Park51, a.k.a. “The Ground Zero Mosque,” is a planned $100 million, 13-story Islamic community center in New York City. If built, it would include a 500-seat auditorium, a theatre, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a childcare area, a bookstore, a culinary school, an art studio, a food court and a prayer space.
Set to be erected two blocks from the former World Trade Center site, Park51 has been a lightning rod for controversy in recent weeks.
The project is being headed by Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Imam (a community or religious leader in Islamic society) who would run the center under his nonprofit Cordoba Initiative banner. Plans to build the center—originally to be called “Cordoba House” in reference to a long period of peaceful coexistence between Christians, Jews and Muslims in Cordoba, Spain—began in earnest in December of last year. It wasn’t until May 2010, when construction plans were submitted for review to a local community board, that the proposed center gained the attention of national media.
The preponderance of controversy surrounding Park51 boils down to perceptions of insensitivity. It’s unacceptable, detractors allege, to build an Islamic community center so near to the epicenter of a violent crime carried out by Islamic extremists.
The center’s supporters and organizers, though, maintain that its intended purpose is to advance peaceful relations between Islam and the West, and are quick to note that it would include a memorial to September 11th. Accordingly to the Cordoba Initiative, the center would be “a platform for multi-faith dialogue” which would “strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally.”
But questions have abounded as to Imam Rauf’s views, which have been widely criticized on the right. Many have pointed specifically to comments made by Rauf in a September 30th, 2001 interview with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes. When asked if the U.S. had deserved to be attacked on September 11th, Rauf said that he “wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened,” but that “the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened…because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” And that, “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”
In spite of Rauf’s espoused opposition to Islamic extremism, critics have also pointed to his hesitation to comment on the U.S. State Department’s designation of Hamas (the militant Palestinian Islamic group) as a terrorist organization. Christopher Hitchens, a noted intellectual whose views run the political-ideological gamut, is among those suspicious of Rauf.
In an August 23rd article in Slate, Hitchens opined that “[the center’s] defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance.” He continues, “It would be nice if this were true,” and then cites Rauf’s past endorsement of Vilayet-i-faquih in Iran as evidence to the contrary. “It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results,” and which unfairly disfavors Iran’s many Shiite Muslims. Hitchens’ ultimate conclusion is that we should “by all means make the ‘Ground Zero’ debate a test of tolerance,” but that “this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.”
Daisy Khan, Imam Rauf’s wife and a Cordoba Initiative board member, insists that such concerns are misplaced. Her group, she says, “decided…to look at the legacy of 9/11 and do something positive,” explaining that the center would represent Muslim moderates who want “to reverse the trend of extremism and the kind of ideology that the extremists are spreading.” She says, too, that she wants the center to be a symbol of the silent majority of Muslims around the world who continue to be the victims of Muslim extremism.
On the topic of extremism, MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann has recently pointed out that, factually speaking, the only precedent for violence connected to Islamic centers in America has been in instances involving violence against them. Such was the case in Jacksonville, Florida on May 10th of this year, when a pipe bomb was planted at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. The bomb was successfully detonated during an evening prayer service, but, thanks to poor placement, injured no one.
Observed Olbermann both edifyingly dishearteningly, “Since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims.”
Indeed, despite whatever qualms or tenuous suspicions people may have about Park51, this is what must absolutely be remembered: Whereas “our” fear of insidious cultural usurpation by Muslims is largely traceable to fear-mongering and ethno-phobic peroration, Muslim-Americans’ cause for concern over actual hegemony—to say nothing of physical violence—is both substantive and steeped in precedent.
It is Glenn Beck who so often quotes Benjamin Franklin in saying, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It is Glenn Beck, too, who says this while simultaneously advocating the de facto constriction of others’ liberty.
As I write this, Mr. Beck is a mere three miles from me, leading a charge on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to “restore honor” to America. My advice to Mr. Beck, to his ilk, and to their collective legion of disciples in intolerance, is to consider this quote’s application to the non-white, non-Christian Americans who stand to benefit the most from it. How patriotic, how courageous—indeed, how honorable—that would be.
In the Land of the Free, we cannot be in the business of preemptive religious circumspection.
Pictures from News Real Blog, Battery Park City, and The Common Ground Blog
I am generally not a fan of the Emmys, which is somewhat surprising because I love television and I love good television so you’d think I’d be all about a ceremony dedicated to celebrating it. But alas. The Emmys kind of suck. They have snubbed far too many deserving shows and garnished praise on far too many undeserving shows. This year is no real exception. Sure, there are bright spots on the horizon. Modern Family was well deserving of its Best Comedy nomination, but shows like Parks and Recreation, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and Party Down were sadly left out.
Nevertheless, here is my Emmy analysis for the two major categories – you’ll find what I think will win, what should win, what shouldn’t even be in the category, and what was left out.
Best Series, Drama
What Will Win: Mad Men – The Emmy voters like what they know. Mad Men has the same “too good for television” flair that The Sopranos did.
