Tag Archives: obama

Here We Go Again

Posted in Politics, Queer Issues by

I love my country but, at the same time… sometimes I’m incredibly disappointed by American culture. This would be one of those times.

When I was informed that Obama had selected his next Supreme Court nomination, and that the nominee was a woman I was immediately anxious. I wanted nothing more than to share in the excitement that others around me felt but, at the same time, I knew this was going to go bad fast. As everyone around me chattered excitedly about her qualifications and experiences all I could think was here we go again…

Just like the Sotomayor bashing began not a day after her nomination, so the Kagan bashing begins… this time instead of racism we get homophobia oh, great.

Some “Choice” Quotes

[From an article that laid out "evidence" for an against Kagan being a lesbian, published by Gawker] “ Let’s just get this out of the way. Kagan has a dykey haircut. Yes, it borders on stereotype, but the easiest way to spot any lesbian is based on her tonsorial choices and Kagan’s short ‘do says more ‘Melissa Etheridge concert’ than it does ‘wash-and-go busy professional.’ That’s not good or bad, it just is.” [...] “When she worked at the University of Chicago, she played softball. There are pictures to prove it. Sorry, but softball=lesbian.” [...] “Okay, since we’re digging out the circumstantial evidence, there is a picture of Kagan from 1977 where she is wearing a plaid, flannel shirt. Sorry, but, like softball, flannel=lesbian.” [...] “The Kagan lesbian rumors aren’t new, but she’s never made a public statement denying them. Here’s the basic rule on gay rumors: If someone doesn’t deny them or won’t talk about them, then they are true.”

[This is a whole article:] “Well no wonder the White House was so concerned with anyone thinking Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, is a lesbian: Tomorrow he’ll nominate her to the Supreme Court, NBC’s Pete Williams reports. Undoubtedly, Obama has the answer to her sexuality; don’t expect anyone to share it until after she’s confirmed.“

[And a conservative blog post, for good measure:] “This is hilarious. Potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is gayer than the first three rows at an Indigo Girls concert, and yet the White House acts all outraged that conservative writer Ben Domenech incorrectly described the unmarried 49-year-old as “openly gay.”

Kagan is not officially so open about it, and this gives the White House a chance to pretend that Domenech is part of a right-wing homophobic whisper campaign. In the process, as Moe Lane notes, the White House reacted “in a manner that explicitly and authoritatively denies that Ms. Kagan is gay” – a denial that thereby makes it legitimate news if, in fact, Kagan is gayer than your average NCAA Division I varsity women’s softball team.”

Elena Kagan does not publicly self-identify as queer and, yet, because of her short hair, her tendency towards pant-suits, and her single status America has decided she can only be a lesbian. We (or, the media) has decided she is a lesbian and now that’s all we’re going to talk about… just as Justice Sotomayor’s Latina heritage was pretty much all anyone could focus on during her process.

I have two major issues here:

1) Who the fuck are we to project any identity onto anyone else? Not one of the people reporting on this stories knows that Kagan is queer, because she does not openly identify as queer. Sure, she might be… but she also might not be. It’s her right to keep that information private if she so chooses and its really disrespectful to us as a culture to make assumptions about her sexuality, and then base our critique of her potential presence on the Supreme Court on these speculations. Short hair, pants, and a lack of a male partner does not a lesbian make… sure, some lesbians do meet all of those characteristics, but so do some straight women. The only way we can really know the truth about Kagan’s sexuality is to hear it from her when and if she is ready to disclose… which brings me to my next point.

2) Maybe she is queer… who knows? But if she is… SO WHAT? This idea that a Latina woman, or a queer woman, or even just a woman is going to be more biased than a straight white man and, thus, should not be appointed to the Supreme Court is sexist, racist, and homophobic because it operates on the assumption that straight white men are the default perspective in society… an assumption that many Americans seem to make on a constant basis. Well, I have news for those people: men are socialized differently than women, white people have a lot of privileged in our society and thus will often develop a view of the world that is different from a non-white person’s  just like straight people living in a heteronormative society (like ours) tend to see the world in a different way than queer people do. Everyone has different lived experiences, and thus, everyone brings a different bias to the table. Even people with the same heratige, the same skin color, the same sexuality and gender identification, and so on live different lives and, thus, develop different biases and lenses in which to see the world.

NO PERSON IS UNBIASED OR “MORALLY DEFAULT” so why are we acting as if a justice’s sexuality, or ethnicity, or whatever should even matter? What I am concerned about right now is Kagan’s history – what she has done, what she believes, her experience with law... you know, the relevant stuff? I just wish the rest of this country would be too.

