Some of My Glitter for Dan Savage: Enough is Enough

My latest for DailyGrito.com

My politics are based on who I am; I’m a gay, male-identifying, Colombian-immigrant, college graduate, pro-social welfare, son of a single-mother, American citizen. All of these identities, outside of being personal identifiers, are sociopolitical markers with specific positions in our political system. The order is also deliberate. I identify as a gay-male first, because it’s the most complex element of my personhood, it puts me both in the minority of the LGB ‘t’ community, and in the privileged community of an identified male.

I am proud of my “minority” social status as a gay person, and I am equally at peace with my maleness, but perhaps the most difficult thing about being in a “special” community, is that certain people are looked upon as the ambassadors of our communities. Who is the spokesperson for the Queer-male community? Well, I would never be arrogant enough to suggest that one person represents the multi-layered, diverse LGB ‘t’ community, but I’ll confidently tell you who doesn’t — Dan Savage.

I have always found Dan’s narcissism difficult to digest, but lately he has become truly unbearable. He continues to parade around the country, promoting his new MTV gig and spreading an image of the Queer community that is far from sensible and certainly offensive.

The show is basically a televised version of “Savage Love,” Dan’s sex advice column for The Stranger . In the show, he will be talking sex with college students, an interesting choice of dad gives advice, and perhaps more relevant during his misogynist prime in the early 90s.

Last week, during one of his talks, he was glittered by a student at the University of California, Irvine. This is the second time this happens, someone throws glitter in his face as a sign of Queer protest. Why? Because despite his failed persuasion of not being a transphobe , he continues to use the words “she-male”, “tranny” refers to Trans pornography as “freaky-tranny porn,” and continuing to degrade the Trans community as the site for prostitution and sexual fetish.

Ironically enough, Dan Savage, the archetype of transphobic, gender-normative, assimilation-obsessed, white, hyper-sexual gay males, is the founder of the “It Gets Better Campaign,” a media campaign geared towards ending Queer teenage suicide. Well, Dan, I’m glad it got better for you with your $10,000 speaking engagements to promote your divisive homo-supremacy.

It’s important for the Queer community to unite. I certainly don’t expect such a sensible suggestion to be housed in something as foolish as MTV, or through the advocacy of Dan Savage, but enough is enough!

It doesn’t get better for the Trans community. They live in horror of bathroom terrorism, they can’t find jobs and live in poverty, they are murdered, they are bullied and discriminated against as children and adults , so what’s your answer, Dan?

You don’t have one.

Growing-Up Grown

Published in DailyGrito

I graduated college, an increasing rarity for Latino males. Now, I reside in the so-called “real” world.

It is not uncommon for the children of Latina/os to be a family’s translator. As far as I can remember--at the age of ten--I was arguing with the electric company, ordering cable, fighting parking tickets in court, doing income-tax returns, cooking and cleaning the house. Many of us have been in the real world all our lives. The infantilization of outspoken young people is certainly responsible for making these experiences invisible.

As a non-English speaking Latina, my mother began to work as a bartender in the early ‘90s. Soon after, because of economic need, she began working as an exotic dancer in the highway crack-dens of Northern New Jersey. One of the most spectacular memories of my childhood took place at a court in Paterson N.J. I was sixteen or so. I had known for years now that my mother was a dancer. She asked me to go with her to court as she had had a “problem” a couple years ago that needed resolution. She explained to me that as she was dancing, and an undercover cop (enjoying the show nevertheless) had slipped a dollar into her belt (this is illegal). She was arrested, and needed to clear her record before applying for citizenship. I thought it was going to be another quick-ten-minute-argument with the credit card company. Come to find out, she was charged with a felony for prostitution and clearly had no idea what had gone on.

By sixteen, I was working in Newark as a piano instructor, taking the 39 Bus in the late and lonely nights of Penn station. By seventeen, I was applying to college, (by myself) filing FAFSTA, while the only instruction I had from my mother was, “good men go to college.”

Despite her hard work and dedication, my mother was always at odds with this country -- both culturally and financially. In search of providing me with a middle -class lifestyle, she sacrificed much of her selfhood. We originally lived in West New York, NJ, and lived a very modest lifestyle, because of our search for Americanism, she decided to moves us out of W.N.Y because there were “too many Hispanics”. Internalized racism is a hugely damaging element in immigrant culture, the obsession with arriving at American--whatever that means--often makes us work against our interests and turn on our communities.