What Should Win: Dexter – Dexter had a fantastic season this year. It kept people on the edge of their seats. The action was superb. The acting was flawless. By far, this was the best season of Dexter yet and in this author’s opinion, the best season of television.
What Shouldn’t Have Been Nominated: Lost and True Blood - *ducks flying fruit* I’m sorry obsessed fans, but these shows are simply not on the same level as Breaking Bad, Dexter, Mad Men, and The Good Wife. True Blood is a beautifully filmed soap opera with a budget. It is not original. It’s a guilty pleasure and that’s okay! It’s a freaking amazing guilty pleasure! But it’s not one of the top dramas on TV right now. It doesn’t take any risks (unless you count nudity and it’s on HBO so you really shouldn’t). It is a vampire story that has been done over and over again (and done better…specifically on Buffy). I also find it interesting that for a show that is in the Best Drama category, it has a surprisingly few number of nominations in other categories. No acting nods. No directing nods. No writing nods….so why was this nominated for best drama? For cinematography and, um, best opening titles? Um…whaa?? Lost is an entirely different beast. Here is the reality: you were suckered. There was no plan. There was no satisfying ending unless you’re into overwrought sentimentality. The writers promised a revelation and instead they gave us a weak conclusion. Lost is not The Return of the King of the Emmys. It does not deserve a sweeping victory.
What Was Left-Out: Damages and Friday Night Lights– While True Blood was strangely absent from other categories, Damages and Friday Night Lights certainly were not. These two shows consistently challenge both themselves and their viewers and that should be acknowledged.
Best Series, Comedy
What Will Win: 30 Rock or Modern Family – While I think Modern Family should be the clear winner in this category, Emmy voters love 30 Rock and despite its somewhat weaker season, Tina Fey still may walk away with the statue.
What Should Win: Modern Family – Modern Family is funny, smart, and original and it’s time for it to be recognized.
What Shouldn’t Have Been Nominated: Nurse Jackie, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and The Office – It’s not that I don’t find these shows funny – I do – but there are too many other more deserving shows. And let’s face it: With the exception of a few episodes, The Office is just in this category because old habits die hard.
What was Left-Out: SO MANY THINGS – Community, Parks and Recreation, Party Down, and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. All of these shows have received rave critical praise and yet, no love at the Emmys (although Amy Poehler did get a well-deserved acting nod). What’s more, I would really like to see Danny DeVito accept an award. Is that so much to ask? No.
The Emmy Awards air Sunday night at 6pm. Be there or be square. Or something.
The pictures in this article were taken from Sweaty Betty.
“It’s weird…it’s like…I find Michael Cera really hot.”
I looked at my friend in wonder as she revealed this confession. My wonder was not at how she could find this perpetually prebubescent man-child attractive. My wonder was that she honestly thought she was alone.
Just how did dorky become so hot? Conventionally attractive men haven’t helped any. If you go look through People’s List of the Sexiest Man Alive, you find some notably unsavory characters. Mel Gibson, who is apparently now abusive as well as being a misogynistic anti-semite. Jude Law, who cheated with his children’s nanny. Tom Cruise, who lost his goddamn mind. And, though he never appeared on People’s list, Tiger Woods is yet another example.
The phenomenon also extends to women. While 30 Rock is a brilliant show, it gets a bit nauseating to have to constantly listen to Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) talk about how much she eats and how hard it is for her to get a date. Mere months ago, Tina Fey was on the cover of Esquire, wearing a dress that made the infamous J-Lo dress look downright conservative. Sarah Silverman was on Maxim in an even more revealing get-up (though she was admittedly in the process of putting on a gorilla suit). Brittany Spears? Sad and crazy. Angelina Jolie? Possibly crazier.
So, while George Clooney gets rejected not once but TWICE in his most recent movie “Up in the Air,” Michael Cera, Seth Rogen, and Jonah Hill are raking in the money and staring in movies where they end up with the likes of Katherine Hegel and Ellen Page. The trouble is that the jig will be up pretty soon. Michael Cera is likely doomed to the same fate that befell a guy at my high school. We’ll call him Jordan. Jordan was one of those guys who was excellent at having many close female friends. They were all “just friends,” and Jordan had the pathetic, dorky “fool in love” act down perfectly. One day, though, three of these “just friends” got together and figured out that not only was Jordan hooking up with all of them, he was often seeing them all in the same night.
What does this sad tale teach? Unfortunately, it’s not good looks in and of themselves that corrupt someone–it’s the sense of power, and the sense that they are somehow above treating other people with respect. So, careful, those of you who like Michael, Jonah, and Seth because they’re so “dorky.” They’re likable only as long as they themselves believe in their own dorkiness.
That said….Michael, please call me. You’re so absurdly hot.
Hey guys, check out my guest post on An Apple a Day:
We’ve all heard of vitaminwater. We’ve seen the ads on TV, the colorful bottles on store shelves. “Hydrate responsibly,” they say. “More muscles than brussels,” they promise. Despite the righteous claims, though, vitaminwater is hardly the healthful beverage it purports to be. That’s exactly why a non-profit public interest group is suing Coca-Cola— vitaminwater’s parent company—for making false claims as to the product’s health benefits.
