  Battling ignorance IS about education and about sharing information that changes the ways the world is understood, but we’re already starting on biased ground.  The battle truly is an uphill climb.  Plus, the battle is bigger than changing individuals.  It involves changing individuals and seeking to change the larger culture that places limits and restrictions on those who don’t conform to a socially built idea of ‘normal.’  So, while perhaps Blaine’s advice is accurate and appropriate for Kurt, for Glee, and for the audience, I feel the need to acknowledge some of the complexities in accomplishing what Blaine suggests.

Okay, enough of my being down on the details. 

As Emma Pillsbury would say, “Yay, Glee!”  Plus, I must offer a shout out to actors Chris Colfer (who plays Kurt Hummel) and Max Adler (who plays Dave Karofsky).  You gentlemen are amazing in your attention to detail.  You knock my socks off!

Also, if you’re interested in other pretty mainstream examples of queering pop culture, a good example is the video below.  The men of the University of Rochester's YellowJackets filmed a parody of the video to Taylor Swift’s “You Belong with Me.”  Much like Glee’s version of “Teenage Dream” could be interpreted as a musical conversation between two same-sex participants (Blaine and Kurt), the YellowJackets reimagine a song originally written about a hetero- couple in a queer context.  (The video below has Swift’s voice as audio.  If you want to hear the YellowJackets sing it, go here.)


From my perspective, the more we queer pop culture, the more space exists for everyone to feel safe and comfortable being exactly who they are.  There has been a lot of news coverage in the past few months about young people who have taken their own lives as a result of bullying focused on the victim’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.  Information from The Trevor Project tells us that suicide rates have not gone up, only the level of media attention they are receiving.  Young people all over the country, and all over the world, are feeling hopeless, voiceless, and alone.  Queering pop culture is one (of many) ways to help people feel less alone.  Seeing media representations of characters and experiences to whom and with which they can relate matters.

If you’re unfamiliar with The Trevor Project, check them out here.  Also, the It Gets Better Project, founded by writer and media pundit Dan Savage, is a space designed to give voice to experiences often pushed to the margins.  Their tag says, “Many LGBT youth can't picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can't imagine a future for themselves. So let's show them what our lives are like, let's show them what the future may hold in store for them.”  There are many great videos in their archives.  If you haven’t seen the video by Fort Worth, Texas City Councilman Joel Burns, it is especially worth watching.

And, on a final, final note, if you feel the need to hear more delicious a cappella, give this a try.  It’s the Leading Tones from The Ohio University (Ohio represent!) singing Ben Folds' "Brick."  (Did you know Ben Folds pulled together a WHOLE album of collegiate groups singing vocal arrangements of his songs?!  It's called Ben Folds Presents: University a Cappella!  Hell to the yeah!)

Peace.

Supporting food safety

There are days when I wonder if anything is safe to eat.  (Like yesterday when the prepackaged garden salad I got from the school cafeteria looked as if it hadn’t even been washed.  The lettuce had weird dusty black ick all over it.  And it wasn’t dirt.  And it didn’t stick like mold.  I don’t know what it was, but it was disgusting.  And dirty.  And don’t mock me; you wouldn’t have eaten it either.) 

On an increasingly common basis I think about ways I can become more closely connected to the source of my food.  I want to KNOW the conditions in which it was grown; how it was altered chemically, genetically, or environmentally; and frankly whether it’s safe for me to eat.  In many ways, it’s a hard balance.  Living in a very urban space on a below-the-poverty-line income, I have limited options.  (BUT, I do have options, AND I have the cultural capital to know about those options and how to access them, so really I’m not in the same bad situation as many, many others.)  But, in the process of feeling safe about the source of my food, I have rarely felt that the government had my best interests (aka – my health and well-being) at heart. 

Slow Food USA has created a video and a petition they hope will help change that.  They're asking Congress to better regulate the food industry and thus help ensure the health of all Americans.  So we're talking about making corporations accountable for actions (or the lack of actions) that produce/protect a healthy food supply; demanding that the USDA and FDA communicate better with one another; and supporting legislation that simplifies food safety regulation.

Sounds good to me.  Here's the video:


And, if you're interested, you can look at and/or sign the petition.

Video Spotlight: Rachel Maddow’s take on women candidates versus women’s rights

It’s feeling about time that I get back to my “Video Spotlight” roots, as it were.  Usually I post up short three or four minute videos.  Not today.  Today I’m asking you to take 13 minutes to listen to this BRILLIANT segment from this past Thursday’s The Rachel Maddow Show.  Rachel discusses the rise of women candidates in the GOP and the logical analysis that women candidates can have an influence on women’s votes.  She also explains that women (brace yourself) might not vote based on chromosomes, but rather on issues.  Shocking, right?!  Just as the number of women candidates in the GOP rises, so too rises that number of right-wingers, including women, who take the previously extreme view that abortion should be banned for ALL people, including victims of rape and incest.  So, will women citizens vote for women candidates who propose greater and greater limits to women and girls’ reproductive rights?  Hard to say.  I hope not.  They surely won’t have my vote.

In addition, the segment features a discussion with the wonderful Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University, who shares this gem:

"There is no place in the world and no time in history where restricting women's reproductive rights makes a people or a nation more free or more equal.  These extreme positions on abortion are without any question a war on American girls and women, and the fact that there are women who are both complicit and participatory in it is really neither surprising nor unprecedented.  It has always been true and it is incredibly important that we recognize that, despite the fact that we can be very proud of these women as women and as politicians, that the question is: how do women as citizens fair on the other side of them either being elected or not elected?"

Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And, if you need a little laugh/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you humor/sorrow in your life, you can give this little “Rachel Maddow is a lesbian vampire” segment from yesterday’s show a watch too.  Wow.

Responding to Focus on the Family's "back-to-school tools to... push back against the gay agenda"

Earlier this month, CitizenLink (a Focus on the Family affiliate) did a report that offered "back-to-school tools that'll help you identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom." (Note: Typically in my posts I link to organizations and groups I reference, but I’m not particularly fond of Focus on the Family and their affiliates, so if you’d like to see their sites directly, I encourage you to do so, but you will need to seek them out directly. They will come right up when you search for them by name.)

As a classroom teacher and an active LGBTQ advocate and ally, the CitizenLink broadcast makes me disheartened, sorrowful, angry, and hurt. Originally I sat down to write a satirical, comedic blog post on this topic, but I think I need to offer a sincere response. (Even so, comedy can be a great tool when confronting homophobia and bigotry. Bryan Safi over at Current TV has a great comedic response to Focus on the Family’s broadcast on his regular segment That’s Gay, which I enjoy thoroughly. You can watch his response here.)

