Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 71
March 24, 2011
What I missed blogging this week
* Good polling news - DOMA Poll Analysis: Opposition to Federal Recognition Ban Crosses All Major Demographics (HRCBackStory):
Majorities of every age group oppose DOMA including those over age 65 (52 percent oppose, 31 percent support). Catholics oppose DOMA 51 percent to 37 percent. Southerners oppose DOMA 51 percent to 36 percent. The list goes on and on. Check out our full analysis: Beyond the Top Lines of the DOMA Poll [pdf].* GOP Clown Car contest entry - CNN: Bachmann to form exploratory committee in June, possibly earlier . Begin popping the popcorn...
More fun below the fold...
* Fred Karger First to File for President at FEC in Washington, DC .
Mother Jones has a good article on Karger's campaign.
Today is a very significant day for my community and me. I have just submitted my papers to the Federal Election Commission, making me the first candidate to file for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. I am also the first openly gay person, in a major political party, to ever run for President of the United States.
I know that I will not be invited to participate in some of the debates and forums that will be held during the next year. Some will not include me because I am an outsider, others because I am gay. I will fight to get into each and every debate, so that my ideas and my voice may be heard.
I want to send a loud and clear message to anyone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer, that you can do anything you want to do in this country. You can even run for President of the United States.
* This almost defies reality. Would you put even a nickel into this black hole - James O'Keefe Asks Supporters For $50,000 To Pay Off 'Major Credit Card Debt'.
For undercover sting savant James O'Keefe, the task of self-funding his missions to bust groups such as ACORN and NPR is apparently causing a strain on his pocketbook.* The Oprah Winfrey Network announces premiere of 'Becoming Chaz' . (LAT): It will air at 8 p.m. May 10.In a recent fundraising email to supporters, O'Keefe, who recently filed to have his group, Project Veritas, listed as a nonprofit, claims he's in deep credit card debt, and that he needs $50,000 to pay it off.
The premiere will be followed by a special hosted by Rosie O'Donnell in which she will interview Bono, girlfriend Jennifer Elia, directors Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, and other people who have undergone transgender operations.* Speaking of OWN, Dan Savage sat down to discuss the 'It Gets Better' Campaign on "The Gayle King Show."
* 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals has denied a motion filed by opponents of California's Proposition 8 to lift the stay over a District Court ruling that had found Prop. 8 unconstitutional last summer. Via the Courage Campaign:
The 9th Circuit Court's ruling means that the stay will remain in effect, and LGBT families will be unable to marry, at least until the California Supreme Court settles a procedural matter in the case. A hearing on that issue is not slated to take place until September.The Courage Campaign has documented the stories of hundreds of families facing permanent harm because of the continuing legal delays in this case. Most notably, the story of Ed Watson and Derence Kernak-a couple that's been together for forty years, but because of Ed's advancing Alzheimer's disease, may never get the chance to marry before the Prop. 8 case is resolved. More than 7,500 people signed the Courage Campaign's Amicus Curiae letter, filed on behalf of Ed and Derence and other impacted families, urging the 9th Circuit to lift the stay.
Ed and Derence's StoryThe Courage Campaign's Amicus Curiae LetterIn response to today's developments, Courage Campaign Chairman and Founder Rick Jacobs has issued the following statement:
"The Ninth Circuit's decision not to lift the stay is a stunning miscarriage of justice. Judge Walker's District Court decision and the body of evidence in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial have unequivocally shown that marriage and society are only strengthened by allowing loving same sex couples to marry. These facts are further supported by an accelerating shift in American public opinion in support of marriage equality, and President Obama's recent decision to stop defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which has also been declared unconstitutional in federal court.By effectively rubber stamping another six or twelve months of state sanctioned discrimination against thousands of loving California families, today's ruling unfairly and irreparably harms parents who may never see their children marry, and couples like Derence and Ed, who are racing the clock against terminal illness.
It is appalling that corporate mergers get fast tracked by courts, but human ones are treated with far less urgency. We cannot and will not rest until all families have equal access to the dignity, security, and recognition that only comes with marriage."