And without a doubt, they are right to do so. Clocking in at about 33 grams of sugar per bottle, vitaminwater has more in common with a can of pop than with anything of actual nutritional worth. By simply addressing Coke’s predatory advertising tactics, though, the lawsuit targets a mere affordance, rather than the root cause of, the actual problem.
The lawsuit fails to address Americans’ absolute ignorance to sensible eating.
Consider that, today, two thirds of all Americans are statistically overweight or obese. Heart disease is the number one killer in the country, accounting for more deaths every year than all cancers combined. Diabetes is ever-prevalent, too, affecting people at younger and younger ages. Nutritional irresponsibility has become so pandemic that people with weight-related health problems now pay more in associated health care expenses—10 % of their total income—than do smokers. (This statistic is expected to double in ten years’ time, to 20 %.)
Perhaps most terrifyingly, children today are forecasted to be the first generation of Americans to live shorter lives than their parents.
In short, people don’t know how to eat properly. They don’t know what food is good for them, what food is killing them, or what responsible eating ought to entail. This, rather than achieving a new standard in advertising veracity, is what needs to be addressed in this country—and quickly. Read More…
Picture from Twin Soup
Flying is rough these days. From the get-go, it is safe to assume that one will be dealing with farcically lofty additional fees for baggage, an in-flight “snack” that seems designed to mock its consumer, and, inevitably, unavoidably, the crying babies. Always the crying babies. Their screams echo like an endless wail of desperation in the dark hallways of my mind. It’s enough to make one yearn to flee via an emergency exit or pilfer an aircraft and fly oneself to the desired destination.
Some move beyond yearning and act upon these impulses. In honor of what The New York Times has referred to as “an increasingly hostile relationship between airlines and passengers,” MDAMB presents three dramatic reenactments of recent, bizarre incidents involving those noble busses of the sky that we call airplanes.
ACT I: The Great Escape
(Lights up on 38-year-old Steven Slater, a flight attendant these past 20 years, standing in the aisle of an airplane. JetBlue Flight 1052 has just landed at New York’s Kennedy International Airport. Passengers have been instructed to remain in their seats. A wayward passenger stands to fetch his belongings from the overhead compartment.)
SLATER: Excuse me, sir, but you’ll have to remain in your seat until the fasten seatbelt sign is turned off.
(Passenger continues to struggle with his baggage. Slater moves swiftly to halt this recalcitrant behavior.)
SLATER: Excuse me, but…
(Slater is cut off as the passenger finally frees his luggage from the compartment, which promptly collides with Slater’s head.)
SLATER: (Cry of dismay.) I believe you owe me an apology.
PASSENGER: Expletive!
(Brief pause. Slater turns and makes a beeline for the plane’s intercom. Wielding it like Excalibur, he addresses the plane:)
SLATER: Attention passengers! Please be aware that the “gentleman” standing in the aisle near seat 42B, clutching his suitcase like a security blanket, has just unapologetically struck me in the cranium with said luggage and is without a doubt a despicable #*@$%!^& and a stain upon the terra firma and firmament alike! May all his flights henceforth be cursed with extreme turbulence!
(Slater moves to an emergency exit and activates an inflatable evacuation slide. Brief pause. He bounds over to the beverage cart, snatches a beer, and returns to the exit.)
SLATER: 20 years in the airline industry has been more than enough. (Wryly:) It’s been great!
(Slater leaps out the exit and down the slide, beer in hand. Stunned silence.)
ACT II: The Mile-high Marauder
(Lights up on the first-class cabin of an Air France flight from Tokyo to Paris. The plane soars smoothly and majestically through the clouds. An announcement is heard:)
VOICE: Attention first-class passengers. We will now be turning off the lights in the cabin for those passengers who wish to sleep. Please feel free to relax, recline your seats, and don your complimentary eye-masks.
(One by one, the passengers recline and drift off into the kind of deep slumber that can only be induced by the gentle roar of airplane jets. A female flight attendant pokes her head through the dividing curtain. Her eyes search the cabin, resting on each passenger individually. She quickly glances behind her. She is alone. Like a cartoon villain she carefully slinks around the cabin from passenger to passenger, delicately removing wallets, cash, jewelry, etc. When she is finished, she slips out as quietly as she came in. Time passes. The passengers slowly wake up, none the wiser as to the events that have transpired. Over the intercom we hear:)
VOICE: Attention passengers! We are now approaching Paris. Please remain seated until the fasten seatbelt sign is turned off, and be sure to take all of your belongings with you as you exit the plane. Merci for flying Air France!
ACT III: Barefoot and Fancy Free
(Lights up on 18-year-old Colton Harris-Moore, aka the “Barefoot Bandit.” He sits amidst trees, absent of shoes and eating a pizza that was delivered to the edge of the forest he resides in. News anchor-like voices sound all around him, overlapping and eventually blending together:)
NEWS ANCHOR 1: …some are referring to as a “modern Butch Cassidy”…
NEWS ANCHOR 2: …responsible for the burglary of over 100 homes…
NEWS ANCHOR 3: …has lived on his own in the forests outside Seattle since he was 7-years-old…
NA 1: …steals blankets and food from vacation homes…
NA 2: …leaving behind notes and photographs of himself in the houses he has robbed…
(Colton stands and snaps a few Polaroids of himself.)