Two things in particular about the CitizenLink report concern me:

First, CitizenLink’s Education Analyst (and I cringe at that title because it sounds so impartial and unbiased, but no one is truly objective and I’m trying to be respectful, so…) Candi Cushman makes a suggestion that concerned parents should check their child’s school library catalogue and search for key terms such as ‘homosexuality,’ ‘gay,’ and ‘lesbian.’ She says that if lots of items come up in the search then the school probably supports ‘the gay agenda.’ She argues that school libraries reflect school philosophies and if a library has a lot of ‘gay books’ then kids can check them out and teachers can use them as classroom resources. My thought is that libraries are meant to be the storehouse of available knowledge, which suggests that all ideas and opinions should be represented. If the ‘gay books’ are absent or restricted, then the library has failed to do its duty as a holder of knowledge and, at its worst, is participating in censorship. To blame a school for having books and resources is to deny trust or respect to its users – teachers, staff, students, and families – to be self-selective and judicious about material use. It also suggests that ‘gay books’ make people gay which, shockingly, is not true.

So, first, I’m concerned that Focus on the Family is suggesting a censorship of books and resources.

Second, CitizenLink’s anchor (or whatever) Stuart Shepard talks, along with Cushman, about ways to “identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom.” He says,

“Teachers send a lot of things home in the backpacks. It's important to read what's in there and kinda look for language that might be suggestive [of the gay agenda]. Often bullying is one of the ways that it's disguised. It talks about a Safe Schools Week or a Bullying Seminar."

In my experience, bullying takes many forms and attacks many people for many different reasons. Sexual orientation and gender identity, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of your friends or family, are only some of those reasons. At some point EVERYONE is the victim of bullying. I promise. To suggest that schools’ efforts to confront bullying supports ‘the gay agenda’ (whether you agree with that statement or not) denies the reality that ALL students can benefit from having less bullying in their lives – as protagonists and as victims. Cushman goes on to talk about ways to confront ‘real’ bullying, but as a professional educator I am shocked that ‘safe schools’ and ‘bullying’ are apparently buzz words synonymous with ‘gay activists’ and ‘gay supporters.’ I can pledge, proudly, that I will continue to actively fight bullying in my school and community and that INCLUDES fighting to protect LGBTQ folks and their friends and families. Mark me down as a ‘gay activist’ and ‘gay supporter.’ I welcome the label. And apparently families should now fear me. Though I’m still confused as to why. Bullying, in all its forms, hurts everyone, and we should do everything in our power to actively confront it.

Cushman goes on to talk about ways that “cute little pictures of furry animals” are used to “sneak… homosexuality lessons into things with innocent sounding titles.” She references the children’s book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson and illustrated by Henry Cole, which tells the true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins at New York City’s Central Park Zoo, who adopt an egg in need of nurturing and hatch and raise their daughter Tango. I’ve read the book. It’s lovely. And for the children in my classroom who have same-sex parents, it made them feel a little more recognized and understood in the world, and for my students who came from families put together in other ways (and there are many ways to build a family), the book gave them one more way to understand what it means to be a family.

At the end of the day, it sounds like Focus on the Family thinks bullying is okay and books/furry animals encourage being gay. All of this is simply a crock of shit. And as I teacher I will proudly, adamantly, and unapologetically stand against bullying and utilize any and all books and resources (though not as likely cute fuzzy animals) to help my students understand the complex reality of the world around them. My intention is not to make Christians or others who don’t condone homosexuality or gender variance to feel unwelcome, but it is my responsibility to create an environment where all people feel welcome, valued, seen, and heard – including folks who identify as LGBTQ. Rather than censoring access to knowledge or promoting one idea of the world, my job is to help students and their families develop critical thinking skills that allow them to make their own life choices while honoring the freedom of others to do the same.

If you’d like to see the full video of the CitizenLink broadcast, it’s here (9min30sec).
(Image from here.)

Reconsidering Columbus Day

I had today off from work. While it's the first time I've been in a job in 10 years where I get holidays other than Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day off, I can't say I'm particularly happy to spend the my first holiday 'celebrating' Christopher Columbus. (I actually spent the day working on my thesis, but...)

Nu Heightz Cinema put out an important PSA earlier this week trying to open and extend conversation about the serious problems surrounding Columbus Day.


To learn more, visit Reconsider Columbus Day or any of the partner organizations:
United Confederation of Taino People
International Indian Treaty Council
Rethinking Schools

And for educators, Rethinking Schools put out a book called Rethinking Columbus back in 1991 that compiles essays, poems, interviews, historical vignettes, and lesson plans to help readers reevaluate the myth of Columbus and issues of indigenous rights. Definitely worth checking out.

If you'd like to take action, consider signing the petition for a National Holiday for Native Americans.

Call to ACTION in Illinois! Stop the budget cuts!

We're in a sad, sick state of affairs in Illinois, and this is one of those situations where we CANNOT just sit on our hands and expect things to turn out well in the end. This is battle that needs champions fighting for our beliefs and our rights. Folks like you and me.

Here's the skinny:
On May 31, 2009 the Illinois General Assembly passed a partial year budget for FY 2010 that created a $9.2 billion funding gap, which is forcing drastic cuts in community- and state-provided fundamental social services ($5 billion in cuts for community-provided services and $4.2 billion in cuts for state-provided services, says Governor Quinn). (This issue is the "Current Focus" on the www.illinois.gov website.) We're looking at severe cuts in mental health services, addiction prevention and treatment programs, violence prevention programs, family planning services, child care and youth services, and education programs. The budget is set to go into effect July 1 (next Wednesday) and will be devastating to the people of Illinois unless we demand that our legislators return to Springfield and work out a budget for the full fiscal year that includes new revenue to support these critical programs in our communities (which can be achieved by a 2% tax increase).

