(Partial) Credit Where (Partial) Credit Is Due: Susan G Komen's Response to Raise A Stink

It's no secret around these parts that I am vehemently not a fan of Susan G Komen for the Cure.  So when Think Before You Pink (a most excellent org dedicated to exposing pinkwashing and calling companies to account for their pinkwashing ways) launched their campaign Raise a Stink!, asking Komen to recall and reformulate their Promise Me perfume so that it no longer contains galaxolide and toluene, two toxins that have been shown to increase risk of breast cancer (irony FTL?), I was all over that.  I sent off the email to Komen, not really expecting to hear back, or expecting to receive a news update from TBYP at a later date.  To my surprise, however, the following email landed in my inbox this afternoon:

Thank you for your email to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® about the Promise Me fragrance. The fragrance was designed especially for Susan G. Komen for the Cure by TPR Holdings, which is donating $1 million to Komen annually for breast cancer research, education, screening, and treatment programs. The funds raised through the sale of the perfume will be put to good use in the pursuit of that goal.  

Our first concern is always the safety and well-being of women and men facing this disease. To that end, our partners’ products are subject to review by our Medical and Scientific Affairs team, which evaluated the perfume’s ingredients, the latest research, and guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

According to our research, the ingredients found in Promise Me are within fragrance and cosmetic industry standards, and at these levels have not been shown to elevate breast cancer risk in people. At Susan G. Komen for the Cure, we support evidence-based medicine, that is, decisions based on current facts and knowledge.  In addition, we make this information available to our constituents, respecting that they are intelligent consumers who make informed decisions about the use of products based on evidence. As new research and new findings are published, we will certainly take them into account. 

Nevertheless, at Komen’s request and to be sensitive to these concerns, the manufacturer agreed to reformulate the perfume. The last batch of the perfume was manufactured in May of this year; we expect manufacturing and sale of the reformulated product to begin in early 2012.  We do not intend to ask the manufacturer to recall or remove unsold products.

Komen has always believed that ending cancer requires research about how it begins and how it might be prevented, which is why Komen  has invested more than $65 million to prevention research and an additional $7 million supporting 18 projects investigating environmental estrogens, pesticides, steroid hormones, and nitrites/nitrates and their relation to breast cancer.

We’re also taking action for clarity and consensus around the direction that environmental research should take in the future, which is why we requested – and are funding – a $1 million study by the Institute of Medicine to answer that question. We expect IOM’s recommendations in December, along with IOM’s assessment of evidence-based strategies for individuals to reduce their risk of breast cancer. 
Komen is strongly committed to addressing breast cancer through science, advocacy and community and global outreach to achieve our mission to end breast cancer, forever. 

...Hmmm.  Well, good and not good, in spades.

• -1 for excessive use of PR-speak padding "HEY THEY'RE GIVING US A MILLION BUCKS AND WE'RE GOING TO DO STUFF WITH IT" which contains the inevitable undertone of "it's for a good cause so you shouldn't discourage it!" (and we all know how well that goes over with me)
• -1 for "industry standards" and the little dig about "evidence-based medicine" which implies that those of us who are unhappy about this are just being alarmists.  I would think that an org dedicated to "ending breast cancer forever" might want to be a bit more strict about the use of even potentially risk-increasing chemicals than "industry standards" allow.  "Industry" as a whole is about making money, not being safe, and we've all seen what happens when those two goals come into conflict, haven't we?  So yes, I do expect better from a dedicated cause org like Komen than a cop-out about "industry standards".
• -1 for "make this information available and let you decide" as a brush-off.  Part of the point was that independent lab testing found these chemicals, and they were not listed on the label as ingredients.  So no, that's not making information available.  Even if it was, do you really think it's fair to expect your constituents to have at their fingertips the information about chemistry and the research on these particular chemicals to know what they do or their hazards?  If that were the case, why have FDA restrictions on cosmetics and fragrances at all?  Put whatever you want in there, as long as it's on the label so consumers can "make informed decisions based on evidence", right?  The point of standards at the manufacturing level is so that your average person doesn't have to have a degree in cosmetic science to understand what they're putting on their skin.  Since you commissioned the perfume, upholding that standard is your responsibility, and as I said, "industry standards" is not an acceptable cop-out here.
• +1 for requesting that it be reformulated.  Yay!  That was the first part of what we were trying to do, so awesome!
• -1 for not asking the manufacturer to even so much as pull unsold stock.  Even if you don't want to go to the trouble of a recall, don't sell any more of it, FFS.
• -1 for even MORE defensive PR-speak and swinging their Mighty Fundraising And Money-Spending Dick around for everyone to see.  Do I give a shit about what else you've invested and how much?  Not particularly, no.  I was contacting you to address a particular issue, to which you've devoted a single small paragraph out of several so far.  Stick to the point, please.
• -10 for absolutely no hint of apology anywhere, not even a Politician's Nonpology of "we're sorry if it bothered you" or anything.  If you're willing to back down enough to have the product reformulated, shouldn't you be willing to apologize for it?  Of course, given the context of defensive PR and reformulating without pulling unsold stock of the old formulation, I'd bet the decision to reformulate is, in essence, a token "shut the activists up" concession.  In which case, no, they're not going to apologize, because they're not sorry, they just want people to shut up and will do the absolute minimum required to make that happen.