NA 3: …he escaped from a juvenile detention center in 2008…
NA 1: …normally catches his own food using thermal-imaging goggles…
NA 2: …taught himself how to fly planes using video games…
(Colton mimes playing a flight-based video game.)
NA 3: …thought to have fled to Canada…
NA 1: …stole a Cessna 182 in Idaho which he piloted back to Seattle…
NA 2: …has evaded the police for almost two years…
(Police sirens are heard.)
NA 3: …become something of a folk hero…
NA 1: …T-shirts with slogans of encouragement and songs composed in his honor…
(Chant of “Colton, Colton, Colton” plays in the background.)
NA 2: …says that living in the woods makes him feel like a Native American…
NA 3: …thought to have stolen numerous other aircrafts, which he flew around the islands in the Puget Sound…
NA 1: …recently flew himself to the Bahamas in yet another plane stolen in Indiana…
(Colton mimes climbing into a boat, looking frantically behind him.)
NA 1, 2, and 3: ….where authorities tracked him down and arrested him as he tried to escape on a boat.
COLTON: He awaits trial in SeaTac, Washington.
(Colton is sitting again, looking defeated and alone. Fade to black.)
Fin
Pictures from 48 Hour Mystery, Morrison World Media Morning Post, and Now Public
Movie Adaptations that are Better than the Book
“You ever talk about a movie with someone that read the book? They’re always so condescending. ‘Ah, the book was much better than the movie.’ Oh really? What I enjoyed about the movie: no reading.”
–Jim Gaffigan
There’s a reason that there is a separate Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay: adaptation is hard. Most people aren’t able to successfully adapt a plot that was meant to be read and create a movie out of it. Going from one medium to another isn’t easy.
Yet, sometimes, adaptations succeed. And, once in a great while, the adaptation is better than the original. The following are some movies that are MUCH better than the books they came from:
The Devil Wears Prada
This movie takes tremendous liberties with the book: it changes plot points, cuts whole characters, gives other characters wildly different personalities. In the book, there are whole pages devoted to how Lily, Andy’s friend, is a raging alcoholic who sleeps with every person that she drunkenly staggers across. In the book, her boyfriend is a teacher in an inner-city school whose students stab each other. Finally, rather than making a classy exit and walking off into the Parisian streets, Andy literally says “Fuck you” to her devilish Prada-wearing boss.
Thank God the movie didn’t see any reason to keep all these absurd and extraneous parts of the plot. The movie is a perfectly paced, very funny 109 minutes; the book is a whiny and interminable 368 pages. Plus, you know what the book doesn’t have? Meryl Streep. Skip the endless tome, and watch the nearly flawless film instead.
Mary Poppins
I’m aware that most readers of this blog probably didn’t have the Mary Poppins series on hold at their local library. But maybe you should. Seeing (and loving) the movie before you read the book makes reading the books a pretty delightfully absurd experience. Why? Because, to put it bluntly, the Mary Poppins of the books is an evil shrew-woman. She is nothing at all like the twinkly-eyed, stern-but-with-a-heart-of-gold woman that we know and love. In the book, she delights in doing magic in front of the children, and then scolding them harshly for their “bad behavior” when they ask exactly how she is managing to, say, fly on an umbrella. Also, as was typical of 1930s discipline, Mary frequently will give Jane and Michael a good slap. She has no interest in spoon fulls of sugar. The books thus have an edge of cruelty that’s (thankfully) completely absent from the film adaptation. Well done, adapters, for leaving that out.
Forrest Gump
Forrest Gump, the movie, is silly and implausible in a good way. Forrest Gump, the novel, is downright ridiculous. In the book, Forrest Gump is a bizarre combination of a mathematical genius (who works for NASA, no less) and the simple, wise Forrest of the movie. Rather than be a professional ping pong player, he is a professional chess player, a fact that is extremely hard to reconcile with the rest of his character. The book also features a long section in which Forrest is marooned on an island with cannibals–the film wisely decided that having him run back and forth across the U.S. would be an infinitely more plausible scenario. The movie trimmed the parts that made the book hard to take seriously, and made the confusing character into someone likable.
The Da Vinci Code
I don’t think the Da Vinci Code is anywhere near as brilliant a movie as the aforementioned films. I do think, however, that it absolutely whomps the book. The writing in the book is, as one blogger put it, “not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad.” The plot itself is good fun, but the writing is actually distractingly clunky and hideous. The movie, while silly in how seriously it takes itself, has no such issue. The movie is very dark, very heavy on the self-flagellation and gruesomeness, but so much more elegantly done than the book you can scarcely even compare the two.
Cats
It is perhaps the most hated musical of all time…still, a lot more enjoyable than T.S Eliot’s “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats.” The book of poems is just ONLY bizarre–the musical is at least bizarre and catchy.