* Huckabee Would Reinstate DADT: "That's Really What The Military Wants". Well, you figure this aspiring GOP Clown Car occupant would continue pandering to the fringe. "I would -- because that's really what the military wants," says Huckabee. "There's been some talk that the military is fine with having same-sex orientation people. But if you really surveyed the combat troops, that is not at all the case." The Log Cabin Republicans responded."Mike Huckabee's ill-informed comments fly in the face of overwhelming public opinion and common sense," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. "A clear bipartisan majority in Congress voted in December to enact the will of the American people, which demanded that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' be stricken from the books. The Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and leadership throughout the Pentagon are in full support of the implementation process that is now moving forward throughout each branch of the military. This debate is over. Today our military is confronting real challenges around the globe, and reopening this debate is an unnecessary distraction."That Mr. Huckabee continues to fight the end of this failed and unconstitutional policy demonstrates that he is willing to put personal ambition and political pandering ahead of the priorities of the American people."
* Gay and Lesbian Couples Enters Crate & Barrel's Ultimate Wedding Contest. The retailer has a contest for engaged couples; they must submit an online entry describing their love story, their ideal wedding, and their dream home. Fianc?s Robbie Cronrod and Allen Artcliff are in the pool as are
Megan Younkman and Lauren Campisi
of Tampa, Florida, who wrote PHB:Megan and I are a Lesbian couple from Tampa, Florida. Megan is an LPGA professional and I am a teacher and blogger (Mermaiding the Globe). We are currently entered in Crate & Barrel's Ultimate Wedding Contest...It would be wonderful for a gay couple to win a nationally recognized contest on marriage (especially in the current political climate).
Crystal Cathedral hypocrite calls into the Mike Signorile Show
A church member of the Crystal Cathedral called in to the show to say that though he believes homosexuality is a "choice," he doesn't believe he's "better" than me -- and oh, he "loves" me too.I explained that, actually, I am better than him -- for a variety of reasons. And no, he doesn't "love" me -- that's just creepy.
Family Research Council believes that countries should be allowed to persecute lgbts
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
According to People for the American Way, the Family Research Council opposes the Obama Administration's joint resolution with the United Nations that would oppose the criminalization of homosexuality:While American forces bomb away at Libya, the Obama administration is launching another global offensive: Operation International Tolerance. As he looks on from South America, the President put troops on the ground today for a meeting of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, where his diplomats plan to strong-arm other countries into embracing homosexuality. In a major U-turn from the Bush years, the Obama administration is actually initiating an "anti-discrimination" resolution to force acceptance of the world's gays and lesbians. . . .
Obviously, FRC believes that homosexuals and transgenders shouldn't be subjected to violence. But this resolution goes well beyond that to endorsing a behavior that dozens of member nations oppose. No binding document of international law has ever recognized a universal "human right" to engage in sex with a person of the same gender. . . Our global neighbors have the freedom to believe that homosexuality is wrong--just as they have the freedom to legislate against any behavior they think is harmful to society. That freedom--and their very sovereignty--would be threatened by this effort.
FRC's condemnation of the resolution underlines the organization's basic hypocrisy. Nowhere in it does FRC give a clear indication of just what the resolution says. It doesn't even provide a link to the policy and I think this is intentional.
At the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva 84 countries joined a Joint Statement entitled “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based On Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” This follows previous statements on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons issued at the United Nations, including a 2006 statement by 54 countries at the Human Rights Council, and a 2008 statement that has garnered 67 countries’ support at the General Assembly. The United States is amongst the signatory states to both previous efforts. The United States co-chaired the core group of countries that have worked to submit this statement, along with Colombia and Slovenia.
. . . 1. We recall the previous joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, presented at the Human Rights Council in 2006;
2. We express concern at continued evidence in every region of acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity brought to the Council’s attention by Special Procedures since that time, including killings, rape, torture and criminal sanctions;
3. We recall the joint statement in the General Assembly on December 18, 2008 on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, supported by States from all five regional groups, and encourage States to consider joining the statement;
4. We commend the attention paid to these issues by international human rights mechanisms including relevant Special Procedures and treaty bodies and welcome continued attention to human rights issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity within the context of the Universal Periodic Review. As the United Nations Secretary General reminded us in his address to this Council at its Special Sitting of 25 January 2011, the Universal Declaration guarantees all human beings their basic rights without exception, and when individuals are attacked, abused or imprisoned because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the international community has an obligation to respond . . .