It's good that they're having it reformulated.  However, that's pretty much the only good part to this, and while that was the main goal of Raise a Stink, the manner in which Komen has responded has still left an unpleasant stench for me.  I remain unconvinced of their value as a worthy organization.  No donations for you, Komen.

Postsecret Strikes Again: Gendering the Desire for Marriage

I read PostSecret, as I believe I've mentioned before here.  Sometimes they're banal, sometimes they're annoyingly common - this week included "I don't shave my legs in the wintertime"; who the hell does if you don't absolutely have to, honestly? - many are less "secrets" and more just statements, and there are usually...hopefully...a few that touch a subtle nerve in you, striking up the feelings of poignancy and human connection for which this project became famous.

Of course, reading PostSecret - consuming any kind of media, really - becomes a lot more complicated and interesting once you've "taken the red pill", so to speak.  Things your average person would find funny or scroll past without pausing catch the eye and poke at you.  Like the "I always bring fat customers extra helpings of breadsticks" secret from a few weeks ago, or the few over the years that have admitted to covert feelings of racism, or the cissexist assumptions made about whether or not lesbian couples could ever become pregnant without outside assistance from a couple months back (here is a good roundup of several of the worst offenders).  This week's Sunday Secrets included the following postcard:

A postcard depicting a black-and-white image of a man and woman in traditional Western wedding dress/tux holding each other and smiling in front of a church.  Red text overlaying the image reads "This is what I fantasize about...I'm a guy."

Pop culture in this country makes endless jokes about a presumed male reluctance to commit in relationships with women, and with marriage being the biggest commitment to a relationship one can make, of course men are skittish, amirite?  We understand - and teach young girls - that women long for marriage, that marriage is the pinnacle achievement of Relationship Rewards Points; we're expected to dream about The Big Day when we get to be the princess in the white dress with the church and the wedding cake, to have notebooks filled with pictures of the dream dress, etc.  But we refer to a man's wife as a "ball and chain", bachelor parties are a last-gasp-of-freedom usually involving alcohol and nude women before you lose your freedom forever to your marriage, etc.  Marriage, and weddings in particular, are constructed as a thing women desperately desire and men equally-desperately run from. 

And that's what makes this secret a powerful enough thing to have shown up on PostSecret.  A man is keeping his longing for a wedding (or marriage; it's hard to tell if it's the wedding part or the marriage part he's talking about from the image) a secret because fantasizing about weddings is a girly thing.  And of course, in a culture where masculinity is defined and constructed as not-femininity, the worst thing a man can do to damage his masculinity, and thus his identity as A Man, is admit to being feminine in any way.  For a man to have this girly desire for his wedding day is shameful, emasculating, and thus best kept secret.

I found this fascinating on a personal level, as well as a sociological level, because after being engaged my senior year of high school (and coming to my senses shortly thereafter, thank the gods), then coming to my "feminist awakening" in college, I decided I wasn't all that interested in marriage.  I maintained that position for years, and probably would have been quite satisfied to remain unwed the rest of my life, whether partnered or not - yet I'm engaged now, and looking forward to the day when we can make it legal (we haven't yet, because I refuse to take advantage of a privilege of access gained purely by chance because we happen to have different gender markers on our driver's licenses, and he agrees and supports that choice).  Yet when we got together, and our relationship turned deeply serious, he was the one who asked me to consider marrying him.  Not just in the "he proposed, of course, because the man always does the asking (but it's for show and form, the decision is usually all but made ahead of time)" sense, no.  He knew my feelings on marriage.  And we had a serious discussion wherein he made it clear he would respect that if I said no, but he also explained that he strongly did want to get married.  As in, it was a long-held wish of his, in the way that we teach women they should wish for marriage.  So he was the driving force behind our engagement, out of genuine desire for marriage.  (I've since warmed to the idea quite a bit, although the complexities of the vast war machine that is the wedding-industrial complex still make me want to run screaming into the night.)  So to me, this secret provokes a "So what?  I wouldn't even be engaged if not for the fact that my fiance feels similarly to this guy.  This is a *secret*?"

