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.

Andy Carvin: "The Digital Divide"

My belief is that justice is unobtainable without mass-literacy. In addition ,mass-literacy cannot come to fruition without a radically public system of education.

Learning is technological; from classes requiring blogs and live journals, to the simple fact, that, it is impossible to write a research paper without the internet. Even if you use print sources, where and how are these sources cataloged? Databases.

Like all access to information and in this case, access to technologies that contain information, we find that there is no new trend in the way that these technologies are distributed. Presumably, they would be distributed democratically. One might argue that distribution would never function democratically under an economic system such as capitalism. I am finding that argument particularly insufficient lately.

Andy Carvin is National Public Radio's senior product manager for online communities. He was the founding editor and former coordinator of the Digital Divide Network, an online community of more than 10,000 Internet activists in over 140 countries working to bridge the digital divide.

His work is on the “digital divide,” which he defines as “...the ever-growing gap between those people and communities who have access to information technology and those who do not.” Carvin continues to tell us the the “digital divide” is one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time. I agree. Primarily because he walks us through the multilayered condition of the divide; most advocated for democratic technology do not. Most call for an increase in access without taking into consideration the many issues that come with unregulated access. Carvin instructs us of the following intersections: The digital divide is about:

*Access
*Content
*Literacy
*Pedagogy

Carvin explains that in order to democratize the world of the internet we must be aware of content, most of our time on-line is spent on foolishness (Facebook, online shopping) Functional adult illiteracy is at an all time high, many adults don’t read -- so what is the ‘use’ of limitless access. In terms of pedagogy, we must realize that we need people who are prepared to use technology properly, and more important, productively. The problem is not necessarily in the functionality of the internet and how people can learn the basics of tech-navigation (many people have that problem) but rather, how can the internet improve our lives and the community.

I agree that the "digital divide" is a civil rights issue that we must begin to unpack and try to fix, but we must be aware of the downfalls of populous politics.

Cyber-Feminist Spaces

Maria Bakardijeva reports in her article “Virtual Togetherness: An Everyday-Life Perspective” on her view of virtual spaces, as “public spheres,” having the potential to be spaces for intellectual discourse and the democratic sharing of ideas.

As a Cyber-Activist, and a Feminist who has embraced the technological as a medium to produce and share intellectualism, I am compelled to agree with Bakardijeva. That is not say that these spaces don’t also have the potential to be destructive. I am thinking particularly of the amount of bigotry and hate that goes on in America’s top site for video and music sharing -- youtube. Of-course, as I have often mentioned in my work, there is no need to theorize foolishness and bigotry. Someone who comments on a video of violinist Isaac Perlman, and writes, “stupid jew” is just a waste of intelligence, nevertheless, these “wastes” divide into two polarizing groups: one in which the person is forced to react to their ignorance by means of their profound boredom and self-loathing mentality; and, one in which the person is a radical ideologue, who is an anti-semite, white-supremacist etc.

This leads me into my discussion for this entry -- comment culture in Feminist virtual spaces. What I mean by “comment culture,” is that, within virtual communities, like all communities, cultures develop on how to produce and interpret material. Youtube, for example, is a mixed bag, but often is a space with a poor comment culture, demonstrating efficiently involved commenting grounded in mindless-thinking.

Cyber-Feminist spaces such as Feministing, and Ms.blog have shown remarkable poise: monitoring comments, inviting people to participate in the discourse, and understanding the limitations of “free speech.” These type of marketing choices, I guess, let’s call them that, are necessary to foster a comment culture that can facilitate the production of knowledge, and not hinder thinking by embracing foolishness and empty-minded comments, usually motivated by bigotry.

Some of the Cyber-Feminist spaces I would recommend are:

Feministing
Ms.Blog
Latina Magazine Blog
Bitch Ph.d.

ChatRoulette: Years of Torture in Fifty Clicks

Shocking Results

Sam Anderson, a writer for New York, writes in his compelling article, “The Human Shuffle: Is ChatRoulette the future of the Internet or its distant Past,” about his experiences with the famous American site -- ChatRoulette. Anderson reports, “ I entered the fray on a bright Wednesday afternoon, with an open mind and an eager soul, ready to sound my barbaric yawp through the webcams of the world. I left absolutely crushed. It turns out that ChatRoulette, in practice, is brutal.” As a newfound frequenter of the site, I have found myself entering the provocative world of the mystery web-cam with friends, using it as a device of humor. We sometimes sit in my living room, after one-two-many glasses of wine, and explore the realm of cyber-vulgarity with a rather facetious purpose. In order to understand Anderson’s claims, I had to face the infamous ChatRoulette by myself, and establish some type of methodology for my research. Here it is: Fifty clicks, and I did not allow myself to “next” anyone; they would have to “next” me. “Nexting,” if we can call that a verb, is the act of clicking “next” on your screen when you want to be connected to a different webcam; the “nexting” process is random, hence the roulette aspect of this truly unique Cyber realm.