FRC's duplicity is astounding. The organization claims that it opposes violence against lgbts but it actually supports countries which would subject the lgbt community to violent persecution.
Remember FRC's statement - Our global neighbors have the freedom to believe that homosexuality is wrong--just as they have the freedom to legislate against any behavior they think is harmful to society.
Does this mean even if that "freedom to legislate" was by criminal sanctions, torture, rapes, etc.?
UPDATE - Unfortunately the Vatican church has come out against the resolution while using FRC's deceptive talking points.
March 23, 2011
LGBTQ Families: The Real Demographics!
Recent reporting about the Pew Research study entitled The Decline of Marriage and the Rise of New Families showing increased acceptance of gay and lesbian families may have left some with a less than complete picture of the rich diversity of families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) parents. While we are very happy that acceptance of the idea that gays and lesbians should have the right to raise children has risen, we envision a world in which ALL families are treated with dignity, respect and equality.
At COLAGE we know by experience that LGBTQ families have many different family formations including single parents, co-parents, grandparents and beyond, and LGBTQ families come from every race, ethnic, class, and geographical background imaginable.
US Census Data presented by the Williams Institute has shown this to be true. We are eagerly awaiting analysis of the most recent Census data., yet even in 2000 the Census showed that self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were more racially diverse than those identifying as heterosexual.
One stereotype about LGBTQ families is that they are primarily white, wealthy and “well-off.” This could not be further from the truth. Data has shown that many LGBTQ people live in poverty, and that same-sex couples with children have slightly less earned income than heterosexual married couples with children.
The 2000 Census showed that one in five children being raised by same-sex couples lives in poverty.
COLAGE: People with a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer Parent
Two Different Thoughts About the Man in the Skirt
There's been some recent furor within the community of us who have a vested interest in obtaining public accommodations rights in Maryland for gender identity and expression. It all boils around a picture that Equality Maryland posted on their Facebook page with a quote from Robert F. Kennedy.
As a pre-operative full-time transsexual woman who has been in a battle with Equality Maryland over their position on HB-235 without the public accommodation provision, I am extremely appalled and deeply offended by this appearing on EQMD's Facebook page. Not because of the image, but because of the timing.
There have been previous acts of "bad timing" in a time that is critical due to pending votes in the House on the bill and both the HB-235 with P/A and the HB-235 without P/A camps are trying to ward off a common enemy, the fear mongering washroom warrior "man in a dress will rape your little girl" crowd.
As a transsexual woman, I am offended and I posted comments opposing this photo:
The haters are going to have a field day with this pic. Again, mocking the trans again. So, so, cis.
Remember, this is the same organization that uses drag shows to raise funds to push legislation that is against the wishes of the people who they are actually trying to protect.
...and I stand by those comments. But now, I look at this issue from the eyes of an analyst.
Alex Hickcox, who is currently the only trans member on the EQMD board defended the posting of the photo:
An absolute adherence to binary gender normatives is why we are stuck here! Cis Men (assuming this person is in fact cis which I am not!) crossing the gender thresh hold and being comfortable in their own skin is a testament to what we are fighting for. Until our social ideals of what is 'male' and what is 'female' is brought down we will continue to fight for a place in this world. I cannot for the life me begin to understand why anyone who is transgender would honestly condemn this!!!! He's only wearing a skirt for goodness sakes. ITS A SKIRT! And hell if I will stand aside and not vehemently stand up for the rights of ANYONE to express themselves as they wish!! It's called the 1st Amendment! It's called freedom of speech! This person nor anyone who supports his bravery deserves to be admonished. This is not an affront to transwomen nor is this playing into the real oppositions hate speech. It is time for us to be offensive and not defensive. No one should have to hide in a closest to appease the opposition. Asking this man to stand down his skirt wearing ways does nothing to advance our cause or change the perception of society. Many cis gender women are freely allowed to wear men's pants, men's shirts and leave their makeup at home. Why should that be largely excepted and men choosing to feminize themselves is not? There is not a damn thing wrong with he is doing and there is not a single person who will change my mind or stance on this.