But I understand why.  It's our gendered expectations of what is an "acceptable" desire re: marriage and weddings that make this statement "I'm a guy who fantasizes about his wedding day" so taboo as to be a Secret one can only tell to an anonymous secret-gathering art project.  I wonder if I could send in a complementary secret, confessing my disinterest in weddings and outright hate for "traditional" wedding gowns, and have it been seen as equally confessional-ish because I'm a woman...?

The Blame Game and #OccupyOakland

I had heard last night that there was a(nother) planned eviction of Occupy Oakland set for this morning.  Nothing much to do but hope and pray that the cops wouldn't turn violent again.  Reading this morning's news, it seems that things were indeed relatively peaceful - legal observers and press observers were permitted to be in the camp unharassed by police, and while the encampment is gone again and there were 32 people arrested - mostly clergy and religious personnel from what I've heard, good job, I'm sure handcuffing priests is absolutely vital to the security of the nation - it did happen without the police brutality that has been the hallmark of these repeated attempts to quash the Occupy movement.

But this morning, in perusing my Twitter feed to catch up on the news, I came across this tweet from my local news channel, @abc7newsBayArea:

Screenshot of a tweet from @abc7newsBayArea reading "Mayor @JeanQuan said over 175 911 calls were not answered this past week because of police attention to #OccupyOakland"

This unfortunately follows the usual pattern of Mayor Quan's faux-populism attacks on #OO: point to various bad things in the city that are harming the people of Oakland, then blame the effects on #OO whether they're related or not.  When there was a shooting near the camp that ended with one man dead, even though neither the victim nor the shooter(s) were affiliated or involved with #OO, Quan used it to call for the encampent to disband because "violence is unacceptable".  It's Oakland, for fuck's sake!  One of the most violent cities in the Bay Area!  Shootings like the one that took place near #OO happen tragically often in Oakland, and statistically speaking it was just a matter of time before one happened in proximity to #OO.  Even OPD declared it unrelated, but Quan tried to make out like it was Occupy's fault and used it to justify evicting the encampment today


And now, this tweet this morning, which holds the not-so-subtle implication that it's #OO's fault that the police are spending time harassing #OO and were thus unable to respond to other calls.  Mayor Quan, you know there's a simple solution to that, right?  Leave Occupy the fuck alone.  All the cops have done around Occupy is stir up more trouble and escalate tensions.  YOU are the one choosing to devote so many police resources - and spending $2.4 million the city could ill afford to cover the costs of evicting #OO this morning, too - to Occupy and thus depriving your other constituents of what little protection or help they might have gained from the cops this past week when those calls were going unanswered.  Don't blame this on Occupy.  Take responsibility for your own actions and your own choices and what they are costing the people of your city, all because you're feeling threatened by some peaceful but very visible protests.

More Imaginary "Rights" from the Religious Right

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act this week, allowing the bill to go to the full Senate where they will vote on this DOMA-repeal act (actually, they probably won't, given the broken filibuster rules and Republicans' willingness to abuse them to the fullest, but still).  The Religious Wrong have been predictably losing their shit over the vote, issuing forth hyperbolic blog posts and testerical "call to action" emails (with a "donate now!" link splashed in three places in the email, natch).  The chip-chip-chip of marriage equality activists undermining their stranglehold on conversations about "morality" and "family" is really getting to them at this point, it seems. 

I'm not going to bother with the roundup of reactions - RWW has that covered nicely.  But there was one line out of the statement given to the media by Catholics for the Common Good (for some value of "common" meaning "het Christian etc", of course), that caught my eye.

"Children have a right to know and be cared for by their mothers and fathers, and government has an obligation to promote the recognition of that right by encouraging men and woman to marry before having children."

No.  Just, no.  That is a "right" you are pulling out of your ass, as your type are so often wont to do.