My day was very similar to Anderson’s -- I was in a good mood. I sat down in my room and began my experiment. It is difficult to put into words how bizarre, hateful and dirty this site really is. And, I don’t mean dirty because of nudity, I mean the sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and racist filth I consumed in thirty-two minutes. Some of my web-cam encounters included a person who called me a “fat faggot,” a person who masturbated in front of me for two minutes and ejaculated on his keyboard, a person who engaged me in a chat at first, and after a minute or so asked me if I could, “finger my asshole and let him call me a cum-eating bitch,” a person drawing pictures on a white-board with ketchup, a group of fraternity boys screaming, “we want tits!,” and a person with a motorcycle helmet. With all of that, what seemed to upset me the most was watching people look at me for two seconds and hit “next.” I can not echo Anderson enough, when he says, “If this was the future of the Internet, then the future of the Internet obviously didn’t include me.” It was brutal. It was years of social rejection and ridicule in fifty clicks. My self-conscience body image, Queerness, and basic humanity of being able to seek a connection with another human being was completely brought to shambles, in the cruelest of ways.

Anyone that takes this site seriously is either a masochist, or is at risk. With the recent media coverage of suicide, this site has the potential to be the catalyst of cyber-bullying. The “nexting” process is just a tool for foolish people to remove their agency from the hate they are creating. ChatRoulette is nothing more than a cyber-manifestation of hate. I am also sickened by those who say these images don’t matter, and that it’s just “a joke,” when all of us are a click away from the most violent isms.

Unhopeful Conclusions

When we attempt to theorize on why ChatRoulette exists, and how our experiences are shaped in categories of gender, race, and sexuality, it becomes increasingly difficult to focus on a conclusion. This because, human foolishness, and arbitrary technological inventions used for the dissemination of hate, and objectification, are so prevalent and popular in Cyber culture. In terms of sexuality, I found a very direct linage between homophobia and homoeroticism. Forty-two of my fifty clicks were men, and nearly half of them were penises. I am inclined to ask the following question: If you expose yourself, and expect that the image of your penis will be consumed by female viewers, why would you go on a site that is frequented predominately by men? It also seems interesting to me that out of my fifty clicks, two of them identified themselves as Queer, in casual conversation with Queer communities, it has been brought to my attention that the Queer community frequents the site. When it comes to race, I was surprised by the diversity and internationalism of the users. However, I was quickly reminded of the work of Lisa Nakamura, where she critiques an MCI commercial for claiming that there was no race, gender, or age in the Internet, just minds. Nakamura warms us of the fabrication of diversity by cyber technologies, “ ...the visual images of diversity are displayed and celebrated as spectacles of difference, that the narrative simultaneously attempts to erase by claiming that MCI’s product will reduce the different bodies that we see to “just minds.”


I am unsure if ChatRoulette is the future of the Internet, but I am sure that it will remain relative to Cyber discourse for years to come.

The technological dependency we are suffering from is causing us to strive for an identity that is perpetually public. The satisfaction, even if destructive and ridiculous, that we get from the immediacy of human contact has become solidified in a culture that is inpatient and relies on technological inventions to respond -- respond to human emotion, desire, and yearning for companionship.

Unpacking the Rutgers Tragedy: One Step at a Time

The Tyler Clementi story has brought to light once again the sick world we live in, and the media coverage has reenforced the marketability of gay death. It’s sickening to watch newscasters and main stream conservatives like “Dr.” Phil go on Larry King and say, “ it doesn’t matter that he was gay, someone is dead.” Yes, someone is dead, but it’s not a coincidence -- it’s homophobia.

This passive language dismisses how many of us feel -- vulnerable and frightened.

When will we start a comprehensive discussion? When will we realize that issues of gender and race, at all levels, are crucial components in American politics. Today, in my political column for The New Hampshire, my colleagues suggested that I would “cast the Tea Party as racist, sexist, and homophobic” because it had a good “ring to it.” News-flash: If you are holding a “Lynch Obama” sign, you are a fucking racist and a white supremacist. There is no excuse. And suggesting that I make everything about race? -- well, I do. Because it is about race. I don’t know why I am so surprised that privileged whites don’t want to talk about race. They don’t have a race. They just are.

This same type of hegemonic rhetoric is being used for the Rutgers suicide. “It's about human life, it could have happen to anyone. Stop making everything about being gay”

Well, I am.

It is crucial that Tyler Clementi was having an intimate encounter with a man. Whether he was gay or not we don’t know. But why are we surprised? Isn’t suicide the climax to the tragic Queer narrative? Not to mention that the people responsible for filming Tyler’s encounter are not the only ones at fault. How about the rest of bigots that have driven every Queer person to a breaking point? How many times we have heard the word “faggot?” And even if it was not directed at us, we know we are the faggots? What causes a 13 year-old to shoot himself in the head?

We do.

Our refusal to talk, our refusal to act, and our refusal to acknowledge the privileges we hold. It’s easy for Dan Savage to come out with his “It Gets Better” campaign while many of us watch the disposability of Queer death in horror. Yes, Dan, for you it does get better: your money, your whiteness, your status, and your obsession with assimilation will help you achieve the “better.” Never-mind, your biphobia, transphobia, classism and racism. It does get better, Dan -- for you.