When considering the breadth of the budget cuts, here are just a few of the numbers (and their sources) to give you an idea of how this budget vote could affect the every day lives of Illinois citizens. The budget cuts would result in:

• the lose of $271 million in child care assistance, thus eliminating care for over 142,000 children (who are members of over 80,000 low-income working families) (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services; Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the elimination of preschool for 100,000 children (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the elimination of $251 million (a cut of 40% in rates) for providers who serve children and adults with developmental disabilities (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• a $108 million reduction in funding for community mental health programs (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• the closing of 6 of the 9 state-operated psychiatric hospitals (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• a 50% cut to the stipend received by foster parents, meaning that many parents may no longer be able to afford to care for their foster children. Approximately 20,000 children could lose their foster families. (Planned Parenthood of Illinois; Governor's Office - Department of Children and Family Services)
• the tripling of DCFS staff workers' foster care caseloads from 15 children to 50 children and the doubling of active investigative caseloads from 11 to 20 cases per investigator (Governor's Office - Department of Children and Family Services)
• a 75% cut in community health programs (including teen, family, and domestic violence programs) (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• the elimination of all community care program services for 20,000 lower-income seniors not eligible for Medicaid and reducing benefits for 55% of the remaining 35,000 Medicaid eligible community-care clients (Governor's Office - Department on Aging)
• the elimination of the Communities of Color Prostrate Cancer Initiative and Communities of Color HIV/AIDS Initiative, together providing services to over 375,000 people (Governor's Office - Illinois Department of Public Health)
• the cutting of $247 million in MAP undergraduate grants and college book stipends for 147,500 low-income students (Governor's Office - Illinois Student Assistance Commission)
• a 75% cut in state family planning funding, resulting in nearly 6,500 women not receiving their annual medical exam, pap smear, or supply of oral contraceptives. (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• a lose of $9 million in funding to the YWCA, which would lead to the closure of 1/3 of their facilities (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the forced layoffs of more than 10,000 state workers (Governor's Office)
• the estimated lose of $2 billion in federal matching funds to the state of Illinois (Governor's Office)
  
• the endangerment of up to $3 billion in federal stimulus funds over the next two years (Governor's Office)
  

Brutal. And the potential to be utterly devastating. And, it can't go without noting the ways in which these budget cuts unproportionately affect folks already dealing with issues of systemic inequality: the poor and working-class, people of color, women, children, the elderly, and those will mental or physical disabilities. The budget would pile additional hardship and discrimination on those who already carry its heaviest weights.

And to make it a bit more real, if you need even more concrete evidence of the budget's destructive potential, every week for the past two and a half years I've hung out with three and four year olds at the St. Vincent DePaul Center, which provides (in addition to other things) NAEYC-accredited child care and early childhood education. We have 25 classrooms, serving infants through kids in full-day kindergarten, plus before- and after-school care for school age children. The proposed budget cuts would entirely eliminate the child care and youth programs, affecting more than 800 Chicago children and families at this one site alone. Plus, all of our education staff will be cut, contributing to the statewide increase in forced layoffs. Many families the Center serves will literally be forced into the position of choosing between buying food for their family, paying rent and utilities, or paying for child care.

The proposed budget cuts would destroy our Center, spit in the face of our 94 year history, and devastate the lives of families with whom we partner.

But such tragedy is not the only option. With the passing of an as small as 2% tax increase, the citizens of Illinois can save the programs that support our communities. A 2% tax increase would raise our taxes from 3% to 5%, which for the average Illinois family is roughly $14 a week. While $14 a week, and thus $56 a month, adds up, it is a worthy sacrifice to maintain the programs that support the health and well-being of all Illinois citizens. This budget cut stands to hurt all of us and together we must be willing to tell our elected officials that we won't stand for it, that we believe alternatives to the budget cut are possible, and that we rely on their leadership and ability to represent our views by funding education, health care, and human services across the state.

To take action, you have numerous choices. You can:

Call your state representatives and voice your opposition to the “General Assembly’s 50 Percent Budget Cut.”

To locate your state representative, visit here. (It's easiest, I think, to provide your zip+4.) You can also call the Illinois State Board of Elections Chicago Office at 312-814-6440. Let the operator know that you need contact information for your state representative. You will need to provide your home address.

Before calling your representative, consider visiting Illinois Action for Children for suggestions on what to say to your state representatives. You may also want to see how your representatives voted in the original budget vote, which you can do by looking at the "House Roll Call on the Tax Increase" (pdf). IMAN has also provided a nice telephone call protocol you could use. Here's their suggestion:

Call your representative and senator along with the governor and say:

"Hi, my name is ______ and I live in ______. I would like to speak to Representative ______/Senator ______/Governor Quinn."

You will probably be told that he/she is not available. If so, ask to leave a message:

"I am calling to ask Representative ______/Senator ______/Governor Quinn to work with others in Springfield to resolve the current budget crisis. I support an income tax increase from 3% to 5% and an expansion of the sales tax base in order to fund education, health care, and human services across the state. I am counting on your leadership in this important effort! Thank you for your consideration."

Please call your state representative (Illinois House) first and then call Gov. Quinn (217-782-0244) and your state senator all this week. Ask five other people to do the same.

You can also utilize a number of online email formats to voice your concern. Planned Parenthood of Illinois has an editable form letter that focuses on the budget cuts' consequences for women and children.

And the National Association of Social Workers Illinois chapter is sponsoring a more general but still editable email in which they use your address (or zip+4) to pull up all your elected officials' contact information. Then they allow you to choose to whom you would like to send your email. They also give you the option of sending a copy of your email to a large number of media organizations. It's a quick and easy way to go.

Please take action. Immediately. You can do it. It's important that you do it. It's makes a huge difference for the future of our communities.

(photo credits: These are some of my kids from the Center. These are the kids who stand to lose childcare if the budgets is implemented next week. The consequences to their families may be dire.)

Food Inc. - "You'll never look at dinner the same way again!"

So, in the last month or so I've been bombarded with info about the film Food, Inc. Whether I'm just hooked in to all the right info feeds or what, I don't know, but I'm pretty jazzed about seeing this film, which is now showing across the country. (To find out if/when it's playing near you, check the listings here.)

The film is described (on IMDB) as "An unflattering look inside America's corporate controlled food industry." And it seems to address the food industry from a number of angles: animal conditions, worker conditions, food safety/quality, human health consequences, legislation and national food policy, and the general workings of agribusiness. A broad scope, surely, but integrally connected.

I was first introduced to the film by a message on the packaging foil that seals my yogurt tub. I'd never seen Stonyfield (or any other yogurt company) advertise for a film, and while I was a bit suspicious, I also trust Stonyfield to make conscious choices about their packaging. (Maybe I'm delusional, but at least I'm hopeful.) With a little investigation I realized that Stonyfield Farm President and CE-Yo (you know, YO as in yogurt) Gary Hirshberg is featured in the film; thus the connection and cross-promotion. But, Stonyfield's website features some great stuff about the film, including the trailer and an exclusive (and really good) interview with the film's director Robert Kenner, in which he talks about the film's intention to promote informed consumer choices. He says,

"[The film is about the] freedom to know both what's in the food, what we're eating, where it's coming from, and what we're allowed to say about this food. I realized this is a film about our rights to know as Americans."

