Also, I hate to admit it, but my first reaction on seeing the intersection flag was, “They made the flag ugly.” My friend replied that she thought it was beautiful, and she was right—the idea is beautiful. But the aesthetics? Not so much. The problem was rolling around in my head on the subway ride home, so I took a shot at improving it: It’s a quick and rough job, so the proportions of the stripes are off. But I do feel like it is an improvement. In the Philadelphia version, the flag feels unbalanced with the black and brown sitting atop the bright rainbow. By interleaving the stripes, the flag becomes more cohesive. I also think the symbolism of this version works better too—POC are within the broader LGBT community/rainbow.
I feel uncertain about the added stripes to the Pride Flag. I completely understand the initial impulse in Philly—clearly the gay community has a huge problem with racism. On the other hand, POC are not the only marginalized group in the LGBT community. Trans women made up a significant proportion of the rioters during Stonewall, yet they were quickly erased from the mainstream narrative. Less than four years after Stonewall, Sylvia Rivera had to grab the mic at a rally to shout that they would not be erased. An artist has tried to incorporate that history into a flag, but as the article says it’s a design disaster. Moreover, this point about the history and connotations of rainbows feels important: [Gilbert] Baker1 described the rainbow’s universal, all-embracing resonance best: “The rainbow came from earliest recorded history as a symbol of hope. In the Book of Genesis, it appeared as proof of a covenant between God and all living creatures. It was also found in Chinese, Egyptian and Native American history.” It may not be possible, but I wish there were a way to reclaim the flag for all. The problem of racism is very real and needs to be acknowledged…
This isn’t the preeminent crisis at the moment, but I wrote a response on the urgency of carceral state reform and thought it worthy to post directly on my blog. The full conversation is here. You are right that we need to work on getting buy in from the rank and file. But even if you’re correct and the system only fails 20% of the time, that’s thousands of innocent people suffering. They shouldn’t have to wait for justice because it’s hard to get the rank and file on board. Also, there will be times when it is simply not possible to convince them. If we reduce the incarceration rate to triple the European average, the majority of prison guards will lose their jobs. They are going to fight hard as hell to keep their livelihood. Or an example from Pennsylvania: if a former prosecutor turned Republican State Senator, multiple rigorous studies, and participating in a five year commission couldn’t convince the DAs to accept reform, the hill is a pretty steep climb. How many people suffered unjustly while we were trying to persuade them? So, at the same time we work within the system, we must also, as Dr.…
This started out as a response to @colinwalker, but grew beyond that. Some thoughts on interesting blogs to follow in 2018: Letters and Sodas—Great book reviews on a wide range of topics. Balkinization—Looking at politics through a legal lens. Love, Joy, Feminism—A woman who grew up in a Quiverfull family and her journey towards a more liberal view of family, sexuality and the world. Putting the Life Back Into Science Fiction—Looks at the possible consequences of climate change through imagining the future. Tits and Sass—A blog by and about Sex Workers. Field Negro—Politics from an African American Man’s perspective. Warren Throckmorton—An evangelical preacher/psychologist who used to believe you could pray away the gay, but absorbed research and experience that it’s impossible to do so. An important conservative religious voice on the disjunction between evangelicals and the modern world. Feministe—Feminist perspectives on the world today. Looks like I certainly side on the liberal end of things. Perhaps I need more conservative voices in my feeds, but it’s pretty hard today to find ones that engage with reality.
Dan Savage’s continuing enthusiasm for Anthony Weiner is well intentioned, but ultimately mistaken and potentially counter-productive[1]. Dan is absolutely correct that we must fight for a world in which our sexual interests and mistakes do not disqualify us from employment or public service. How we behave[2] in the bedroom has little impact on how we work outside of it. Moreover, we have always been a kinky species; the Internet has just made our kinks public knowledge. In the long run, this is a wonderful news—it’s much harder to be judgmental about others’ quirks when your own are well known[3]. Weiner is just the wrong standard bearer for this fight. Dan often makes a distinction between having a kink[4] and how you communicate it. We look for good judgment in potential partners, and introducing yourself as a Furry, Coprophiliac, and Masochist on the first date usually[5] indicates that you aren’t the sharpest knife in the draw. Ol’ Anthony has taken a plethora of opportunities this summer to showcase his horrendous judgment. If you are premising your campaign as a redemptive journey, don’t engage in the behavior that fucked you in the first place. Especially when your wife will have to stand…
On June 27, 2013, Sullivan wrote: “There is no way to resolve the deep cultural conflict in this kind of area; but there is a way to manage it. With civility, generosity and toleration – on both sides.” But this is problematic, how does one treat bigotry “civilly”? Certainly the Christianists can continue to denounce LGBT folk in their churches. As is proper, there's no law against hateful speech. But as private citizens, we should treat that attitude the same way we treat Anti-Semitism, Racism, etc—replying forcefully with the truth of equality. Such hatred is morally wrong and there's no reason we should tolerate it in our lives. As long as their actions are confined to the religious sphere, they can be left alone. But when it comes to the public realm, even in the midst of transactions between two private citizens, the law must forbid discrimination. This is what the fight around “religious liberty” is going to be about: the “right” to not sell flowers for a marriage between same sex couples; to not recognize said marriages in hospitals run by religious institutions; to not rent a hall to host a celebration. We do not tolerate florists turning Jewish…