When the United States and Russia signed an extensive nuclear arms reduction treaty in April, there was the palpable sense that, if only for a minute, progress toward a better world was being made. As two of the most overly armed countries in the world acknowledged the ill-necessity of their collective ability to kill, “New START” (“New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty”) seemed a step in the right direction.
Boasting broad support from many U.S. allies, the treaty committed both countries to modest cuts in their long-range weapons stockpiles and extended a 15-year facility inspection agreement, according to which each country could inspect the other’s nuclear facilities. For now, though, progress toward the treaty’s enactment is on hold.
It was reported last week that a Senate vote on the treaty’s ratification—an important step on its path toward enactment—has been delayed. The reason: anticipated obstinance. According to those who oppose it in its current form, the treaty lacks “ironclad assurances of future spending to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal”*.
If this sounds confusing, it should: Ironclad assurance of a reduction in nuclear arms investment is the exact point of the agreement. But try telling that to New START’s detractors, who have submitted some 700 process-stalling questions since its formal introduction in May. Ultimately, these senators—republicans—are holding out for the inclusion of a 10-year nuclear weapons industry budget increase.
Never mind the fact that by ratifying this agreement, the United States and Russia stand to distance themselves from the outdated and vulgar mantra of Mutually Assured Destruction; to edify an international community increasingly pursuant of nuclear weapons; and to affirm that, truly, we are both better than this.
Never mind the fact that New START has been endorsed by six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense from both parties, and almost every former commander of U.S. nuclear forces.
Instead, mind the fact that by denying New START ratification, we are clinging white-knuckled and pathetically to a despicable and impractical mode of influence. Instead, mind the fact that we are opting to abide, openly and without shame, our basest and most hypocritical compulsions. Instead, mind the fact that we are refusing to rise above ourselves, refusing to be the Shining City Upon a Hill we were once posited to be.
Mind the fact that to deny New START the ratification it deserves would be a tragedy of human indecency.
But here’s to hoping—hoping these facts will reverse themselves, hoping saner times await us.
Here’s to pleading for pragmatism.
*Sheridan, M. B., & Pincus, W. (2010, August 4). Arms treaty hits snag in Senate. The Washington Post, p. A1.
Picture from The Christian Science Monitor
This guest post was written by Kim Hooyboer, a close friend of mine.
Unless you’ve been living in a hole, you’ve probably heard that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional on Wednesday by California’s federal court. People are celebrating, the Internet and news media’s all abuzz, and even celebs are tweeting their excitement. There is, however, quite a bit of all around confusion as to what, precisely, this ruling means. Same-sex couples started showing up at California courthouses within an hour of Judge Walker’s ruling, only to be turned away due to a temporary stay imposed by Judge Walker while he waited for the expected appeals to come in from the proponents of Prop 8. So, what’s the deal with Perry vs. Schwarzenegger and what does this mean for same-sex marriage in California and, on a broader level, the nation?
Let me start off by confessing my bias on this whole issue. In a mere 12 days, I will be getting married to my wonderful girlfriend in our home state of Oregon. One of the first responses we get when we tell people we’re getting married is, “Can you do that in Oregon?” Well, er, no. Not exactly. Oregon recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships, which will give us the same rights and benefits as are recognized under Oregon state law. But we still miss out on 1100 or so federal rights and benefits, as well as the social legitimacy that allows opposite sex couples to, well, not deal with this question at all. So, we’ve obviously been paying close attention to our southern neighbors, sympathizing with their loses and rejoicing in their victories. The 2008 presidential election was a bittersweet event for us. We spent the night celebrating Obama’s election and woke up the next morning to the painful news of Prop 8’s passage. Quite the buzzkill, I assure you.
Another caveat: I do not by any means consider myself to be a particularly political person, but this is obviously an issue that affects my fiancée and me in a blatant way. I’m confident that, eventually, we’ll be able to legally marry on both a statewide and federal level (the federal block right now is thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act). Once legalized, I suppose we’ll just throw another party. But until then (and I’m not holding my breath), we’ll sit around and wait for the political or social powers-that-be to recognize our relationship as what we believe it will be: a marriage.
Personal soapbox aside, let me backtrack for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the particularities of the Proposition 8 battle. Back in 2004, the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, started issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender. A few months later, the Supreme Court ruled those marriage licenses to be void, arguing that Newsom did not have the authority to override state law. After a few years of back and forth between the state legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger (complicated by Proposition 22, which had been voted into place in 2000, effectively banning same-sex marriage in CA), the California Supreme Court overturned the state ban in May of 2008.
Between June 18th (when the ruling went into effect) and November 5th (when Prop 8 was passed), an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California. Meanwhile, a heated battle was underway to get an initiative on the 2008 ballot to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. Two weeks before the Supreme Court ruled the ban illegal, the measure qualified for the 2008 ballot and the Prop 8 battle began. Lawsuits were filed against the initiative, arguing the unconstitutionality of putting minority rights to a majority vote, but the measure was allowed onto the ballot regardless.