Then, I heard a story on NPR's Morning Edition by Steve Inskeep, in which he talked with Kenner and food advocate and author Michael Pollan (who is also featured in the film) about the film. (Web-info and a link to the audio is available here.) Inskeep takes them to task to explain in detail each phrase from an single line early in the film which says, "Our food is coming from enormous assembly lines where the animals and the workers are being abused and the food has become much more dangerous in ways that are being deliberately hidden from us."

And, talk of the film is making its way around the blogosphere (for example, this) and numerous news sites, including reviews on Variety and indieWIRE and interviews Kenner did with The Washington Post and The New York Times.

And the film's website itself is a wealth of good information. These folks have built bridges -- laying out the issues point for point, creating rich resource lists for information-seekers, offering suggestions for getting involved, particularly in the area of children's nutrition, and building alliances with important advocacy organizations. They even have their own blog called Hungry for Change which looks to be regularly updated and pretty informative.

But not everyone is happy about the film's release. Monsanto is so pissed they've go their own anti-Food Inc. webpage up and running, which I find hugely interesting because most of the time big agribusiness just ignores films and books that have the potential to discredit them. Perhaps we're getting near some point of critical mass and they're nervous... (Kenner talks about the film's efforts to work with Monsanto in The Washington Post article.) (Also, I'm not a fan of Monsanto, so I won't talk about them anymore, but Deborah Koons Garcia did a nice job making them look like asses in her 2004 film The Future of Food, another great documentary worth checking out.)

All that said, I'll stop talking about the film and hopefully see it soon. If you see it before me, let me know what you think! Here's the trailer:


(photo caption & credits: Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin is an organic farmer and an agribusiness critic featured in Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures)

UPDATE:
I watched Food, Inc. last weekend at my local indy film theater and earlier this week a friend emailed asking what I thought of it and whether it was worth seeing. An edited version of my reply is below. (It may be of value to note that my friend is a farmer living and working on a very new, organic, family-owned farm in New England, so he knows way more about food than I do and has spent considerable time really thinking about the importance of food and our food industry.)

The film was decent. I didn't learn much that I didn't know before. Very little, actually. But I think the film would be a decent introduction for folks new to thinking about the role of corporations in U.S. food culture and food industry. The film hit on a number of issues – food labeling, foodborne illness, health consequences of our current food choices, factory farming, corporate influence on family farms, animal rights, worker rights, environmental impact, law and governmental policy, and so on. And I think the filmmakers made an effort to give voice to a number of viewpoints, though they didn't pretend to be entirely ‘objective’ in their response and analysis. (And why should they?) Interestingly, they made a point NOT to villainize big business, using interviews with Greg Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farms, and Wal-Mart buyers (meaning product purchasers, not public consumers) to talk about the power of public opinion and consumer demand. Long and short, I think the film has the potential to rattle mainstream folks who haven't thought about where their food comes from.

Plus, the film spends a good chunk of time talking to Joel Salatin, a mighty spunky farmer for Polyface Farm in Virginia. The farm seems to deal mostly in meats – beef, pork, poultry – but in all the ways you wish meats came to market – organic, local, free range birds, grass fed cattle, and so forth. Joel serves as a powerful voice in the film, but I wonder if the audience 'got' it, because most of his talking was done while he was doing farm work, including slaughtering chickens and preparing them for market (as compared to most of the other interviewees, who have the backdrop of their kitchen or office). With the typical consumer/film-goer so removed from the origin of our food, folks watching the film with me seemed unsettled and/or shocked to see animals slaughtered. (There were numerous audible gasps and lots of uncomfortable squirming in the theater.) While I’m glad folks had this response, I’m also really afraid that they won't think about why they felt that way, but will rather push it to the corners of their mind, ignore it, or – worse – consider Joel and farmers like him 'heartless' – which is about as far from the truth as you can get, but that is a mental jump I can understand when folks have never seen an animal slaughtered before. Mind you, the film also shows animals in factory slaughterhouses, but not at the moment of death and often as animal parts rather than whole creatures, which makes it easier, I think, for folks to distance themselves. I wished there was a bit more explanation in the film about what was going on in both of these situations, such that film-goers would have guidance to better understand what they were seeing. (For example, for folks who’ve never seen or read anything on slaughtering poultry or beef, they wouldn’t recognize or understand what the most humane, painless way to go and why. They just see slitting throats and freak.)

I also went back to reread Monsanto’s retaliatory website after watching the film. Comparing their views and those in the film is one of those "nobody's lying, still the stories don't line up" situations (Ani lyrics). The film, I think, sought to question the ethics of Monsanto and their influence – on food policy, with GMOs, with patenting, on farmers, and so on. Monsanto doesn't address these ethical concerns, instead highlighting that they are obeying the law (which they helped frame and influence) and justifying litigation between themselves and farmers featured in the film as an effort to ensure that that others are following the law as well. Personally, I’m not convinced. This is a situation where I think it’s of importance to question laws that put the well-being of corporations ahead of the well-being of people, which is what I believe these laws do. For example, I believe in the importance of seed saving (Dr. Vandana Shiva is a great resource about this issue in India if you’re interested in reading more), and knowing the workings of Mother Nature and how seed spreads from field to field, I think Monsanto's patent infringement politics are shady. Monsanto's website also went out of its way to say that the film demonizes farmers, which I think is utterly untrue. I thought the film demonstrated how many farmers are trapped in an unworkable system under the thumb of corporations like Monsanto.

But that's just my two-cents. All in all, I was glad I saw it. It’s one more piece of media to add to the repertoire. But also nothing ground shattering. As to whether or not you should go watch it, that's your decision. In the meantime, that’s enough rambling from me for one day...

-7/3/09

the economics of poverty

DeNeen L. Brown over at The Washington Post wrote a really valuable article about the high cost of poverty. It is absolutely worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

You have to be rich to be poor.

That's what some people who have never lived below the poverty line don't understand.

Put it another way: The poorer you are, the more things cost. More in money, time, hassle, exhaustion, menace. This is a fact of life that reality television and magazines don't often explain.

So we'll explain it here. Consider this a primer on the economics of poverty.

And the above image was photographed by Lois Raimondo for The Washington Post. The caption read "Harrison Blakeney pays his phone bill through a check-cashing operation that charges 10 percent extra to send the payment. 'That's how they make their money,' he says."