ETA That said, there are some very legitimate criticisms of Kagan. This post in particular makes me incredibly concerned, and the fact that she is anti-equal marriage is another point of contention for me.

The haircut: Let’s just get this out of the way. Kagan has a dykey haircut. Yes, it borders on stereotype, but the easiest way to spot any lesbian is based on her tonsorial choices and Kagan’s short ‘do says more “Melissa Etheridge concert” than it does “wash-and-go busy professional.” That’s not good or bad, it just is.

Health Care Reform as I Understand It

Posted in Health, Politics by

With everyone so eager to share their opinion on the historic health care bill that just passed, I figured I’d throw my two cents into the ring. Rather than provide you with an opinion on how I think this is going to play out, I’m simply going to lay out the provisions of this bill (as best as I understand them from a survey of articles that range from The New York Times to Fox News to Feministing.) I couldn’t resist throwing in a little opinion though… which is why the provisions are categorized into Good, Bad, and Questionable. I hope this helps make this whole debate just a little bit more comprehensible.

- The Good:
Most awesomely, this bill will expand insurance coverage to thirty-two million uninsured Americans. This will be accomplished, in part, through insurance exchanges. These exchanges would allow small business owners, and uninsured individuals to buy insurance through state-based exchanges that include subsidies for people who make from 100 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

The bill also puts strict regulations in place that will (hopefully) ban insurance companies from charging higher premiums or even denying coverage of people with preexisting conditions, as well as ban companies from charging higher premiums for women. It would also require insurance companies to provide maternity care.

This bill will also expand Medicaid so that people who make up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level will be covered, and close the Medicare “donut hole” which is a costly gap that vastly pumps up the price of prescription drug coverage for senior citizens.

The bill will allow parent’s insurance to cover their children through the age of twenty-six.

- The Questionable:
With a few exceptions, this bill would require all U.S. citizens to purchase insurance or pay a $695 annual fine, and require businesses with fifty plus employees to provide them with insurance or pay a two-thousand dollar fine per employee every year if any employee receives federal subsidies for purchasing insurance. (However, the employer mandate has been removed by the Senate.)

- The Bad:
Essentially, women’s health was thrown under the bus in order to pass this bill. Obama’s executive order that all abortion funds must be kept separate from any federal funds used in supplying health insurance will essentially cause all insurance companies to drop abortion coverage altogether; the alternative for the companies (maintaining records that separate out special ‘abortion funds’ from money that the policy-holder pays directly without government aid) is a record-keeping logistical nightmare.

This article by Jon Walker says it best:

“The system of exchanges and affordability tax credits could easily be modified to ensure federal funds are not used to pay for abortions, while still not taking away the ability of women and small businesses to buy insurance packages that cover abortion. Having an individual mandate that forces women to buy insurance, but also a law that prevents them from getting insurance that covers a legal medical procedure, is a disgusting abuse of women’s rights.”

The other major fail in this bill concerns immigration. This bill as it stands would not allow undocumented immigrants to buy insurance on soon to be established exchanges, even if they are willing to pay the full cost out of pocket, with no government aid. Not only is this policy cruel, it also makes no sense fiscally. Walker explains it well:

“The more undocumented immigrants that pay for their own health care, the more taxpayers save by not being forced to pick up the cost of undocumented immigrants’ uncompensated care when they use the emergency rooms.”

[UPDATE] The bill also re-instates funding for the failed abstinence-only education initiative that is commonly referred to as Title V. The reputable studies out there all point to comprehensive sex education (that includes discussions about celibacy) is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STIs. Abstinence only does not work – it does not stop teenagers from having sex, and when they do have sex students who have only received abstinence education tend to use less (if any) protection. Again, I understand compromises have to be made but really now? Between the abortion strike-down and this you’d think our government wants more women to become dis-empowered mothers-without-a-choice*. That is not okay with me.

What Comes Next? Recognizing that, for the most part, this was a big step in the right direction is integral; but that’s all it is, a step. Now its time to bring the focus squarely onto reproductive rights (including access to safe, legal abortions for people of all income levels) and push to get some pro-choice legislature through as soon as possible. Another push to make it so illegal immigrants can purchase insurance will hopefully happen as well, since denying them coverage, even when they can afford it, is detrimental to both the health of our country and the health of the people we are refusing to cover.

Crossposted @ Amplify.

****************************************

* I am not implying that anyone is dis-empowered because they are a mother. What I am saying is that being forced to choose motherhood (because you were not given the information to prevent pregnancy, nor did you have access to a means of ending your pregnancy)  is dis-empowering. Shouldn’t we be working towards a country where every child is wanted and every parent wants to be one?