With the job situation worsening for my mother, and the excessive demands of a young son, trying to invent himself in our world of fast-pace demand and consumerism, everyday life became unbearable. We fell into debt, and lost everything, months before I left to attend the University of New Hampshire.

I agonize over the fact that my mother’s financial situation was in such despair at the time of my entering college. My mother was left in the street, her car repossessed, her apartment lost, her furniture on the curb, her life destroyed. But, her son was attending an American university. My education would not have happened if I did not have my grandmother's financial support. Making the reality this: many Latino/s who do not have the privilege I had, could never aspire to go to a place like the University of New Hampshire, especially now, when they are nearly private because of the “live free or die” nonsense that runs that crazy state. The people of New Hampshire are wonderful, and I enjoyed my time in the state, but their idea of funding public education is profoundly misguided.

I struggle with the fact that after 25 years of my mother coming into this country she still does not know English. She understands here and there, but I never made an effort to teach her. Now, I write about her experience in a language that she cannot read. This is a tremendous tension for all of us who write in English about a community's interest who does not understand the language. Especially because it is difficult to see where the line is between me using my mother's experience as yet another way to exploit the experience of Latina women, or as an honest gesture of my love for her and respect for her life.

I might now be a “proper” member of American society, yet my mother is left with nothing.

Despite it all, the day before graduating college, I sat on my porch in Dover, New Hampshire, and watched the sunrise as the bitter cold of New England pulled at my skin. Looking outward, I felt fear--fear of graduating without a job, of bringing the romantics of my adolescence to an end, panic of not knowing, of moving-in with my mother, of having no direction.

I am slowly realizing my foolishness, and assessing the reality now, that I can live a comfortable life because of her sacrifice. What is even more difficult, is that her sacrifice comes with purely authentic love, and that she did all she did happily. And that, is truly something worth noting as an “American Dream”, millions of Latino/as parents want the dream for their children and a nightmare for themselves. We can surely do better.

All became relevant--painfully relevant--to see the face of unimaginable joy and euphoria on my mother’s face the day I graduated. She will forever be a warrior, and I am proud to be a product of her greatness. The opportunity to obtain an education needs to be widely available, as it will help use work collectively for a more just future. That is our duty and responsibility above all others.

On Deportations, LGB 't' Advocates Walk a Fine Line

Latina/os, like myself, who identify as LGB ‘t’ find it difficult to prioritize their politics–as in–it is difficult enough to work through the politics of something like obtaining legal status as an undocumented person, to then add the fact of being LGB ‘t’, simply because one has to deal with two undervalued social categories instead of one. A perfect example of this are the negotiations about immigration reform as they relate to same-sex married couples.

Currently, congressional advocates for LGB ‘t’ immigration reform are reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and will release a letter from forty-eight House members urging the Obama administration to suspend deportations faced by married same-sex couples. The UAFA prevents the deportation and separation of families due to legal status that may either vary or be in negotiation. The letter aims to make UAFA inclusive of same-sex couples by the recognition of the Obama administration, including the Department of Homeland Security. The problem however, are bureaucracies like the Board of Immigration Appeals that have Section III of DOMA on their side, which prohibits immigration relief to married same-sex couples.

So they think.

The Obama administration is already showing leadership by defending the rights of same-sex couples facing deportation, even without UAFA. Attorney General Holder took a bold step, by vacating (makes a previous legal judgment legally void) a decision where the Board of Immigration Appeals applied DOMA. Adding to the good news, King & Spalding, the law firm that GOP leadership hired to defend DOMA in court, dropped the case.

Lavi Soloway, attorney and co-founder of Immigration Equality comments on Holder’s decision: “This is precisely why we must continue to advocate for the executive branch to implement administrative remedies to keep couples from being torn apart, remedies which include instituting a moratorium on deportations.” I could not agree more. Historically, the rights of the few have been protected by the few — executive branch and the Court. The Obama administration, and similarity the Court, need to bring DOMA to an end. I can not stress the danger of negotiating LGB politics in legislatures. We need aggressive executive leadership that will transform into solidified constitutional precedent once the Court repeals DOMA. Legislatures are not the answer, and neither are “the people”, as referendums are notoriously reactionary. Think of history: Brown v/s Board of Education? Or a public vote on integrating public schools? Trust the Court. Trust the administration, despite their faults, and there are many, they are allies to the LGB community. Next, they need to advocate for federally recognized protection of gender and gender expression.