Children have rights, absolutely and certainly.  Among them is the right to be raised and cared for by loving adults who will consistently and reliably act in the child's best interest.  That does not have shit fucking all to do with "mothers and fathers".  Not a goddamn thing.  Children may be very well cared for by a single parent of any gender; two parents of different genders; two parents of same gender; three or more parents and step-parents; three or more parents in a poly family; a parent and the parent's extended family (aunts, uncles, older cousins, grandparents); extended family alone; non-blood-related friends of the family; and all sorts of other various configurations. 

This insistence on "their mothers and fathers" is a slap in the face to "non-traditional" families everywhere.  It shits on every family who doesn't conform to the nuclear married-man-and-woman-with-biological-children standard.  It is arbitrary, and cruel, and unfair.

Children do have the right to a family, loosely defined.  They do not have a right to married parents.  They do not have a right to either or both biological parents.  (Although frankly, if the fundies would back up off the contraception and sex ed suppression tactics, more children *would* have access to their bio parents, because fewer people would be having kids they didn't want and either giving them up for adoption or choosing to be uninvolved with the kid.  People are more likely to hang onto/stick around with kids they *chose* to have, than ones they accidentally had or were forced to have because they had no other options.)   And personally, I believe the government has an obligation to butt the fuck out of people's private family-organization choices. 

Here's a novel idea: what if, instead of encouraging people to get married, we revamped the education system so that more people had the option for higher education and better salaries (kids and marriage are expensive, after all)?  What if, instead of encouraging people to get married, we ended the War on Poor People People of Color Drugs, which forcibly removes so many low-income and in particular, black men from their communities and families?  What if, instead of encouraging people to get married, we ensured that every child in this country, regardless of their family situation, had safe communities, good schools, good food, and health care?  What if we, y'know, actually gave a shit about the living situations of children in this country and worked to improve them, instead of shaming and browbeating their parents and/or guardians for not being the "right" kind of family unit or not being married first?

Oh, but I forget, those things would require money.  From the government.  Going to help its most vulnerable young citizens.  SOCIALISM I SAY!  And where would this money come from?  Are you suggesting making it impossible for this country's billionaires to make the payments on their seventh yacht in the Mediterranean by raising their taxes a fraction of a percent?  You MONSTER!  Suggesting that their hard-earned investment dividends and bonuses might be better used to feed, shelter, clothe, and educate children.  The NERVE.

As for the jackasses at Catholics for the Common Good, I will simply leave you with this: WWJD?  (Hint: I'm pretty sure it's not "attempt to police everyone's family structures and reproductive choices."  Just sayin'.)

That Awkward Moment When Anti-Choicers Attempt to Advance Fetal Personhood Laws by Condemning Paternalism in Government

It's a good thing I have that "Today in conservative hypocrisy" tag ready!

Via Right Wing Watch, I learned that the director of Personhood USA, the organization behind fetal personhood laws across the nation, had an editorial in USA Today yesterday which began,

Increasingly, the American people are being treated paternalistically by a government, media and public sector elite that stands in direct opposition to our traditional American values.

The only way I can make it make even a pretzel-logic-Glenn-Beckian sort of sense is by pulling another quote from later in the piece:

No greater example exists of this abuse of raw judicial power than Roe v. Wade, a decision by seven unelected men to impose abortion on all 50 states.

Ah.  So I guess I can sort of squint and tilt my head and make it out now.  If you accept the premise that Roe v. Wade "imposed" anything on anyone - as opposed to defining and protecting a fundamental right, which is what it actually did, but let's go with the right-wing bizarro-logic for now - then I guess I can sorta see it: the Ebil Gubmint unilaterally imposed this icky procedure on us because Father Knows Best, thus, paternalism.

Except that for those of us living in the reality-based community, who have not drunk unending gallons of anti-choice Kool-aid, it's flat-out hilarious that the organization operating at the far fringes of a movement whose sole goal is to tell other people what to do with their bodies is crying about government "paternalism". 

I mean, we're talking about anti-choicers here!  At its core, it's an explicitly paternalistic movement in which cis men spend lots of money and effort to be allowed to dictate what pregnancy-capable people can and can't do with their bodies.  And then to go further and hear it from not just any anti-choicers, but *personhood* advocates in particular, whose pet cause would open the door to banning not only abortion, but certain forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization, along with potentially criminalizing every single miscarriage that occurs, well!  "Hypocrisy" seems a mild and weak word to describe the epic whiplash you might get from trying to follow the abrupt about-face of logic they're employing.