The campaigns for and against the measure raised a whopping $83.2 million, making it the most funded campaign in the country, aside from the presidential campaigns. Prop 8 proponents had some heavy hitters on their side, most notably the Mormon Church, which has recently come under some intense scrutiny for their shady financial practices during the campaign. Election night came and went without an official resolution to the Prop 8 ballot measure. The votes proved to be too close to call until the next morning, with Prop 8 passing by small majority: 52% for and 48% against. By November 6th, the “No on Prop 8” group officially conceded defeat and the next stage of legal battles began.
The passage of Proposition 8 hit the queer and ally community hard, not only in California, but nationwide. Thousands upon thousands of gay rights supporters marched and rallied across the nation in support and sympathy for the electoral results. Same-sex marriage proponents immediately rallied to file lawsuits against the measure. The first major case against Prop 8 was primarily concerned with whether state law allows a ballot initiative to put minority rights up for a popular vote. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prop 8 in May of 2009, although the case did succeed in officially recognizing the validity of the licenses issued during California’s brief foray into marriage equality.
The next case, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, was immediately filed. This case took a different route towards Prop 8 by arguing the unconstitutionality of the amendment in regards to the U.S. Constitution, rather than the state constitution. It relied heavily on the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection (and provided us with the satisfying results of Brown vs. Board of Education). The couples filing suit scored some heavyweight representation: former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, David Boies, and Theodore Boutrous (the last two you might remember as opposing sides in the Bush vs. Gore case that decided the 2000 election in favor of G.W.).
Perry vs. Schwarzenegger immediately caught the attention of the public, as it proved to be the most solid case for a repeal of Prop 8. The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court selected Perry as the inaugural case for a new process that would publically broadcast the trial through a live feed to various federal courthouses across the country, as well as via YouTube. Such public exposure of the same-sex marriage debate would have been entirely groundbreaking and, as became immediately evident, prove to be a boon for the anti-Prop 8 side. Allowing the debate to come out of the closet, if you will, would have shown the entire nation the absurdly weak arguments for same-sex marriage bans and helped to objectively expel many problematic stereotypes associated with same-sex marriage. Clearly this would not have been in the best interest of the defendants, so it came as no surprise that they filed an appeal two days before the trial’s start date, demanding that the event not be broadcast.
The court approved the ban on live streaming, so various media organizations and gay rights groups took it upon themselves to provide copious amounts of coverage via blogs, Twitter, and other more conventional media. As such, it was through these resources that the public was able to gain access into the courtroom proceedings. And, to be honest, they got ugly. Perry vs. Schwarzenegger went deep into the issues of equal protection, asking hard hitting questions in regards to the effects of same-sex marriage on children, the historical discrimination against gays and lesbians as a minority group, whether queerness is a natural or a behavioral attribute (therein designating whether it falls under a protected class), and the importance of the heterosexual institution of marriage on our culture.
I won’t go into the details of the arguments because, frankly, they depress me. Judge Walker requested that each side submit written responses to 29 questions before their closing arguments on June 16th. The answers provide a really good summary of the trial as a whole, though I would recommend reading the defendants’ side only if you’re in the mood to be pissed off for the rest of the day/week/year. That being said, I find the defendants’ responses particularly important to glance through. Despite a strong Catholic upbringing, I still find it difficult to understand how the anti-gay side is able to justify their bigotry. Here are some gems:
The defendants repeatedly argue that it is in the state’s interest to promote heterosexual marriage for the “continuation of 
the species” (pg. 17), insofar as “only the sexual union of a man and a woman is capable of producing offspring.… This unique property of opposite-sex relationships is why marriage is ‘fundamental to our very existence and survival’” (pg. 28). Completely ignoring the whole problem of overpopulation, they have the gall to make the case that even “[heterosexual] couples who do not plan to have children may experience accidents or change their plans” (p. 4), therein making them culturally preferable to same-sex couples who must necessarily adopt or provide only one biological parent within the marriage. Even when adoption is thrown into the mix, they argue that “adoption is ultimately a derivative and compensatory institution. It is not a standalone good, primarily because its existence depends upon prior human loss. Almost everyone believes that in a good society, the great majority of children should be cared for by their own two natural parents. But it would never occur to anyone to believe that, in a good society, all or most children should be adopted” (pg. 19). I’m going to stop there, but if you’d like to read about how same-sex marriage will make more fathers abandon their children or how queer individuals don’t require the same amount of protection as gender or race because of the apparent fluidity of sexuality, please feel free to read the document yourself.
After a little under two months of deliberation, Judge Walker announced his decision on Wednesday, August 4th,, stating that Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
You can read the whole thing here. Yes, it is long… we’re talking 135 pages. But Walker does a brilliant job and, frankly, this is the document that will be referenced in future cases regarding marriage equality.