With that said, I strongly advise gay rights advocates for same-sex marriage to pick their battles very carefully. Stepping into the debate with the equality flag will only give anti-immigration advocates tools to twist the debates in their favor. Similarly, I think the same-sex marriage issue will fix itself with the repeal of DOMA, which I strongly believe will happen. We have the entire administration on our side, including the legal leadership of Holder, public opinion on our side, and most importantly, a somewhat progressive Court, that I am sure, is insightful enough to know how catastrophic a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage would be. We have nearly 60 years of precedent supporting “privacy”.

GOP Hired Law Firm Drops DOMA Case

Published in DailyGrito

This week, the Atlanta-based law firm, King & Spalding decided to not defend DOMA. The firm was hired by House Republicans to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, (Defense of Marriage Act) which prohibits Federal recognition of same-sex marriage partners. Shortly after the firm announced that they would no longer defend DOMA, Paul Clement, a partner at King & Spalding, former solicitor general under George Bush Jr., and the leader of the case, resigned. He nobly stated, “I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters.” Of course, Mr Clement also added that his personal position on same-sex marriage was irrelevant, as he quickly partnered with Veit D. Dinh’s notoriously conservative firm, Bancroft PLLC and will proceed in his heroic defense of DOMA. I am sure Mr. Clement is just being a responsible lawyer and does not have any ideological bias in defending the blatantly bigoted DOMA policy.

Well, Mr. Clement, you are going to loose.

King & Spalding’s decision to not defend DOMA is part of a growing pattern. Although bias and bigotry against LGB ‘t’ people is alive and well, greater consciousness about justice is moving past the personal and into systemic. Powerful systems like the Obama administration, and especially the US Department of Justice, are taking historic positions in not supporting discrimination, deeming DOMA as unconstitutional, and furthermore bring into question a large question of fairness--refusing to side with bigotry.

This systemic change also reflects public sentiment. It is becoming increasingly unpopular for law firms to defend anti-gay laws, because their image suffers and people will not support them financially or politically. Outside of the Ken Starrs of the world, not many people want to do business with bigots. People overwhelming support the rights of LGB people, especially marriage. I say, “LGB”, because Trans people are still completely off the radar in terms of Federal and even State discussion about their rights. They are still worried about basic survival, so debates of something as mainstream as marriage is one of their least relevant considerations.

The most important contribution about this moment, to me, is that it gives us a positive starting point to begin the legal negotiations of DOMA, which I believe will lead to a successful repeal.

My position on same-sex marriage is a complicated one, but above all, the repeal of DOMA will do a historic thing. It will return a huge sense of self to LGB ‘t’ people. Preventing the potential for something as catastrophic as a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage is an important step for the entire United States. We need to finally put an end to DOMA and the ludicrous notion that sexuality should be negotiated in courts.

Second Open Letter to the UNH Administration Regarding David Cote

Published in The New Hampshire

The UNH community has been waiting for the university's public response to my first open letter regarding David Cote. It was published in The New Hampshire two weeks ago in addition to my first piece published over a month ago.

David Cote is the CEO of Honeywell, a UNH alum, and the keynote speaker for our 2011 commencement ceremony.

I expected the administration's silence on this issue. Nevertheless I gave them ample time to contemplate a response. Yet, nothing, not even a generic press release as a token of formality was given. I, however, applaud the administration for its transparency. The arrogance that is represented in David Cote certainly matches the values this administration holds in inviting him here and refusing to participate in dialogue about him. This makes transparent an important value held in this university – arrogance.

I still find it incredible that David Cote is our speaker. He is the one who must inspire, mobilize, and ignite our consciousness. Most critically, he is speaking because our community embraces his ethics.
Most of us do not.

For UNH Inc., however, Cote's values are perfectly in line. His deplorable union record fits well with the union politics going on at UNH. Giving the complicated history of staff unionizing and the negotiations with the faculty union, the message is clear – UNH does not support worker rights to collectively bargain and negotiate their contracts. What is most disturbing is that the student body is completely absent from these negotiations, drenched in apathy as the university staff sits at a limbo, constantly vulnerable.