PS: It's election day!  Go forth and vote if you can!  And if you're in Mississippi, for the love of all the gods, VOTE and VOTE NO ON 26. 

I can only conclude that "religion" does not mean what I thought it meant.

Because if saying that a governmental goal "cannot be achieved apart from reliance on Almighty God" is not imposing religion, I cannot even begin to fathom what their test is for defining something as "requiring religion". 

This stems from a piece of Kentucky's Antiterrorism Act of 2002, wherein the legislature held that "the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance on Almighty God as set forth in public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents...."  In 2006, this was enhanced by regulations (PDF) requiring the state Department of Homeland Security to publicize this "finding" of the legislature by including the reliance-on-Almighty-God language in its training and educational materials.  These were challenged by American Atheists; a district court judge struck down the provision - rightly concluding that "the General Assembly has created an official government position on God" - then the state took it to the appeals court, which inexplicably held that the language about "Almighty God" is not attempting to compel belief or participation in religious exercise.

Which, um.  To borrow a turn of phrase*, I don't so much beg as command to differ.

The appeals court held that

The Kentucky legislature has not attempted to compel belief or participation in any form of religious exercise, nor does it seek to prefer one belief over another. A simple reference to a generic “God” acknowledges religion in a general way.

The notion of a phrase like "Almighty God" being a "general" reference to religion as a whole can only come from one's vast and unexamined reservoir of Christian privilege.  It's the sort of thing a person would say if they've never really thought of the fact that "religion" is an extremely broad term encompassing dozens or even hundreds of distinct belief structures, only a few of which would use a phrase like "Almighty God" in that context.

Allow me to say this bluntly and explicitly for those who would agree with this finding: "God" is not a religiously-neutral term in any way, shape, form, or fashion, especially when "God" is capitalized and used like a name would be.  The only possible way you could believe that would be if you defined "religion" as meaning "Judaism, Christianity, or Islam", all of which have at the center of their beliefs a singular male deity.  Those are not, however, the only faiths to fall under the umbrella term "religion". 

No, what you mean when you say "God" - especially a phrase like "Almighty God", which is straight out of Christian liturgy - is "religiously neutral" or is "acknowledging religion in a general way", is rather that "God" is nonsectarian, not explicitly indicating a specific denomination of Christianity.  It does, however, explicitly exclude numerous pagan beliefs which either hold no gods (only goddesses), or many gods (none of which would be called capital-G God or Almighty God), or the Wiccan god who would be referred to as *the* God, not "Almighty God".  It explicitly excludes Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism.

Really, the idea of "Almighty God" as "acknowledging religion in a general way" is utterly absurd, and attempting to defend it as such only shows how deeply ingrained your prejudice and privilege are, that you don't realize that "religion" does not mean "all the denominations of Christianity".

Furthermore, even if the phrase "Almighty God" were truly religiously neutral, to use it in the context it is in - to affirmatively declare that "reliance on Almighty God" is a requirement in order to secure the safety of one's country - is to attempt to compel belief.  Especially when the phrase is then inserted in the training and educational materials given to state personnel, it is an explicit statement of government speech saying "You must believe in Almighty God in order to do your job."

It preferences belief over nonbelief - and what these Christian-supremacist judges seem to forget is that no matter how general a given acknowledgment of religion in government materials is, it will always exclude atheists entirely.  There exists a "none of the above" response when it comes to religion, and that needs to be respected along with all the various shades of religious belief - which means NOT yanking phrases out of Christian prayers and sticking them in government documents. 

This finding is absurd.  It's expected that the case will be appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  I wish them luck, and I wish for the Kentucky Supreme Court all the logic, reason, and perception that prejudice and privilege stole from the appeals court judges.

*From Inga Muscio's book, Cunt

Today In "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!"

Continuing their obstinate refusal to actually do a single damn thing about the deplorable state of the economy and job market, despite campaigning on a job-creation platform, House Republicans spent $215,000 of our tax dollars yesterday to pass a non-binding resolution "reaffirming In God We Trust as the US's national motto."

The measure passed 396-9.

Of course it did.

I guess "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one), the unofficial motto that has graced the national seal since the 18th century, wasn't good enough; we have to make sure the whole world knows that the Many and the One are CHRISTIAN GODDAMNIT.  Whether they/we actually are or not appears to be irrelevant. 