Many of my dear friends and social justice warriors like Joelle Ruby Ryan have started a conversation to unify, and come away from these Gay Inc. mentalities. Join the conversation, and understand that it won’t get better if you don’t get involved.

Justice is not inevitable.

We all must realize that the solution is in education. They have been asking us all week if there are enough resources for us to turn to in crisis. Yes, there are. Trust me, every Queer knows where the counseling center is; it's part of the tragic narrative. My question: Where is the mandatory Multicultural Theory course for every freshman? Where are the pro-active administrations that will commit at an institutional level to teach diversity? Not just for us, we know it, we live it.

It is time for radical change in education. Sustainability will only be possible with a commitment to diversity, not a commitment to “tolerance” and “acceptance.” Many of us have to tolerate ignorance, and we are tired .

We are tired as a community. If all of us would come together as allies, we would see change, but so many of us are saturated with apathy and cynicism.

Ask yourself: who will be next? Try to find an answer, you won’t -- because it might just be one of us.

Avatar: A Sci-Fi-Imperial Thriller

I find it hard to believe that so many of us still refuse to accept that mass media, and movies in particular are the main pedagogical agents of culture. The “magic” of Hollywood continues to approach representation in a motivated way. Racial, gender, and SES stereotypes are constantly reenforced as a result of “effective marketing.” Some Hollywood choices manifest into “funny black people” or the “gay fashionista.” The type of representation that provides either whites or heterosexuals with “humor,” the type of dehumanization that encourages the tokenism and entertainment quality of queerness or blackness.

Through technological advances, and the Hollywood strive towards the ultimate spectacle, movies in the Sci-Fi world want to remove us from our social condition, and have us arrive in the “distant world,” where our social condition is no longer relevant. Ironically enough, this distant world is very close to home.

In Lisa Nakamura’s Digitizing Race, she reports this observation: "However, as the popular Matrix sequels and other millennial science fiction films demonstrate, the massification of the Internet has not damaged the market for traditionally racialized representations of people of color as primitive and sexual if black, and machinic and inherently technological if Asian.  White people are still depicted as the users that matter in these narratives that are so influential among popular audiences, especially young audiences"  (208).

No where can this claim play out more accurately then in the poorly executed, white messiah glorifier, imperial celebrating, nature romantizizer 2010 Sci-Fi thriller -- Avatar. This dirty little film might have cool special effects, but the representation remains very problematic.

To start: The undertones of colonization are disturbing. It is no accident that the plot is the “civilized” person’s interest in the “barbarians’” resources. This organic capital that they posses is the new diamonds the British where so interested in in Africa. Although the Na’ve people were at times portrayed in a good light, they were still portrayed as being noble in terms of nature, not humanity, they are there for the gaze of neo-thoreauians objectifying them as exotic artifacts.

Jake is one of the most problematic characters in this Sci-Fi-Imperial thriller. After he decides to be a covert agent and trick the Na’vi into letting him into their society, he decides that he likes them and does not want anything to do with the corporate fascists that had first encouraged him. David Brooks starts of his stellar Op-ed on Avatar by saying that “every age produces its own sort of fables, and our age seems to have produced The White Messiah fable.” He then continues in his fabulous David Brooks way to highlight how after Jake redeems himself, his messiah status is celebrated: “The white guy notices that the peace-loving natives are much cooler than the greedy corporate tools and the bloodthirsty U.S. military types he came over with. He goes to live with the natives, and, in short order, he’s the most awesome member of their tribe. He has sex with their hottest babe. He learns to jump through the jungle and ride horses. It turns out that he’s even got more guts and athletic prowess than they do. He flies the big red bird that no one in generations has been able to master”

Another popular critique to attack this horrid film was Federick Meade. He brilliantly encapsulates the destructive nature of these films, and calls for a radical defining of a movement to oppose this type of film making. “If such a phenomenon fails to emerge, those transmissions designed to maintain and reinforce existing inequitable social arrangements and attending precepts will continue to flourish. Such is the net effect of the movie industries’ latest instrument--Avatar.”

Elton John & Rush Limbaugh

Sell out.

That is really the only way to describe Elton John's performance at Rush Limbaugh's fourth, yes, fourth wedding. The pill popping neo-nazi married a beautiful woman by the name of Kate Rogers, as a feminist I wish her luck, and I would advise her to keep the phone near by. This whole " gay and bigot get along theme" should be a thing of the past after Elton performed with Emimem at the 2001 MTV awards, I get it, you won't kill us. Thrilling. I am also very sure that Elton John isn't doing too badly money wise that he could not say no to Limbaugh's 1 million dollar payment. To have one of the icons of American Queer Culture ( I am not saying he is a good one) serenade this anti everything not white, straight, and conservative creature and his equally offensive guest list : Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Fred Thompson and drum roll please -- Clarence Thomas is obscene and a total sell out. Shame Elton, shame.