If that was not enough, student-run publications serve as the administration's anti-union campaign. The editorial published against the faculty union was a clear example of the subversive politics that are beginning to emerge. While I understand that the faculty is better off in terms of social and financial status than staff, the UNH community must not buy into the myth that the faculty is at fault. This is a systemic problem of the administration against its workers, not the faculty against UNH.

These elaborate fabrications that our faculty are living the high-life is absurd. Many work without contracts, many are part-time lecturers, the rest are seeking tenure in an educational system that does not value their scholarship and is interested in making them professional teachers. In other words, how much of their scholarship can they sacrifice to become cannon-spitting-talking-heads for uninterested students.
The faculty is completely obligated to unite with the staff. You must both realize, that outside of a few tokens, faculty are also working-class people.

Another reason Mr. Cote, the defense technology producing, anti-worker, anti-environment reactionary is a great fit for UNH is his companies environmental record. Nothing like having the CEO of one of the most wasteful and toxic corporations come to UNH, the "leader in sustainability." The EPA reports Honeywell as one of the most destructive companies in the United States, ranking 44th in air population and a leader in producing toxic waste. I wonder if UNH is going to market Cote in the sustainability office, perhaps our Department of Environmental Studies can host him for an honorary lecture.

We are all very aware of what sustainability means to this university. It is nothing more than a marketing strategy that is being exploited at the cost of fair-minded students and educators that have an actual concern with sustainability.

You want to be a leader in sustainability? Here is some advice:
1) Do not invite anti-environment neocons to our graduation.
2) Put away the propaganda campaign of biodegradable cups and invest in Hamilton Smith Hall before part of a wall falls on one of our part-time lectures with no health insurance.
3) We do not need cutting edge water fountains, we need playable pianos in the music department. Then again I wonder what our president's priorities are as he attends every hockey game and never attends student performances in the music department.

I hope this makes my position clear about Cote. Perhaps with this letter, the administration might admit how problematic and hypocritical it is to bring this man to our graduation. Then again, this administration is aware of these facts, and will continue to be arrogant.

I ask the administration to respond publicly to this letter and recognize our voices of concern, that above all believe that we are an institution that stands for transparency, honesty and justice.

Open Letter to the University of New Hampshire Administration Regarding David Cote

Published in The New Hampshire

Administrators,

It is difficult for me write this- the subject is complicated, but nevertheless critical. Two weeks ago, I published an opinion piece in TNH entitled, "Cote a bad choice for commencement." David Cote is the CEO of Honeywell Inc., a UNH alum, and the keynote speaker for our 2011 commencement ceremony. I wrote about his poor record regarding workers, and reflected on his problematic status as an American CEO - especially the political dissonance that's being stirred up by this increasingly destructive reactionary movement we are dealing with. I criticized the UNH administration about itsperceivably uncritical deliberations in finalizing its decision to invite Cote. I attempted to persuade the UNH community to not be compelled by the argument that somehow it's our fault for being unhappy with Cote because we did not participate actively enough in the nomination process. Our domestic and global desperation is far greater that some tedious nomination process that tries to make invisible the fundamental problem. Cote's selection sends a message of arrogance through loaded implications about our university. Although we don't "officially" endorse Cote's politics, we do by association.

If anti-working class sentiment and the disturbing transparencies that suggest our public universities are being run as corporations weren't enough, now comes the publicly available yet untold story about Honeywell's relationship with the U.S. government. Honeywell is one of the largest beneficiaries of the now estimated $750 billon defense budget; the defense budget accounts for nearly 20 percent of the overall budget. The technology that Honeywell manufactures is some of the most advanced, and includes missile-guiding systems. I urge you all to read Nathan Tabak's detailed article on Honeywell, which walks you through Honeywell's defense contracts. It also includes a letter from Honeywell to its shareholders regarding its collective lobbying effort (which they spent $1.9 million on) for the U.S. congress not to cut a thing from the defense budget. Curiously enough, Cote sits on President Obama's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform." If, in fact, our illegal occupations in the Middle East are one of the major causes for this so-called "deficit," then I remain unclear of Cote's sense of "fiscal responsibility and reform," as his company lobbies to sustain one of the most reckless industries of spending. Perhaps the term "ethical" should be included in the title of President Obama's teatime with corporate executives commission, as they might question some of the profound tensions and hypocrisies in their policies. The war is a profit machine for American corporations.