Personally, I'd rather trust in concrete solutions than a four-word talisman.  But whatever panders to your right-wing base floats your boat, I guess.

Personhood Amendments Come To California

Personhood amendments: that example of radical anti-choice ideology that goes SO far, even regular anti-choicers are like "Err, no, dude, not that way, okay?"

I mean, we're talking about a movement that gives only the barest of lip service to disavowing actual murderers in their midst, and they will actually come out and oppose these personhood amendments.  Not because they disagree with the premise, more because they think it's too far too fast and the backlash will set them back in terms of PR.

Personhood amendments, for those without their fingers on the pulse of reproductive justice battles *preen preen, smug smug ;-) *, are amendments with Orwellian names like "Human Rights Amendment" and "Respect for All Life Amendment", which declare the legal term "person" to include "all humans at all stages of development from conception to natural death" or some variation on that basic wording.  They're a blatant attempt to end-run around Roe by ensuring that laws against assault, murder, abuse, etc - designed to apply to born people - also apply to fetuses.  They could have a whole host of fucked-up effects, from banning abortion (the core intent) to banning certain forms of contraception, like the IUD and the pill, and banning in vitro fertilization procedures.  They're also intended to provide the vehicle for a case to go to the Supreme Court in the hopes that this court will overturn Roe entirely - which would then allow a number of states with "trigger measures" on the books to immediately go into effect and ban abortion entirely.

They are, in other words, the most extreme anti-choice legislation ever, and Really Fucking Bad News.  (Also ridiculous, medically and scientifically speaking, as we have no way of identifying the moment of conception, only implantation; but then, we all know anti-choicers are not on speaking terms with science.)

Colorado overwhelmingly rejected their personhood amendment - twice.  Ohio has a measure on the ballot for this coming year, although the Attorney General and Personhood Ohio are wrangling over the summary language to be included on the ballot - the AG refused to certify their summary because it was misleading, and Personhood Ohio is appealing.  Mississippi is the "state to watch" for 2012 personhood amendments, with an amendment on the ballot and frighteningly high approval rate in polls.  Personhood USA's stated goal is to get these awful amendments on the ballot in every state across the nation.

And now, it seems, California's time has come.  The absurdly-titled "California Human Rights Amendment" has been submitted to the Attorney General's office for certification.  The AG is to certify the proposed title, language, and summary, after which proponents can start gathering signatures to put it on the ballot.

Frankly, this is fucking California.  We won't even pass a parental notification law (although they keep trying; 3 out of the last 4 elections.  You'd think they'd eventually learn it's not going to happen).  So normally I'd just scoff and write it off as anti-choice fever dreams.  Except for the language they're using.  Take a look:

"The term "person" applies to all living human organisms from the beginning of their biological development, regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability. "

Compare that with the Mississippi version...

Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

Or the Colorado version...

 Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

Not that I have no faith in my fellow Californians - okay, maybe I don't; sorry, y'all, but you *did* pass Prop H8 - but I notice they've padded out the California version of this crap with all the sort of anti-discrimination-law-language that will appeal to the "token liberal" type - you know, the person who believes in human rights but isn't inclined to do much research on things before voting?  And I don't think it's accidental that they've sort of tucked this "*cough*beginningofbiologicaldevelopment*cough*" bit in among a whole lot of "age race sex gender disability protections yay" fluff, all of which is *already* covered in California's nondiscrimination laws.

No, this is pretty definitely an attempt to appeal to our collective liberal identity as The Right Sort of Person, you know, the kind of person who supports human rights and will vote in favor of them, by tacking on the name of "Human Rights Amendment" and adding lots of irrelevant reiterations of current nondiscrimination laws in the hopes that we won't look too hard past that. 

I can't decide if I find it infuriating or amusing. 

Actually, I take that back; I know exactly what I find it: frightening.  It's a targeted message that shows an unfortunate level of understanding of the bulk of moderate voters here in California, and I am not at all sure of pro-choice organizations' ability to mount an extensive, expensive, well-publicized education campaign to combat the lazy feel-good vote in favor of something called a "Human Rights Amendment", no matter what that amendment would actually do.

Better To Desecrate It Than Remove It?

A mayor in Tennessee has found a...unique way to respond to a potential lawsuit against the cross displayed on his town's water tower: he had one of the arms of the cross removed.  (image via)

A white water-tower against blue sky, painted with the town's name of "WHITEVILLE", with a white cross with one horizontal arm missing atop the tower

This is, mind you, the mayor who called Freedom from Religion Foundation, who was handling the lawsuit against the town on behalf of an anonymous resident who complained about it, "terrorists" for attempting to force the town to remain religiously neutral. 