I can see in a way where Alex is coming from here. The person depicted in this photo is someone who is symbolizing the distortion of the gender binary and raises the question, why shouldn't men wear skirts? Where does this expectation that men must wear clothing that covers both legs and wraps around the crotch come from? While I feel I maintain that there should be a separation of gender identity and gender expression where it comes to legal and social issues, I do have an open mind of where the gender expression side of the house is coming from.
Outside of following GLBT issues, I am very involved in Japan with J1 Radio and a part of that is my exposure to the fashion trends in Tokyo.
In Japan, skirts for men are the rage!
Men Go For Skirts JapaneseStreets.com
Some men swapping pants for dresses Japan Times
Cross Gender A Japan-based online shop for skirts for men (in Japanese)
In Japan, straight men wearing skirts is an acceptable fashion statement.
The climate in Japan is becoming more tolerant to gender expression as well as transsexualism. Transsexual celebrities, such as Ai Haruna are household names there.
But I can also see where the opposition to 235 "as written" community is coming from on this. EQMD's decisions where it came to this legislation and the sudden change in strategy where it came to reaching out to the trans-woman community has disenfranchised those in the transsexual/intersex woman community, a group who feels that they have been underrepresented by EQMD during this entire proceeding. Like I said earlier in my comments about the drag shows, which I have heard good arguments for and against, the timing was bad because it can be perceived as giving into the fear of some who are in the true opposition (the washroom warriors).
In the eyes of some, EQMD's handing of 235 has been far from considerate to the entire trans community. So far, we have seen:
Censorship of posts and comments.
Campaign promises without backing (MCHR's supposed shelter policy)
Fewer resources given to 235 than to SSM (the "lack of hands" at the hearings)
Playing SSM to be a far more important issue with 235 on the backburner.
The canceling of the transgender working groups until after the legislative session.
Incomplete information (case law on shelters)
I am an analyst by nature and I call things as I see them. I don't always agree with the EQMD side but I don't always agree with the 235-as-written side. But now, if I was to take this picture and show it to a transman, a transwoman, a genderqueer person, a crossdresser, a cis lesbian, a cis gay male, a Japanese newhalf, a Thai third-gender, a straight man and a straight woman, I am sure I would get 10 totally different perceptions. Perhaps if we all learned more about each other, then perhaps those 10 different perceptions may get reduced to about 3. I will never say that we will all have the same perception as we are human and we have common but differing beliefs.
I am not going to back down from my previous statements, but I will say perhaps we need to stop and think that we are all different. Some show it out the inside and others, like the person depicted in this picture, show it on the outside. Isn't this what diversity is all about?
Let's be nice but still stand our positions, wherever you stand on 235.
Exodus sets the record straight--No Ex-Gay Cure! Then what?
At the NYC ex-gay program they tried to cast out gay demons and insisted, “If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a NEW creation! The old is gone. Behold, all things are made new.” Ultimately I spent over $30,000 on three continents pursuing an elusive cure. The treatments differed from program to program, but the message remained the same. In so many words they taught—“Gays (lesbians and the rest) are immoral. You are broken and need to be fixed. You are sick and need to be healed. We will help you.”
What a surprise when yesterday I read the following statement from one of Exodus’ spokespeople:
“In no way shape or form is our message about trying to cure or do we try to promote that type of methodology or message,” Jeff Buchanan, Exodus International’s Senior Director of Church Equipping & Student Ministries, told The Christian Post.
So I turned to a sexpert, Dr. Jallen Rix, co-facilitator of Beyond Ex-Gay and author of the book Ex-Gay No Way: Survival and Recovery from Religious Abuse. Jallen, was I caught in the Matrix all those years? Is Jeff Buchanan saying that thousands of ex-gay survivors were dupped into believing something Exodus didn't actually offer?Jallen shared with me the words of Sean, a fellow survivor interviewed for Jallen's book,
Living in an isolated area of the country, I relied heavily on the integrity of my group's literature to help me decide whether or not to join their ministry. I read their promises of "freedom" and "change" with great hope and decided to move to California to join them. Once there I endured months of painful struggle to deny my sexual orientation with no favorable results, and even more disappointing was the fact that no one, no matter how long they had been there, could look me in the eye and say they had really changed. Only then did I realize that the Ex-gay promises were false. Their literature creates an illusion of freedom that does not exist, and they know it.