Despite the shock that will develop as Honeywell and Cote's record becomes more visible in our community, it's not at all surprising. This is business as usual. I do not expect that any person with global influence will read this letter, or choose to deal with the disheartening fact that many in this community are not even marginally compelled by the fact that the privileges and comforts we hold as Americans are protected by our subversive involvement in supporting and financing terrorism. Even though we acknowledge that we are the most privileged people in the world, the rights of many in our country are under attack. How convenient it is for Honeywell to send a letter to shareholders and organize a collective voice against the government for their interests (assisted, of course, by massive capital) while workers' ability to unite their voices collectively for something as basic as a reasonable contract is being trampled on by Cote and so many others.

My question now is: how do we deal with this situation? Is the solution to protest graduation - the moment when hundreds of proud parents will sit and forget that their house was almost foreclosed on to fund their children's education? When students, some putting themselves through school, don't want to think about the tens of thousands in loans that they will soon face without a job? Is it to cut off Cote from being a potential donor (which by the way, is the only rational justification for his selection)? Meanwhile, our university is already poorly funded and a further cut of $31 million dollars is being proposed by the legislature, chipping away incrementally at what is barely left of public education.

Because it pains me not to ask the obvious question of why and how we continue to live our comfortable lives as we compromise the lives of innocent people around the world, I ask this administration to localize this global problem to our community, and ask: even if our opinions are meaningless, in this already corrupt system, regarding the rights of workers and the countless lives of children we take over seas - simply - why are we choosing to endorse that disturbing reality at commencement, the one day that we can imagine hope, and at least lie to ourselves about being justice-promoting people? Let us reflect on that fact that our actions matter. Ask David Cote not to speak.

I ask the administration to respond publicly to this letter and recognize our voices of concern, that above all believe that we are an institution that stands for transparency, honesty and justice.

Remembering our History: "El Mozote"

The massacre that took place in El Mozote, El Salvador in 1981 serves as a chilling reminder of the human cost of war. Mark Danner’s narrative of the massacre is a vivid and disturbing picture of the massacre committed by Salvadorian armed forces starting on December 10, 1981. Perhaps the only ‘good’ thing about Danner’s book is his intoxicating syntax and the brilliant sophistication of his narration skills, other than that, it serves its purpose--to show the extreme violence used against the innocent civilians of a small village (nearly 1000 killed) and the US’s role in financing and endorsing the massacre.

As I reflect on the events of “El Mozote”, it is difficult to ignore the images of rape, torture, and cold-blooded assassination that run through my mind, but perhaps more difficult, is negotiating my position in the world, the value of my Americanism, and my sense of responsibility that remains unpacked and uncritical--running parallel to a historical record that is saturated with US supported terrorism as a means to global supremacy.

The massacre at El Mozote, although widely unknown, both in cultural discourse and negligibly absent from the main-stream American pedagogical canon, is a crucial moment in the Cold War. “El Mozote” severs as the “parable” of the Cold War, teaching a moral lesson and revealing the ethical tensions in the construction of American foreign policy during the Cold War in Latin America, particularly the problematic framework of exercising rigid ideology in foreign policy. Whether an “anti-communist” or “human rights” policy, the disconnect between American foreign policy and the people of Latin America resulted in a serious loss of human life.

I will briefly discuss American foreign policy towards El Salvador leading up to “El Mozote” and how the people of El Salvador were caught in the middle of very problematic political negotiations. I argue the following points:

1)Both the “anti-communist” and “human rights” approach towards El Salvador were problematic.

2)Regardless of with policy, the people of El Salvador suffered. The people of El Mozote had no where go, and know one to trust, leaving everyone at fault for the massacre (except the people of El Mozote of course).


From Détente to Carter: “News has a kind of mystery”

American composer John Adams wrote the opera “Nixon and China” in 1987. As a young boy studying music in New Jersey, I checked-out a VHS copy from the library. I did not know what the connection between Nixon and China was, and more important, I had no idea what American opera sounded like. I was used to Mozart and Wager. I’ll never forget the opening. The Spirit of 76 lands on the stage, President Nixon comes down the stairs with Pat Nixon and Henry Kissinger. President Nixon then come forwards and shakes the hand of Premier Chou En-la, he begins to sing an obsessive melody, the text: “news has a kind of mystery”. I am not a huge fan of Adams, but that is certainly a profound opening. It describes the Cold War post-Nixon perfectly. It also serves as as an explanation of the events of “El Mozote” nearly ten years after Nixon landed in China. Nixon was worried about how the world would report the historic moment, what would they think of him, what would the world think of America, and what it meant to show “weakness” during the Cold War.