Green Festival 2009

Chicago's 2009 Green Festival was this weekend. This is the third year a Green Festival has been held in Chicago and the third year I've gone. I dig 'em (as you can see from my post about it last year). Organized as a collaborative project between Green America and Global Exchange,

Green Festival [is] a walk through a sustainable community. It begins with finding solutions to help make our lives healthier—socially, economically and environmentally. Individuals along with business and community leaders come together to discuss critical issues that impact us at home and abroad. Organizations and businesses showcase programs and products that restore the planet and all that inhabit it. Neighbor-to-neighbor connections are formed, and skills are shared to empower people to create positive change in the world.

I wanted to share a couple of my highlights from this year's festival with you. (And this is in addition to my joy at being able to eat a delicious organic, vegan lunch from Soul Vegetarian, a restaurant on 75th to which I was introduced a few years back in celebration of a friend's birthday. They make soul food like you wouldn't believe. Yummy!)

First, I had the privilege of hearing damali ayo speak. She's probably best known for her website/art piece Rent-A-Negro.com and the related book How to Rent a Negro. She's a multi-talented woman who uses art, comedy, and a "stand up/smack down" style (her words) to fight racism. Her talk was titled "Are you ready to fix racism? (Or are you too busy pretending it doesn't exist?)" and was based on her "I Can Fix It!" guide to improving race relations in the U.S. (Download the guidebook in PDF from the website to get the full presentation.) She's a bad-ass chick on the path to recruit any and everyone to the rebellion. I'm in.

Second, I went to a talk by Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a organization

Seeking economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development our goal is to empower farmers - partnered with consumers - in support of ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food.

They are doing amazing work on a number of fronts, but I was especially impressed with their efforts to make sure products marked as certified organic live up to the label. Their Organic Dairy Brand Ratings Scorecard is based on a

national survey of organic products in the dairy case [and serves to] showcase ethical family farm producers and expose factory farm producers and brands that threaten to take over organic dairying. With this Web-based rating tool, you can see which brands and dairy products found in your region are produced using the best organic farming practices and ethics. Based on a year’s research into the organic dairy business, the scorecard rates 68 different organic dairy brands and private-label products.

The benefit of such an effort is to inform consumers of organic providers who fail to honor the faith put in them by consumers. (For example, Aurora Farms, the brand that produces 'O' Organics for Safeway and Dominick's has been charged by the USDA with willful violation of 14 tenants of organic certification, which essentially means that products we purchase labeled "organic" might not be.) The Report helped me to see how some of the "organic" brands I've purchased in the recent past (including Horizons (Dean's), 'O' Organics (Safeway), Wild Harvest (Albertson's), and Trader Joe's) are not maintaining the organic standards I expect, while other available brands (including Organic Valley (CROPP), Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods Market - 365 Organics) do much, much better. Good to know. And, apparently, the Institute is launching a brand new scorecard on Monday rating soy products -- everything from edamame and tempeh to tofu and soy milk. Exciting stuff. I'll add a link as soon as the new report goes up.

Third, I went to a panel discussion that was supposed to feature Alice Waters, founder of The Edible Schoolyard, but, sadly, she was ill and unable to attend. However, I was able to hear a number of folks speak about the importance of edible education policy and practice. Filmmaker Chris Taylor screened portions of his film Food Fight: A Story of Culinary Revolt which features Alice, as well as Michael Pollan (who I'm hearing speak tomorrow at the Chicago Public Library!), Wolfgang Puck, and the amazing, amazing, amazing Will Allen and Erika Allen of Growing Power, an AMAZING organization committed to urban agriculture, environmental stewardship, and edible education grounded primarily in Milwaukee and Chicago. The whole point is how food practices are foundations for social activism! Here's the trailer (and for more clips, visit the film's YouTube channel):


On the whole, the Festival was a pleasure, as always. Each year I walk away having learned new things and with a renewed energy to continue diligently down a path of sustainability and justice -- both social and environmental. If you can't get to an upcoming Green Festival, you can always check out Green Festival TV and radio (make sure to check the archives too) for recorded talks, presentations, and podcasts.

UPDATE: The Organic Soy Report and Scorecard is posted over at Cornucopia Institute for your perusal. Also, very sadly, I wasn't able to hear Michael Pollan tonight because the venue sold out. It was a first come, first serve gig, and while I got there early, the poor woman trying to manage the masses said some folks started lining up at noon (for a 6pm talk). What's with those folks? And why didn't they save me a seat?! Maybe next time... Eat happy, y'all. - 5/18/09

Cognition-enhancing drugs & why I'm not convinced they're a good idea

I read a very interesting article in Nature recently that got my brain going (which, ironically, is kind of a joke once you hear what this article was about). Essentially, the authors -- a team of 7 scientists in the U.S. and U.K. -- are advocating for the rights of healthy adults to boost their brain power through the use of pills and are in support of the continued science that would support such a cultural shift.

The commentary opens with a discussion of growing trends on college campuses for students to buy and sell drugs like Adderall and Ritalin (you know, the stimulants typically prescribed to folks with ADHD), not to get high, but to get better grades -- to enhance their brain functioning in a way that gives them a leg-up in the academic rat-race. (On a side note, I also often hear stories of upper/middle-class soccer moms (and many others) becoming Ritalin junkies as they try to keep up with the pressures of day-to-day life, but the authors don't talk about these folks.)

Overall, the scientists say that "We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function" and that doing so with pills is the moral equivalent of undertaking a healthy diet, regular exercise, or ample sleep. They say:

"The drugs just reviewed [Ritalin, Adderall, Provigil], along with the newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology -- ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself."

Brain scientist Martha Farah, one of the article's authors, said that once such brain-boosting pills are developed and marketed, "Almost everybody is going to want to use it."

Okay. Uh. I have to stop here. 'Almost everybody'?! Are you kidding me?! If that's true, you're talking to one sad girl who is losing faith in humanity by the second. For argument's sake, let me try to explain myself. First, my gut is saying that we as a culture are looking at all of this from the totally wrong perspective. If so many people are in situations in which they feel such an extreme pressure to perform -- whether the context be grades, jobs, or day-to-day duties and responsibilities -- and they are turning to brain-altering drugs to 'keep up,' why is our cultural response to 'fix' normal, human (and apparently 'slow') brain functioning rather than to 'fix' a culture that demands greater than human abilities of us? Do you see what I'm saying?! These scientists seem to go along with the assumption that the 'problem' to be solved is human inefficiency, rather than unrealistic cultural expectations. So rather than change the system, we try to change the individual, with mind and body-altering medical intervention. That does not sit well with me. At all.