Jallen adds,
"Cured," "healed," "changed," "heterosexually challenged," - There's no end to the lingo ex-gay leadership coins to infer that homosexuals are damaged goods. They'll find another term as long as heterosexuality remains supreme. All the while, the leadership ignores the harm it causes in their attempts to enforce their views.
Now perhaps Exodus has a communication problem. I know that some of the folks in the organization struggle over words. For instance, they don't always know what to call themselves-ex-gay, former homosexuals, post-gay, straightish?
Alan Chambers, the head of Exodus since 2001 particularly struggles to get his point across. In the- clip Alan wrestles with Montel Williams over the words freedom and liberate. He also insists he doesn't urge youth into ex-gay treatment (yet his number one goal this year is to reach out to middle school and high school programs)
Only after 15 years of attending a variety of Exodus-member programs, I finally heard one of their leaders admit that actual change in orientation was not a realistic goal. During my first week at the Love in Action ex-gay residential program in Memphis, TN (what would become a two year stint) the director informed us that we would never be heterosexual. Wait! What about the big fat slogan on their website and brochures--Freedom from Homosexuality through Jesus Christ? Turns out it's just PR. They have a public message and then a private reality.
Still the staff at Love in Action (LIA) insisted that I was malformed, misshappen, sinful, addicted, unwell and desperately needed to be healed; they had the cure. If I endured their therapeutic program, walked through their steps, spilled my guts, allowed myself to be humiliated, than just like the heterosexually-married former ex-gays who led the program, I too could experience "change."
And I did. Sadly not the change they promised. In fact, I wished I had been warned that as a result of demonizing my desires and going to war against my sexuality and personality with the weapons that they supplied, I would change into a confused, depressed, self-hating, and suicidal mess. The "cure" was awful. During my time in LIA one client attempted suicide and another, during a psychotic break, was stuffed into a strait jacket and carried out by the police.
If you read Exodus' literature, attend their conferences, follow their links to organizations they endorse, and buy the books they sell, you will hear over and over again that "there is hope for the homosexual. Change is possible" and similar messages worded in clever, misleading ways. And when they say Change, they don't mean two 10's for a 20. They target gays and lesbians weighed down with the burden of a family that rejects or may reject them, a church that says "come as you are-except queer," and a legal system that consistently values heterosexuals over anyone else. Ripe for the picking Exodus offers hope, a way out-a cure.
I have no idea which Exodus International Jeff Buchanan works for. Perhaps he should review the About Us section of the Exodus site.
Christ offers a healing alternative to those with homosexual tendencies. Exodus upholds redemption for the homosexual person as the process whereby sin's power is broken, and the individual is freed to know and experience their true identity, as discovered in Christ and His Church. That process includes the freedom to grow into heterosexuality.
Being an ex-gay survivor myself and personally speaking with over 1,500 fellow survivors, I can say that Buchanan is correct on one point-Exodus has no cure to offer. Instead they issue a curse for those who submit or are forced to submit to their teachings. They offer harm-psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage. They tamper with their clients' relationships, careers, personal development, and finances. They make a mess of our lives in Jesus' name.
So what exactly does Exodus do? They now publicly admit that no one changes from gay to straight. They claim they don't offer a cure. They say they don't therapize. What services do they provide? Basically they will undermine your sense of self as they reinforce the notion that you are not good enough as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer person. They will demonize your desires, and will not even be satisfied if you choose to be celibate yet insist on honestly calling yourself lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. To add insult to injury they have fought to deny happy homosexuals and transgender people legal rights and protections. They malign LGBTQ people, our relationships, our desires, our dreams, and then they export this message to Uganda, South Africa, Croatia, Singapore, Costa Rica and beyond.
It took me nearly 20 years to understand that Exodus' vague promise, "Change is Possible" was false and to discover and embrace that Authenticy and Integrity are possible and well worth pursuing.