Nixon embraced a policy of Détente (co-existence) to easy-up on the growing tensions between the communist and non-communist super powers. Of course, its rhetoric and application were quite different. Nixon was certainly not practicing “co-existence” with Latin America. After the successful removal of President Allende of Chile, the U.S continued to reinforce the the expansion of liberal economics and the destruction of the Left in South America. While attention on South America was going full force, Central America was gearing up for yet another attempt at the Left. In El Salvador, the FMLN (Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional) sprung full force by 1980, this, after a period of stagnation during the Ford Administration. U.S foreign policy towards Central America and El Salvador during the Nixon Administration was primarily about building allies who supported the economic interests of the U.S. Through providing aid to countries like El Salvador, they maintained a solid base of political support. Of course, their reason for providing aid was purely political and not at all humanitarian. Through the election of Carter we saw that the policy of “softly” building allies though U.S aid to strengthen hemispheric hegemony was going to change.

Shocked by the amount of human rights that were being violated as a result of U.S economic involvement in Latin America,
Carter advocated for a policy of “human rights”, which refocused the way the U.S supplied aid to Latin America. Under the “human rights” policy, the U.S would provide aid to countries that were observing human rights. By changing the authoritarian framework, and committing to protect human rights, the pathways towards democracy were more likely to happen.
Both of these strategies were inefficient. Especially in El Salvador, while the U.S supported El Salvador pre-Carter to build compliance, there were no requirements for the aid--just, “ fight against communism”. In terms of the “human rights” approach, there was a requirement, “do not violates your people’s basic rights”-- however, in both cases, there was no infrastructure in place to see where the money was going. Similarly, there was no accurate way to define a foreign country as “observing” human rights, when there was no system in place to monitor their government.

In the case of El Salvador, while the Carter Administration provided aid to El Salvador for their compliance in observing human rights, the money was funding an increasingly conservative government that would, after Carter, be pressured by the Reagan Administration to act against Leftist forces.

Although good-willed, whether aid is being provided for observing human rights, or for fighting “softly” or “aggressively” communism, the fact of the matter is, money is coming in, and no one knows where it is going. This creates an economic foundation for any political system to act accordingly to their interests, especially if there is sudden change in foreign policy--like what happened after Carter with the election of Richard Nixon.

Reagan: Re-energizing Tension & the Return of the Hard-Liner Approach

The election of Ronald Reagan surely meant trouble for Latin America. Through his critiques of “softness” on behalf of the U.S towards communism under the Carter Administration. Reagan sought out to establish the U.S as a hard-liner against communism, because of the lack of attention on behalf of U.S could result in a massive overtake of the Left in Central America.
With substantial flows of revenue provided by the Carter Administration and the aggressive shift in the Reagan Administration, and the rise of the FMLN as a guerrilla group. Regan committed his Administration to taking down the communists. Reagan increased the amount of aid going to El Salvador, not for “human rights” but for military aid to fight the FMLN and other Leftist groups forming against the Salvadorian government. In addition, CIA operative began to train the Salvadorian army.
This radical shift highlights that as long as aid was being provided, despite ideology, it funded the Salvadorian government for its political interest, having nothing to do, of course, with the people of El Salvador.

“El Mozote”: Caught in the Transition

On December 10, 1981, Salvadorian armed-forces, financed and trained by the U.S, arrived at El Mozote, a remote village in El Salvador, under a lead of FMLN activity in the area. When faced with a population of farmers of around 1,000 (some estimate), the Salvadorian forces proceeded to massacre the population over two days of interrogations concerning the FMLN’s whereabouts and activity.

Like Nixon, the Reagan Administration faced once again the “news has a kind of mystery” situation. How would the world react? Under the umbrella of spreading democracy and fighting the “evils” of the Left, we were partially responsible for the death of hundreds. And in the case of “El Mozote”, people that really had nothing to do with it.