Anticipating my potential disdain for their pro-cognitive-enhancing banter, the authors try to derail three common arguments against brain pills (my word, not theirs):
1) They're cheating.
2) They're unnatural.
3) They entail drug abuse.

My thoughts and responses:
1) Brain pills are cheating. I care little about this argument. I'm not a fan of cheating. I think it sucks. But in my personal interests, I care less about HOW folks are cheating than WHY they feel they have to do so and addressing those issues first, working to eliminate the desire to cheat rather than punishing those who do. Even so, these scientists argue that brain pills aren't a form of cheating at all. Rather, they suggest, that all forms of intervention modify brain function -- be it getting a good night's sleep, finding a good strategy for relieving stress, getting a private tutor, or drinking a double shot of espresso. And I agree. Yes, all the actions of my life have the potential to affect my brain function, some for the better and some not so much. My concern comes with the manipulative, 'unnatural' way in which brain pills screw with my body. Moving on to argument 2...

2) Brain pills are unnatural. The scientists confront this one directly saying that:

"the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food -- to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy -- bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state."

So, if I understand correctly, humanity is no longer 'natural' so why be concerned about what is natural or unnatural behavior or what is a natural or unnatural product to put into my body? Uh, what?! Is humanity so far removed from Nature that none of the warnings of living in the natural world still apply? Because I don't live in a home built by my own hands, because I don't wear clothes I made myself (from growing the cotton to sewing the garment), because I have a guilty love of Doritos, which surely are no where close to 'natural' -- I have no right to be concerned about the way that naturalness is defined within humanity and within my own life?! Um, yeah, I don't accept that. And even if scientists tried to appease me with a brain pill full of 'natural' stuff (aka - non-synthetic, unaltered, unengineered) that doesn't mean I would accept such a product without concern either. For example, I get freaked out by those advertisements for fancy, 'all natural' vitamin packs or 'health shakes' that promise to make me a super woman. (Maybe it's the 'natural' combined with corporate marketing that I find unsettling and untrustworthy...) Similarly, gasoline is 'natural' but that doesn't make is safe for me to huff. You know what I'm saying? I guess my concern on this whole 'naturalness' conversation is a sense of arrogance I perceive on behalf of these scientists (actually Science, in general) that we (humans) are somehow superior to Nature in knowing what is 'best' for us. How many times do we have to be proven wrong before we gain a little humility? (Uh, global warming comes to mind...) Call me stupid, but I feel pretty confident in the idea that if my brain was meant to function faster than it is, then I would have been born that way or have a natural disposition for it naturally, without the intervention of drugs. Just because my brain CAN work faster or function differently does not mean it's a GOOD IDEA. Ya dig? Just because you can does not mean you should, and in this case doesn't mean it's good for you. We don't know the consequences of altering brain function long-term, and like I said, if my brain was meant to work that way, I think it would. So the "'humans aren't natural' plus 'brain pills aren't natural' equals 'humans shouldn't worry about taking brain pills'" argument doesn't work for me.

3) Using brain pills is drug abuse. The scientists argue that society already addresses drugs along a wide spectrum of social acceptability: caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, and heroin all have their place of acceptance/outlaw along a social continuum, and the scientists argue that there is no reason to place brain pills immediately alongside drugs that have been outlawed. I can understand this argument, but I am really hung up on the idea of medicating otherwise healthy persons. When one of my personal goals is to be as careful as possible about what I put into my body and its effects, really aiming to allow my body to function as 'naturally' as possible, this flies in the face of the expectations I have set for myself. I do not believe in holding others to expectations I set for myself, so the best I can offer is a series of questions: What are the connections between brain pills and addiction? What are the long-term effects of brain pills on the body? Are the pills addressing a concern that could be dealt in a different, less brain-altering way? What motivations are leading people to the use of brain pills to begin with? At the end of the day, I'm not interested in telling anyone what to do with their bodies, so from that perspective, I wouldn't suggest outlawing brain pills or criminalizing those who use them, but I certainly have concerns about persons' health and well-being and apprehensions that pills are not the best means by which to meet those needs.

In fairness, the authors are not flippant about the use of cognition-enhancing drugs, but I am unsatisfied with their suggestions for dealing with probably ethical concerns. First, they site concerns over issues of human safety, which they say can be addressed with study. I agree; study is needed. Lots of study. Though, I would suggest that some of that study include a questioning of the larger cultural contexts surrounding brain pills, rather than just an examination of brain pills themselves.

Second, the authors site a concern for supporting individual freedom from coercion to use brain-enhancing drugs. They recognize both structural and individual sites of coercion and suggest that 'policy' (for which they provide little concrete suggestion) could prevent these problems. I think they're wrong. If we look at their own examples of the percentages of college students already taking brain-enhancing drugs, which is currently an illegal act, you can't tell me that making the drugs legal and then enacting 'policy' -- against what?! peer pressure? -- will provide individuals with truly free choice about taking the drugs. I think the 'freedom' they are talking about is a cultural fluke; that level of true freedom is not possible in the context of our culture. Even if policy says folks are free to make their own choices, cultural pressures will always take their toll. Such is life.

Additionally, the scientists suggest that not all people should be offered the choice to drug up or to refrain. They highlight professions such as those in the military and some in the field of emergency medicine as contexts in which exemptions from policies supporting freedom to refrain are valid. So, even if some people might be protected from forced pill-popping, what does it mean when people holding important, valued positions within society are required to take these drugs? How would this influence the common citizen's attitudes towards the drugs? It seems to me that such acts would support wide-spread drugging up. Is that who we as a culture want to be?

Similarly, the authors support the continued, non-consensual drugging of children -- which is a common practice today anyway, particularly among children diagnosed with ADHD and raises continued questions of children's rights and autonomy (which I'm not going to address further here and now).

And third (and I find this most interesting), the authors highlight their concern for fairness when it comes to use of the drugs. Essentially, they are discussing questions of socioeconomic access and distribution, suggesting (accurately, I believe) that these drugs have the potential to deepen social inequalities, particularly between class groups, if action isn't taken to prevent such gaps. Such inequality already exists. We see it everyday. Who is likely to get the best education? (Answer, in case you need it: white, middle/upper class folks with a history of education and sustained funds to pay for education and all its auxiliary costs.) Obviously, issues of availability and issues of cost will affect how brain pills shift social dynamics in our culture. The authors suggest that 'policy' (again, pretty vaguely addressed) could help address these concerns. For example:

“If cognitive enhancements are costly, they may become the province of the rich, adding to the educational advantages they already enjoy. One could mitigate this inequity by giving every exam-taker free access to cognitive enhancements, as some schools provide computers during exam week to all students. This would help level the playing field.”