Regardless of Judge Walker’s decision, both sides of the case had sworn to file appeals immediately afterword, were their side to lose. So it came as no surprise that the defendants instantly filed for a stay on the ruling’s execution while they prepared their appeal. Walker approved the stay, despite official requests from both the State Attorney General and Gov. Schwarzenegger that Walker enforce his decision before the drawn-out appeals process begins. We’re still waiting on Walker’s stay decision, which will mean the difference between immediate implementation and years of further trials. Regardless, this case will undoubtedly be passed onto a higher court and, eventually, make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court will take the case is rather iffy for now, since that will implicate the 39 states with statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman and, thus, be far more controversial and legally extensive.
So, we’re now playing the waiting game, yet again. Cities around California are preparing for an onslaught of license requests once Walker issues his judgment on the stay. This is, by no means, the end of the fight, but it’s a definitive feather in the cap of marriage equality. Which is something I’ll be happily reflecting on next weekend as I say my own vows.
Pictures from The New York Times, The New York Daily News, Cleveland.com, and Jasi Online.
You guys in America are always on the treadmill wondering ‘How can I actualize myself?’ while most of the world is running to dodge bullets.
-This random guy I met from South Africa
If you are ever uncertain whether there’s enough hatred in the world, visit the Amazon.com review page for that inescapable book and soon to be movie Eat, Pray, Love. One reviewer calls Elizabeth Gilbert “the most self-important, obtuse, boorish, annoying cretins ever to put pen to paper.” Another says that the book “epitomizes everything wrong with American culture today: worship of the mediocre, travel without seeing anything, polarizing of the Other and fake spirituality.” People who love the book really, really love it, and those who hate would like to enter the world of Farenheit 451 just so they could see it go up in a fiery blaze.
Whether you like or hate the book, it brings up some interesting questions. To what extent do we have the right to pursue happiness? Is pursuing our own happiness inherently selfish? Does being wealthy make your problems less valid? Can rich people truly “suffer?”
The first question, about our right to pursue happiness, is a uniquely American question. Other cultures just aren’t very worried about such a trifling matter. In Russia, it’s considered impolite to answer “good” when asked “how are you?”–to do so is to be bragging about your good fortune and putting the other person down. In South Korea (so says a lovely and talented political blogger for this very blog), it is much more important to be fulfilling your duty and bringing honor to your family than to be gaining any sense of personal fulfillment. But Elizabeth Gilbert is an American, and thus views it as a given that she has the inalienable right to pursue happiness. As a suburban New Yorker, she is unspeakably depressed, and decides to go on a year-long journey through Italy, India, and Indonesia in search of the personal fulfillment that has eluded her. Right from the get-go, plenty of people hate that this–a year-long and wildly expensive journey — was her solution. What gives her the right? (Other than our own Declaration of Independence, I presume.)
Other people, who might forgive her for the trip itself, despise her because, as she admits, it was made possible by a massive advance from her publisher to write the book. She was able to travel for a full year without needing to work, a luxury that few people in human history have had. Does that negate her whole experience? It does to many. Others just hate that she didn’t do any volunteer work or share her money and instead chose to spend it on gelato and meditation retreats. It’s not the travel alone that bothers them–it’s that she saw the world but didn’t improve it.
But what would she have been doing for the world without her travels? Can anyone really argue that it would have been better for her to continue to be crying on her bathroom floor? Who was she helping there? As it is, she has written a book that, like it or not, has given many people insights into themselves and their own lives. No, it’s not the same as curing homelessness or cancer, but it’s something.
We all know, in theory, that money doesn’t buy happiness, yet we still seem to believe that if someone has money, their unhappiness can’t be valid. America, the nation with many of the world’s richest people, also has one of the highest rates of depression. Why? Because, after a certain threshold (a salary of about $70,000 a year), money does diddly squat for a person’s level of contentment. The problems facing the rich and the poor are different, but it’s not really possible to quantify some unhappiness as “important” and other unhappiness as “trivial.” From reading the book, I believe that Elizabeth Gilbert really did suffer, and I can’t begrudge her the fulfillment that her year-long journey provided.
The movie is coming out in just a few days (August 13th), and whether or not you hate the book or love it, whether you are feeling wealthy or destitute, it couldn’t hurt to stop and ask yourself, “Am I happy?” You don’t have a right to happiness, but, no matter who you are, you always have a right to pursue it.
Picture from Cinema Blend
It looks like we struck a chord, our post was mentioned by:
Rose also had some great thoughts on EPL as well, read them at Love, Rose
The Illuminati. The New World Order. The 9/11 Truth Movement. Skull and Bones.
No, these aren’t the subjects of the latest Dan Brown novel or Ron Howard-directed dud. Rather, they’re the thematic and commercial lifeblood of conservative talk-show host, documentarian and conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones. For over a decade, Jones, operating from his Austin, Texas-based studio, has positioned himself as a fixture within conspiracy theory circles. Espousing a myriad of paranoid, far-right views, Jones has amassed a dedicated—and sizeable—legion of followers. His views include but are not limited to the following:
-That the world is governed by a mysterious cabal of politicians and bankers, known officially as the Bilderberg Group and colloquially as the New World Order. (And even more colloquially as “Jews,” according to some of Jones’ contemporaries.)
-That a nefarious plot by the New World Order exists to enslave the human race and enact dramatic population reduction measures.