Although the U.S was clearly a large contributor to this horror, in a way, everyone was at fault. The events at El Mozote show that the innocent will always pay the price for battles of ideology. The people of El Mozote had nothing to do with this mess. The FMLN was partially to blame, as their activity in the area put many at risk. The Salvadorian forces were certainly at fault for showing such abysmal ethics and profound disregard for human rights. They really did apply brute force with no just cause. The people of El Mozote were not armed, were clearly not the leaders of a guerrilla group, the children who were slaughtered, women and girls who were raped and killed, and farmers who were gun-fired to death were not concerned with arguments of Right vs. Left. The were concerned with living their everyday lives. And, of course, the U.S was at fault for training and funding the Salvadorian armed-forces and intervening in El Salvador.

You would think that after such undeserved pain and suffering, the U.S would have stepped-back and reflected on our mistakes. On the contrary, the Reagan Administration worked to hide the massacre from the press. Similarly, the FMLN used the event as propaganda and the Salvadorian armed-forces did not admit fault.
The result was the death of hundreds for something they simply had no involvement in. Not knowing were to go or who to trust, the people of El Mozote paid with their lives.

Stop the War Against Women

This is my latest Op-ed for The New Hampshire

In recent weeks, the work of Margaret Sanger (American birth-control advocate and sex educator of the early 20th century) has become especially relevant. Legislation is currently before the U.S. Congress that would ban all public funding of Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest sex education/women's health/reproductive health non-profit organization. They are doing this through the Pence amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. The Republican-dominated House of Representatives approved the amendment 240-185.

In "Woman and the New Race," Sanger notes, "Woman must not accept; she must challenge." I extend to say, we must all challenge this attack.

It strikes me as odd that most of the women with whom I have spoken to this past week about this legislation, with the exception of some of my younger feminist friends, are older women. They seem to have a very vivid narrative about what life was like without access to a safe abortion. This narrative is not only horrifying, but it bring to light the slavery status women face when they don't have reproductive freedom. The other component, which I knew about, but still find incredible, is that less than four percent of Planned Parenthood's work has to do with abortions. To me, this serves as evidence that the majority of work they do in terms of education, health and, most importantly, prevention, is effective and sustainable. You might think that my assertion is subjective, non-empirical, and even anecdotal, but within the context of our reality, it certainly has more validity than the endless banter of conservative moralists attacking such a valuable institution, which barely exercises the practice they are concerned about, while millions don't have jobs.

To look at reproductive freedom nostalgically, as if we have "come so far," is irresponsible. The war on women is alive and well, and, perhaps, we must move backwards to move forward. It is no surprise to me that white conservative men are out to "get" Planned Parenthood. As we witness the intersectionality of white supremacy and misogyny, we see that their disregard is not only for women, but poor women, and women of color. Even more, we see that conservative politics has little to do with "job creation," but more with deranged moralists and religious ideological platforms. What will happen to the thousands who will lose their jobs at Planned Parenthood? How about the women who can't afford breast examinations? How long will it take for the media to respond collectively with the statistical evidence of Planned Parenthood's work? That less than four percent of their work is related to abortion? That more than 40,000 women last year received free cervical exams; that more than 100,000 women received free breast examinations; that they provide free HIV testing; that they invest millions in public education?

My solution to the "moral" question of abortion is simple: You don't want one, don't get one. Save yourself and your family when your beloved rapture comes and flies away to eternity. It is not my concern. I am sure that Mr. Pence and other moral-advocating-wait-another-month-or-so-until-they-get-caught-in-an-airport-bathroom-with-a-male-intern martyrs in Washington have some innovative ideas on how to make women docile and irrelevant. And for the record, women don't "want" abortions, and poor women don't want pregnancies; they are victims of poverty and need a community who will foster meaning to their life. Is Mr. Pence going to increase the funding of social programs to help these poor women raise their children? Or will he tell them life is tough and to go back to their unheated, lead paint-smelling apartments and feed their child Ramen noodle? I'm sure he wants to keep them there: unsuccessful, poor, uneducated, with the salted taste of packaged sodium in their mouths.

I don't know what type of event can spark social interest, but I believe many are blind and clueless of the rights they are losing. The apathy needs to stop, and you have to tell your government that you will not allow this war on women. To the women of this campus: you own your body - allow it to function as you wish.