So, to solve the problem of unequal access, institutions can give away brain pills to anyone who wants them... Awesome. I found it pleasantly surprising that these scientists considered the social contexts of introducing such drugs into society (perhaps I owe them more credit), but I'm unsatisfied with their solutions for addressing potential social concerns.

When it comes down it, I think the authors suggest -- quite accurately -- that a pivotal key to cognition-enhancing drugs' acceptance is an ongoing questioning of the definition of 'medicine.' On one hand, medicine can be viewed as a field devoted to healing -- a defensive, responsive approach to health. On the other hand, medicine can be viewed as committed to helping people live better lives (though I think the definition of 'better' is up for debate). While I am a happy proponent of preventative health care, I wouldn't place brain pills into the category 'preventative' because I am uncertain what it is preventing. It seems that I trust my own body to function in healthy, live-supporting, and enhancing ways more than these scientists do. And I think that is very scary.

I can't help but think of those "This is your brain on drugs" PSAs from the '80s. (Yes, you can laugh at the thought. I did too.) Apparently their warnings no longer apply.

What are your thoughts? If you’re interested in joining the debate, hit me up here or visit Nature’s public forum on the topic.

It's a new day!

Hey y'all. I've been missing you, but I can't really say 'I'm back' (yet). The quarter -- which has been 'kick-my-ass-black-and-blue' hard -- is finally winding to a close and I'm looking forward to time away from school and time to think (and share) about other things going on in my life and the world. Anyway, I'm taking a quick homework break and wanted to share this vid.



(Giving credit where credit is due: will.i.am is responsible for this viral firestorm. He started work on the song on November 3rd (when I was still very much in the 'fight 'til Obama's in the Oval Office' camp, trusting nothing to optimism...), and he was at Grant Park filming the video on the 4th. They did editing on the 5th, and the song and video, called "It's a New Day," debuted last Friday, November 7, 2008. It has since been performed on The Oprah Winfrey Show and on Larry King Live. Amen, brother. It is a new day!)

Obama won this election a week ago yesterday, and I am still at a loss to describe the hope I have for a future that really strives to achieve some of the goals I most value for our nation and our world -- a clean, sustainable environment; quality education for all; corporate responsibility and accountability; a government that cares about the people not just the elite; responsible foreign policy and involvement; a revival of communal commitment to prosperity rather than individualism... Our dreams are many.

BUT, this work is not the job of President-Elect Obama. A man is not a movement. This is OUR work. And it is a serious undertaking. I'm in. Are you with me?

Get registered!

Life's busy, but not too busy for this.



In some states the last day to register to vote is TODAY. (If you want to know the rules where you live, find out here.) If you aren't registered, please, please, today's the day. It takes two minutes. You can do it online right now.

I think what you have to say is important. Don't you?

Trouble the Water

Tonight a homework break turned into the rare opportunity to watch an important and moving film for which I'm not sure I have the words to justly represent. So, hear me out...

Tonight I went and watched an independent documentary film called Trouble the Water. You probably haven't heard of it. I hadn't either until earlier today.

The film tells the story of Hurricane Katrina through the lived experiences of those least represented but hardest hit. This film, rather than being told through the words or views of the media, politicians, 'experts,' or even aid workers, is told through the lives of Katrina survivors Kimberly Rivers Roberts and her husband Scott Michael Roberts. Born and raised in New Orleans, they lived three blocks from the levees in the 9th ward. When the storm came they had no way to leave the city and were left to fend for themselves. And, until the batteries failed, Kim's camcorder captured their story. Here's a very small piece of it:



Trouble the Water has a lot of big names attached to it. It was directed and produced by Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine producers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. Danny Glover is one of the film's executive producers. The score was created by Robert Del Naja and Neil Davidge. (Del Naja is one half of Massive Attack.) Plus, the film introduces four tracks written and performed by Black Kold Medina (BKM), aka Kim herself. (You can also listen to an ASCAP Network Audio Portrait of BKM here.) The film is even the winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.

But still, very few people know about it. The film does not have a national distribution deal, and at the moment, is playing screen to screen as theatres give them a chance. (As of today, they have short term engagements on a total of 65 screens nationwide. That is NOT a lot, folks. And when I say short-term, I mean, like, they get to screen the film just a few times. Like at the Landmark Century where I saw it, the theatre contracted the film for three days. And they'll decide Monday morning is they keep it or send it out the door.)

Tonight I was lucky enough to watch the film with directors/producers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. They stayed for a Q&A after the screening and spoke with deep emotion about their desire that word of the film would spread. Certainly, the film's success would be good news for them, but far more importantly, they stressed, and I agree, the film tells the story of Katrina in a way that's been ultimately too absent from our understanding of it. The film is about much more than an extreme weather event. It's about not only how Kim and Scott and their whole community were failed by the government during and following the events of Katrina, but how they've been failed by the government and by society their whole lives. The tragedy of Katrina began long before the levees broke and the flood waters rose. And the aftermath is still going on. The film shows some of the ways that issues of race and poverty intersect with history and culture and the hope for a different, better future, and the film does it in the voices of those best able to tell the story.

So, this is my plea to you: If you can go see this film, DO. The only way others will have a chance to see it is if you see it and tell them to see it too. You aren't going to see a commercial for it. You're unlikely to even see a review of it. But, you're reading this, and I'm extending this as your personal invitation. To see when and where the film is playing near you, visit here. (And, all my peeps in Boston, New York, Ohio -- north & south, and Chicago, it's playing near you, now or shortly. Seriously. You have no excuses. Go see it.)

Video Spotlight: The Republican Hater's Ball

I kind of love Jay Smooth. For reals.


And, if you wanna see more, check one of Jay's greatest: How to Tell People They Sound Racist.