-That climate change science is a fabrication of the New World Order, which seeks to impose a global “carbon tax” on “the very air we breathe.”
-That 9/11 was not a genuine act of terrorism committed by Muslim extremists, but rather a “false flag” terror event (an “inside job”) orchestrated by the United States Government in an effort to generate public support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
-And last but certainly not least, that major politicians, bankers and industrialists from around the world gather once annually—at a place called the “Bohemian Grove” in Northern California—to carry out “mock human sacrifice” as part of an “ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony.”
Yet, amazingly and almost unbelievably, Jones isn’t quite the pariah he once was. Indeed, as the Tea Party movement has ascended from obscurity to the station of utter saturation it now occupies, it has, however unwittingly, elevated Jones along with it. Which makes sense, given that Alex Jones is the Tea Party movement’s truest antecedent. It is to Jones’ fiery rhetoric, Jones’ paranoia-mongering and Jones’ antiestablishmentarianism that the Tea Party owes its greatest ideological debt.
Who, though, is Jones, and what is his practical connection to the Tea Party movement?
For at least the last decade, Alex Jones has created and shaped a diehard niche within the conservative fringes—the militias groups, the anti-immigration groups and the New World Order groups, among others—fringes which, recently, the national Tea Party has co-opted. Of course, many self-identified Tea Partiers aren’t familiar with Jones’ starkest ravings, or even with Jones himself. This is the price of impetuous political growth, though: to burgeon is to risk harboring undiscovered skeletons in one’s closet. Such is the case here, and to this end, Jones’ legacy of influence is one of pros and cons for the Tea Party.
While his conspiratorial bent is an obvious liability, Jones has for years been a trendsetter on the far-right: He has been one of
the defining voices supportive of the abolishment of the Federal Reserve; he supports a return to gold-backed currency; he is pro-states’ rights; he supports U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and from NAFTA; he favors American diplomatic and military isolationism; he is fiercely pro-second amendment; he supports the militia movement; he is anti-immigration, anti-globalization, anti-taxation; and, more recently, he has been one of Barack Obama’s harshest critics.
So now, largely unbeknownst to itself, the nascent Tea Party has adopted the rhetoric and doctrine of a conspiracy theory superstar—a man who insists our water supply is drugged to ensure citizen passivity. (You read that correctly.)
Perhaps that’s why a couple years ago, as the political mainstream was beginning to catch the scent of tea in the air, Jones began paring down the most extreme of his rhetoric. He shifted his concentration away from things like 9/11 truth and the Illuminati; he focused instead on “the creepy, Orwellian, cult of personality-style worship of Obama,” and on the Federal Reserve’s role in the financial meltdown. He decried what he perceived to be the rise of socialism in America. He made a documentary, the laughably deluded “The Obama Deception,” a paranoid diatribe concerned with exposing “who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda.” (The video currently boasts 6.7 million views on YouTube.) In effect, he began drafting a prototypical Tea Party manifesto.
He then threw his support behind republican presidential primary nominee Ron Paul (a storied guest of The Alex Jones Show cum Tea Party legend), helping to kick-start the then-headline-grabbing “Ron Paul Revolution.” Fast-forward to this spring: Jones reached out to publicly support another frequenter of his show, Rand Paul, the republican senate primary candidate from Kentucky and son of Ron Paul. By this point, it was clear that Jones had friends in the highest levels of the Tea Party grassroots. (With the help of Jones and fellow Rand Paul-supporter Sarah Palin, by the way, Rand more-than-handily won his party’s nomination.)
So really, it’s not a question of whether Jones’ right-libertarian viewpoints are consonant with those of the Tea Party—clearly, they are. Rather, the question is whether the Tea Party is comfortable being in ideological consonance with Jones. No matter 
the answer, the Tea Party has been the unquestionable beneficiary of Jones’ trailblazing populism. And as if the two’s marriage required any more proof, Jones was last month featured in the MSNBC Hardball documentary, “Rise of the New Right.” The hour-long special, hosted by Chris Matthews, examined “the rise of the Tea Party movement and various right-wing militias that have formed in the wake of the 2008 election of President Obama.” In it, Jones was more than happy to open up, opining that a “global guild of psychopaths” has set up a “planetary police state to carry out an orderly extermination” of 80 to 99 percent of the population. It was Classic Jones—a mode now indistinguishable from Classic Tea Party.
What, though, is there to be drawn from this? That the Tea Party movement is full of loons? That Alex Jones is off-his-rocker nuts? None of this is revelatory. However, in the wake of the recent controversy surrounding the Tea Party’s effective purgation of Mark Williams—a man whose racism and vehement stupidity was on full display in a letter he satirically addressed to Abe Lincoln from “the Colored People” of America—a close, thoughtful examination of the Tea Party’s ideological fringes seems apt. With the eventual purgation of every racist, loon and conspiracy monger from the Tea Party, though, one begins to wonder: Will anyone be left to drink the cool-aid, err, tea?
Photos from: Squidoo, People of Color Organize, and Infowars.net