Goodbye, Dame Elizabeth Taylor
Elizabeth Taylor, the violet-eyed beauty whose hectic off-screen love life often eclipsed her most sultry film roles, has died. She was 79.HRC's statement on Taylor:She died today at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, her four children by her side, according to a statement from her publicist. She was hospitalized six weeks ago for treatment of congestive heart failure, a condition that had stabilized, "and it was hoped that she would be able to return home," the statement said. "Sadly, this was not to be."
The former child actress grew into a voluptuous and jewel- drenched movie star, making headlines with stormy love affairs and eight marriages. Her husbands included actor Richard Burton (twice), singer Eddie Fisher, U.S. Senator John Warner and producer Mike Todd.
"I never planned to acquire a lot of jewels or a lot of husbands," she said in an interview with Kim Kardashian posted by Harper's Bazaar on Feb. 9. "For me, life happened, just as it does for anyone else. I have been supremely lucky in my life in that I have known great love, and of course I am the temporary custodian of some incredible and beautiful things."
Today, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, issued the following statement on the news of the death of actress Elizabeth Taylor:"We are deeply saddened by the death Elizabeth Taylor. Ms. Taylor was a true ally to the LGBT community. She was one of the first public voices to speak up about the AIDS crisis while many others stayed silent in the 1980s and she helped raise millions of dollars to fight the disease. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family, and to all those whose lives have been positively impacted by the life and work of Elizabeth Taylor."
Poll has National Organization for Marriage tongue-tied and confused
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Last week, a poll by ABC News and the Washington Post announced that the majority of Americans actually favor gay marriage.Naturally, this announcement has thrown the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage for a wild loop. Since the announcement of the poll's result, the organization has been scrambling to either trivialize it or claim that it was unfair.
Recently, NOM chairperson Maggie Gallagher wrote a column in National Review claiming that the poll was inaccurate.
However, Truth Wins Out calls Gallagher out in a very good post.
The only reason why I am not devoting more time to that post is because I want more attention to be paid to how NOM President Brian Brown tried to cast doubt on the poll's credibility and ended up making NOM look hypocritical. From nomexposed.org:
In the Washington Post story . . . Brown says, “The only poll that counts is a free and fair vote on the part of the people.” (We probably won’t let Brown or the media forget this statement.) He said this in reaction to the Post poll showing a slim majority of Americans support the freedom of loving, committed couples to marry.
Three hours later on the NOM blog at 11:10am, the organization decides to cite three polls opposing to marriage. The post, “Recent Polls Showing Strong Majorities Oppose SSM,” ticks off:
2010 CNN National Exit Poll – Americans oppose SSM 54% to 40%
August 2010 Fox News Poll – only 37% support SSM given choice between SSM/CU/no recognition
August 2010 Public Policy Institute Poll – 33% favor SSM while 57%oppose it
But I thought the “only poll that counts is a free and fair vote on the part of the people?”
Yep, these folks are scared.
March 22, 2011
Are 13 symbols in an X pattern inherently offensive?
In case we haven't been introduced, I'm "Radical" Russ. I'm a straight white married atheist pot legalizer from the Pacific Northwest, so you can understand why I'm posting here. I wandered into the coffee shop one day thinking I was in Holland and asked for some "sensi". One of the baristas misheard and handed me a "sweet tea". I went to complain to the owner, wondering what perverse chemist came up with this revolting example of beverage; we struck up a conversation and I've been wandering in from time to time ever since.
One reason I keep coming back is that I can ask questions here about things I don't understand. I can consult a wide audience of folks with great insight and perspective. Best of all, no matter how naive or ignorant my question may be, I find some excellent conversation and end up more enlightened than I was when I entered.
So it is in that spirit that I ask a question loaded with a bit of controvery, couched in a bit of silliness, and plaguing me in my professional capacity...
Are thirteen icons arranged on an X pattern used as a symbol inherently offensive?
Here's the background: In my capacity working with NORML as Outreach Coordinator, I host a two-hour talk radio show on the internet. This week, I have launched The NORML Network, which is a 24/7 internet podcast network playing marijuana legalization content. I have solicited podcasts from activists all around the country and even one from England.
The controversy concerns the podcast from the South, produced in the Florida Panhandle. Its name is "Cannabis States of America". I thought that was a clever wordplay; taking the familiar (especially in the South) "Confederate States of America" and throwing "Cannabis" in there instead.