Is Regina Benjamin’s Weight Even Our Business?

Posted in Body Image, Health, Politics by

regina_benjamin-2006On Wednesday Broadsheet reporter Francis Kissling posed a question: “Is Regina Benjamin too fat to be surgeon general?” A question I respond to with a raised eyebrow of disapproval and a really Salon, I mean really?

Luckily, despite its irritating headline, the article itself is one I can almost get behind as I agree with its author that, “this country is full of above-average weight women and children struggling for dignity,” and having an above average weight Surgeon General could positively impact that struggle. Unfortunately the article is quite the mixed bag. Here’s a full quote so we can do a breakdown:

“This country is full of above-average weight women and children struggling for dignity as well as to lose weight. Achieving either of these is not easy. (Never mind that none of these criticisms have mentioned any actual health concerns Benjamin might or might not have, instead presuming “obesity” as a catch-all for bad health.) Having a confident, big-bodied and big-spirited woman as America’s family doctor could do more to improve their health than skinny HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius. It’s good to know that even doctors struggle with their weight – and lead full and active lives in spite of adversity.“

The Good:

“Never mind that none of these criticisms have mentioned any actual health concerns Benjamin might or might not have, instead presuming “obesity” as a catch-all for bad health” Here, the author points out that Benjamin may not have any health problems, calling out the people making critical assumptions about her simply based on her weight.

“…and lead full and active lives in spite of adversity” Although the rest of the article makes it clear that the adversity the author is referring to is related to money, rather than judgment based on weight, I originally got excited and thought that Kissling was again acknowledging he social stigma that comes with being considered overweight. Regardless, the fact that the author described Benjamin as having an active lifestyle is a great thing because it observes the way she lives her life, rather than the way she looks, and stands in opposition to the idea that fat = lazy/inactive.

The Bad:

“…as well as to lose weight” Here we have to common assumption that all fat people are/should be unhappy with their bodies as they are and actively trying to lose weight.

“…could do more to improve their health than skinny HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “ Some fat people are perfectly healthy and some are unhealthy, some thin people are unhealthy and some are healthy… health comes at a multitude of sizes and is based way more on one’s activity level and diet than it is on a (largely genetically determined) weight or, to be more accurate, the perception of one’s weight due to assumptions that are based upon one’s appearance. I don’t like the assumption here that anyone has a responsibility to improve the health of all fat people…. we should be focused on improving everyone’s health instead and understanding that health and weight have no definitive correlation.

“even doctors struggle with their weight” Not all fat people are struggling with their weight. It is possible to be not skinny, but still happy with your body as it is (just as it is possible to be skinny & unhappy with your body.) Why is the author automatically assuming a struggle on Dr. Benjamin’s part?

This isn’t even about health so much, however, so I’m not going to delve further into the issue of whether or not fat = unhealthy (especially since I’ve covered it already so many times.) If you have any questions about the link between health and weight please take a look at the Junkfood Science blog, or this comprehensive article on Shapely Prose, or watch one of Kelly Bliss’ awesome media apperances.

Instead, I want to get back to that question: “Is Regina Benjamin too fat to be surgeon general?” I want to backtrack to that opening question and raise my own question back in response: Is it right for us to question anyone’s qualifications based on their weight?

Continue reading →

Awesome Obama :)

Posted in Politics by

amd_obama_happy1I’m happy to report Obama has been saying some awesome things lately about equality and tolerance! Most of these probably aren’t going to be news to you since I’m a bit behind on the blogging (sorry!) but since I’ve been fairly critical of our president in the past few months, I figure its only fair to post this here. Plus its always good to focus on the happy, just for a little while at least, before continuing on with the work that needs to be done. And so…

- Obama declares June LGBT Pride Month!

“LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

- From the President’s Official Press Release

- Obama adresses Women’s Rights in a speech made in Cairo!

“The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”

- President Obama in Cairo, Thursday June 4th

- Obama’s Graduation Speech at Notre Dame attempts to bring people together*.

“It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century – whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease – do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history. [...]

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? [...]

Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”

- Obama at the Notre Dame Commencement, May 17th.

I may not agree with every policy choice he makes, but having a President who is willing to speak out about the need for change certainly is a step in the right direction! Now, lets get working to make his words into action.

***************************************

* His last speech, of course, was about abortion specifically but I believe his general sentiment can be applied to any disagreement really. This speech is especially poignant and applicable in the wake of Dr. George Tiller’s murder; how I wish his killer had been pushed towards “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair minded words” instead of violence.