Two thumbs down for PETA

While I am a (more than) happy supporter of vegetarianism and veganism, I can't get behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Hasn't happened yet. Can't see it happening anytime in the future. I agree with their stance that animal rights are vital issues in our contemporary society, especially when so many of our "interactions" with animals and animal products are mediated through factory farms, animal product processing centers, product testing on animals, and the clothing trade. Seeking changes that protect animals from cruelty, inhumane conditions, and abuse are issues affecting not only the animals themselves but also our human population. While I do not have a problem with people naturally eating meat because of my personal beliefs about our evolutionary position on the food chain and our natural design to be omnivores, I think we as a culture have worked really hard to pull ourselves out of the natural way of things. There is little that is natural about the production of much of our food, especially meat and meat products. As such, I fully support the many reasons people choose to become vegetarian or vegan -- be it concern for their own health due to the unnatural conditions that intercede in the production of our food (including the use of antibiotics, chemicals, synthetics, etc.); disdain for the cruelty inflicted upon animals in their journey to our grocery stores, food establishments, and stomachs; a deep respect for animals as living creatures worthy of living those lives to their full and natural ends; a contempt for the conditions endured by human laborers as they power the food industry at all levels (including fields, slaughterhouses, and the service industry); an economic unwillingness to financially support any of the harmful practices in our food industries; a simple dislike for meat or animal products; or any number of other valid and worthy reasons.

But, when it comes to PETA, the organization's utter and repeated failure to recognize the intersections of social justice issues prevents me from having any willingness to support their work. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, their continual focus on animal rights, to the extent of perpetuating and reinforcing other social problems, serves (they think) to advance their cause while actually harming the equally vital efforts of other social movements. Allow me to give a number of examples to help clarify my frustration:

I.
Most recently PETA wrote a letter to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

asking to buy space at each of the nine southwest border sectors [of the U.S./Mexico border fence] for our new ad. Those considering entry will then read this message: "If the border patrol doesn't get you, the chicken and burgers will. Go vegan" (or, in Spanish, "Si no te agarra la migra, te atraparan el pollo y las hamburguesas. Sé vegano").

Linsday Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns, said:

We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. [that] they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables.

PETA spokeswoman Ashley Byrne added:

America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave; it's becoming the land of the sick and the home of the obese.

In his Houston Chronicle article, reporter James Pinkerton described the proposed ad (see the picture), saying:

PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."

While the government is expected to reject PETA's offer because it would limit visibility through the fence (a whole other topic I'm not touching today), the fact that PETA would be so ignorant of the larger social issues at play baffles me. Do they really believe that their "target audience" (which is who exactly? folks scaling the wall?) are going to be interested in their message? Or that it would deter them from crossing? I would think folks crossing the border have other things on their mind. Plus, does PETA think Mexican and other immigrant populations never eat meat or cook with meat products (uh, lard, anyone?!), or that they have the resources to eat healthily all the time, or even that healthy eating is not possible within U.S. borders? No offense, but I tend to believe that people desire to move across borders for a reason, and I think those reasons probably outweigh the food warning on a billboard. While I appreciate PETA's apparent concern for immigrant's diet and health, I am confused by their choice of actions. Rather than addressing the exploitation and dehumanization of immigrants and people of color working in the food processing industry, or addressing economic conditions that encourage people to leave their home nations to begin with (where apparently they have a better diet), instead PETA wants to put up an advertisement. I'm honestly lost. They are volunteering to participate in racist and economically oppressive action to further their cause.

II.
PETA has a history of using women's bodies as sexual symbols to grab folks' attention and sell their message. In their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" and "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur" print campaigns, as well as a number of public protests, they've featured attractive women -- nude or nearly nude -- selling their message. Setting aside the sexist reality that they feature only conventionally attractive women and no men in their ads or public displays, when called out on the misogynistic nature of their ads and public protests, their response seemed to echo a "we'll do whatever works" ideology.

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said

While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn. ... Forgive us our bikinis and our shock tactics, but our message that all beings — both human and nonhuman — deserve compassion and respect is one that we must work hard to make heard.

So, if understand correctly, what they're saying is that sex sells. Well, no shit, but that doesn't mean you should use it. Disrespecting woman to promote animal rights does not seem like a progressive, forward-moving approach to me.

(And on an equally depressing side note, did you hear about the world's first vegan strip club? Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club in Portland. According to Fox News coverage (of course, and caution: totally raunchy website for video link), the club's motto is "Vixens not veal, sizzle not steak. We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate." Sick. As Ann at Feministing says so well, "[They're] using the 'ideal' female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.")

III.
On July 31 of this year, Tim McLean, a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Winnipeg, was brutally stabbed and beheaded by a fellow bus passenger, a stranger. Apparently the assailant, Vince Weiguang Li, began eating part of McLean's body. And PETA's response was an attempt to run a newspaper ad with the following text:

"Manitoba... An innocent young victim's throat is cut... His struggles and cries are ignored... The man with the knife shows no emotion... The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of... His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!" ... "If this ad leaves a bad taste in your mouth, please give a thought to what sensitive animals think and feel when they come to the end of their frightening journey and see, hear, and smell the slaughterhouse. Try switching to a healthy vegetarian diet and save lives every day, including your own."

I don't know about you, but as much as I support a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, using such a tragedy to get people to eat more veggies doesn't sit well with me. I understand what PETA wants to say and the passion with which they're trying to say it, but I think they went about it in a pretty insensitive, disrespectful way. (That's an understatement.)

And PETA's comment on the situation:

While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is…

Now, to the best of my knowledge, the ad was rejected by the local paper, but even the thought that trying to run it was a good strategy just doesn't work for me.


All that said, where do we stand? In efforts to support animal rights PETA uses racism, sexism, and the exploitation of tragedy to further their cause. Ignoring the trade-off they are willing to make to further their intentions does not, and will not, convince me to support their version of "social justice."


UPDATE: These people never stop. 2 quick hits:
1. PETA recently submitted a commercial they hoped to air during the Superbowl. It got rejected by NBC for "depict[ing] a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The commercial is part of PETA's "Veggie Love" campaign. When will they learn that there are better ways and means to promote vegetarianism than using sex(ism) and women's bodies? They really, really suck at understanding the whole intersectional exploitation thing. (To read more, Melissa over at Shakesville has laid out the argument quite clearly.)

2. PETA is using KKK imagery to protest the American Kennel Club, meaning that PETA protesters are dressing up like the KKK in both video campaigns and live protests (standing on the street outside Madison Square Gardens handing leaflets to passersby -- the ones who stop to strangers dressed like the KKK). I am not shitting you. I am trying to understand how dressing up like the most notoriously racist terrorist group in American history is okay and I just can't figure it out. As Cara over at Feministe suggested:

This is not progressive. Do you hear me? This is not progressive. And the progressive movement needs to cut off this organization entirely and let reasonable, smart animal rights organizations that fight just as hard without sacrificing the dignity of humans take over. Now.

-2/10/09