His decision to remove one arm is intended to satisfy the legal requirement - it's no longer technically a cross, just an odd nightstick-shaped thing (which, given the increasing police power/abuse of power in this country, is probably a chillingly appropriate symbol) - while disobeying in spirit, as the three-armed un-cross serves as a reminder of what it used to be.  His comments on removing one arm of the cross reiterated the accusation of "terrorist!" against FFRF and their anonymous client, also calling them "cowardly" and "shameful".

The lawsuit and the decision to desecrate the cross on the water tower to avoid removing it has sparked, in turn, a movement among the people in the town to put crosses in their yards, to "[symbolize] that we as a community still have faith. Just because you don't believe doesn't mean we don't."  They say you can't go down a street in the town without seeing at least two crosses.

I hear that and all I can think is, who are the real terrorists now, if we're going to use that kind of language?  These people are so invested in their public display of their faith, so convinced of their religion's supremacy, that they feel the need to put hundreds of crosses around town and make their town as unwelcoming as possible for anyone who's not a Christian - or even those who are Christian but prefer not to make gaudy display of it as a political point. 

I think their own Bible says it better than I can (Matthew 6:5-6, New International Version):

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Not With A Bang, But A Whimper: How California's local governments' "moderate" response to #OWS might be more dangerous to the movement than outright crackdowns

In Oakland, after the police used tear gas and rubber bullets on Occupy protesters, the mayor released a statement (PDF) apologizing for the excessive force and listing a "compromise" position which would ostensibly allow Occupy to continue without police opposition - so long as nobody stayed overnight.

The San Francisco mayor's office says he supports the protests but is citing "health concerns" and saying they can't stay much longer.

Fresno justifies their intent to remove Occupy protesters because they "failed to meet permit requirements" such as "limiting the gathering to about 20 people" along with, predictably, not staying overnight.

I read these stories and I wonder if, in a way, California's generally-liberal nature is actually working *against* the Occupy movements here.  This is California, we love us a good protest, but do it quietly and only during park hours with a small number of people, if you please.

Oakland's "no camping" stance is ridiculous because...err, you do realize that the point of Occupy is to, well...occupy?  To take over and hold a space in the name of the people, as a visible community together against oligarchic oppression?  "Only during daylight hours" completely fails to address this.  Without the community, without the living-together-encampments, Occupy is just another Tea Party.

San Francisco's "okay but not too much longer" stance misses the point again: an Occupy that lasts a couple weeks then goes home is just a blip on the radar; to do the work that Occupy is trying to do, it needs to make it clear that it's not just a passing fad, that it's a serious movement that will not just go away and cannot just be ignored.  It's taken nearly two months for #OWS to gain even the piddly amount of mainstream media coverage it's gotten.  It would have been no coverage at all if they'd gone home after a week or two.

Fresno's complaint about the protest being too big for a permit is basically a gentle request to defang your own movement; the point of the Occupy protests is to show a massive display of solidarity.  To demonstrate the 99% principle, to show that we really do outnumber the 1%.  Making sure only 20 people show up sort of defeats that purpose.

And that's the problem with these demands.  They are so reasonable on the surface and designed to appeal to the moderate person's sense of compromise, but to comply with them would strip the essential meaning from the Occupy protests.  They would see them reduced to a useless, token gesture, easily ignored and dismissed.  But because they're framed as moderate, common-sense compromises, to reject them and continue to preserve the core principles of the Occupy movement leaves it open to being painted as "radicals" who refused to negotiate with the authorities.  Bad PR, and fodder for mainstream media attempts to discredit the movement - "We tried to negotiate, but those hippies wouldn't budge!"  And I am very much afraid that disregarding the pseudo-reasonable demands of local governments who are trying to compromise the movement into irrelevancy will set the stage for ever more violent clashes as they use that refusal as justification for "extreme" tactics out of "necessity".

I hope - and I think most likely it will happen - that the Occupy movements negotiating with the local governments stay true to their principles and refuse to conform to "acceptable" levels of protest.  But I'm concerned what that refusal might do to the general representation and public opinion of Occupy and that it might provoke further police violence.  And I'm not at all sure which path is best, in the end.

Thoughts?