But it's their avatar that has generated one complaint from a woman named Debby. The icon is a flag with a red and green field alternating around a large yellow X that contains thirteen green pot leafs. Yes, it's a rasta-themed "Stars and Bars".
Now I'm not entirely ignorant on the Confederate Battle Flag Issue and I do take offense to it; not out of some racist identification it may have but because it was the war banner of a terrorist insurgency that sought the overthrow of the United States government.
But that's the Stars & Bars itself. A solid red field with a dark blue X trimmed in white with 13 white stars. Are we to be offended now by satirical representations of offensive symbols?
I struggle to understand the offense at the Cannabis States flag. Given how much hatred for hippies and pot the folks who like to slap the Confederate flag on the back of their pickup trucks seem to harbor, I can't understand how anyone would confuse the two symbols. It's got two field colors, not one. It's got no border color on the X. It's got pot leafs, for Pete's sake!
If we just look at the symbols, it seems to me the Cannabis States flag has more in common with the flag of Jamaica. A two-colored field with one color match, the same yellow X. The similarity to the Confederate flag is thirteen symbols in an X, but only one color matches.
So, are thirteen symbols in an X pattern an inherently offensive symbol?
Context matters, I'm told. It's because they are from the South! It's because they are appropriating the symbol of the Confederacy. OK, fair enough. So what if I get a podcast from Jamaica that puts 13 pot leafs on the Jamaican flag? Can I run that? What about the same exact colors of the Confederate Flag, but it's a Christian podcast from Minnesota with nine crosses in the X?
Also, I think the Cannabis States icon as a satire leads to some interesting points. Much of the fight for marijuana legalization is seen as a "states rights" issue, insofar as states setting medical marijuana laws and the feds ignoring them and raiding patients and caregivers. A much more defensible states rights claim than the one the Confederates made 150 years ago. And that part I mentioned about terrorist insurgency rebelling against the government? Many cannabis activists feel like a non-violent civilly disobedient insurgency against the US government, seeking not to overthrow it but to reform it. If the symbol of thirteen icons in an X is going to be appropriated, what better than to change it into a symbol of hope for the sick and disabled and all manner of cannabis users who face time in a cage for using a flower?
I'm keeping the Cannabis States in the masthead for now. I've polled my bosses as to their opinion, now I'd like to know yours.
P.S. Irony: the woman, Debby, who complained did so in the context of comments of a blog post calling on folks to boycott one marijuana reform organization's fundraiser at a soft-core pornographer's mansion (it rhymes with Lay Toy) because the organization's leader infamously (all over the Washington tabloids) took subordinates two decades younger to happy hour, got one drunk, drove her to his home, and they had consensual sex. The young lady quit in embarrassment, it was the final straw for 25% of the staff and several board members who quit in disgust (and by the way, jobs as drug law reform are SCARCE), citing the leader's well-established reputation as a serial sexual harasser and inveterate skirt chaser (rumors abound of six-figure hush money payouts to some former female employees who threatened lawsuits.) The leader was placed on leave of absence to go to three months rehab for his "hypersexualization" (his term) and the billionaire sugar daddy (himself a bit of a lech) distanced himself from his protege and slashed funding of the organization, leaving many reform efforts nationwide high and dry. They cancelled the porn mansion fundraising party last year, citing this very leader's indiscretions, but this year, the leader has been reinstated to his $150K position and is ready to charge $1,000 a ticket at the home of an octogenarian and some bunnies. It's kind of like Gary Busey celebrating his one year sobriety chip with a 100 MPH helmetless motorcycle ride to a kegger.
But I need to strike a Rasta Confederate flag parody because it might seem insensitive.
LOLZ of the day: Glenn Beck Contemplates Starting Own Channel
Two of the options Mr. Beck has contemplated, according to people who have spoken about it with him, are a partial or wholesale takeover of a cable channel, or an expansion of his subscription video service on the Web.That's one channel I'd block....Presuming he leaves [Fox], Mr. Beck could follow a road paved by Oprah Winfrey when she started OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network in January. He could schedule his own talk show and the shows of others on one of the many cable channels seeking a ratings jolt.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
