My scrap of dirt

Great entry over at Jezebel on McCain's decision to "reschedule" the debates and Palin's general inability to be a credible candidate for VP, let alone possibly the Presidency. (Thanks to phaballa for the link.)

I just. The more I read about the McCain campaign and Palin, the sadder I get that they're actually doing so well in the polls - and so close to Obama, too. Argh.

Suivant les traces médiatiques glorieuses (rien que ça) de sa soeur, Peewai est passé tout à l'heure sur RCF Alpha (Radio Chrétienne Francophone) dans une émission qui s'appelle Mise en question.

Le sujet: Jeunes et politique : quels remèdes à la crise alimentaire mondiale ? Micro projets ou réforme des échanges internationaux ?

Ce sera rediffusé: mardi 24 juin à 11h30 (donc demain!!); jeudi 26 juin à 15h30

Vous pouvez écouter l'émission en direct sur le site de la radio (voir le premier lien) mais sinon je vais essayer de l'enregistrer!

Pour la petite anecdote: le jeune de l'UDF, c'est un des meilleurs amis de Peewai!

OMG CALIFORNIA FTW.

The California Supreme Court just struck down the state's band on same-sex marriage on grounds that it is unconstitutional!

"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," said the 120-page ruling.

Now, the possible bad part of this? Is that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely and unless I'm deeply mistaken, the justices there right now? Aren't likely to deem a ban on same-sex unconstitutional.

I don't care. For now, YAY and TAKE THAT, GOVERNOR and WOOT WOOT. And this time opponents can't even say it's activist judges because the fucking legislation tried to pass it before but that was vetoed. So it's a perfect win all around for Cali.

PS. CNN, when you report on same-sex marriage? It would be nice if you'd get the information right about the country RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. I know Canada is kind of like the quiet cousin who does everything right but doesn't talk about it a whole lot, but the whole country legalized same-sex marriage three years ago.

Apparently this is the first ad that addresses specifically LGBT issues, as opposed to just being directed at LGBT people by appearing in an LGBT publication. A related article on 365gay.com: Obama Courts the Gay Vote.


Also, I'd like to encourage you all to start using Ethicle.com as a search engine. Each time you use that search engine, a small donation is made to an NGO (you can choose a specific one). If you use Firefox, you can add it in your toolbar which is perfect for me because that's always how I use google.

Apparently (sorry the link is in French) Ethicle could be an hoax of some kind - Greenpeace in particular never gave their agreement to receive money from Ethicle. In doubt, I encourage you rather to add Veosearch, though it might be in French. :/

First... AN family doctor? AN??? My English-as-a-Second-Language heart HURTS.

So yeah, this is actually from the AMPTP campaign to turn public opinion against the writers. I first read about it on wga_supporters, and by far the best response to the post is the one meyerlemon came up with:

The average working WGA writer
makes more than an[sic] Family Doctor
...that's why the AMPTP supports health care reform.

Way to turn it around, and in a very true way, unfortunately. It's not that the writers are privileged little bastards for trying to protect whatever few benefits they might have - it's that the majority of America should be on strike right now complaining about the way workers are treated in that country. What the writers are asking for is ridiculous in the grand scheme of things. And the fact that they might still be better off than other professions? Just says there's something frankly fucked up about the way America rewards its workers.


EDIT: About the ad itself - I don't know any of the numbers, but something important to keep in mind, especially when dealing with an industry such as Hollywood where inequalities are intensified: averages are easy to use but can be misleading. If you have one person earning $100 and another one earning $1,000,000 per year, the average earning per year of that group will be $50050, which... doesn't exactly represent very well the reality of the dude earning $100/year.

While I have a conflicted love/hate relationship with my Buffy paper right now, I am absolutely and undeniably in love with Joss Whedon.

"Second, we're a week away from Mutant Enemy Picket day! Since the AMPTP have generously offered us a thimble of sputum in exchange foreverything written ever, I think it's fair to say it won't be a picnic."

"Get the word out, remind everyone that corporate greed (it's nothing but) is hurting everyone in this country."

"We get a lot of flack for being well-fed, glamorous, rich and powerful. We've worked hard to dispel that stereotype but in fact, a select few of us are wealthy and influential. And we have the support of some of the most famous and beloved (and wealthy and influential) people in the country: TV and movie stars! So the fact that the studios feel perfectly comfortable SPITTING IN OUR FACES in front of the whole world cannot bode well for any other union that works under them -- or under anyone who sees how easy it is to deny the basic rights of workers even so public as we. This is bad for writers, bad for actors, teamsters, teachers, nurses, dockworkers... the shape of this country is changing. The middle class is being squeezed out. We're trundling back to the middle ages, people, and all we can do is lie there and take it. But of course, that's not what's going to happen."

This. THIS is why I want to be down in L.A. on ME Day. Because this isn't really about the writers to me. It's about what sort of society we choose to live in. It's about realizing that this isn't an isolated struggle of few rich people, it's larger than that. It's about the way we do business, about the way we value work (as opposed to capital), about collective responsibility (and community) vs. individualism, about the dramatic inequalities we are ready to accept or not. Joss's anger in that post is uplifting to me, because we need to be angry. We need to be angry and fight back.

I pray that America opens its eyes to this so that something can truly snap, so that something can truly change.



Less angry and inspiring, but still awesome, Joss again.

Two things I wish I could talk about more than I'm going to, but my brain is not cooperating right now and I'm not going to be articulate, so there's no point. But I do want to mention both issues:

- Legislators in France are trying to make it possible to collect data concerning people's religion, ethnicity/race (but we hate the term "race" in French, it's too loaded with historical meaning), cultural background. This is causing an uproar in France as it's considered contrary to republican principles and a dangerous path to categorizing people. I've argued in the past that not collecting this data just makes it harder to have solid figures on discrimination and on the make-up on our population (which can help acknowledge new realities).

However, I find myself torn on the issue. SOS Racisme has started a petition against the practice, which you could find and sign here. "Je refuse l’idée que la lutte contre les discriminations et l’effort pour l’intégration suppose la création de catégories ethnoraciales." ("I reject the idea that fighting against discrimination and efforts for integration necessitates the creation of ethno-racial categories.") The question, of course, is, do those categories exist whether or not you say they do? There's no simple answer. Between integration and multiculturalism there's no true answer, both have their good and bad sides. So I just want to encourage you to think about it - think about your position on the topic. What does it mean to expect people to "integrate"? What are they integrating into, how do we expect them to juggle that with their other identities? What are the risks of multiculturalism? Are all practices truly equal? What if a society that becomes so obsessed with what differentiates its citizens that it forgets what unites them?


- The other thing is the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) strike. The writers went on strike on Monday at 0:01AM EST. They're marching tomorrow, and Jane Espenson will be there. Joss Whedon has come out and said he supports the strike, while Marti Noxon has signed a Variety ad by TV producers who support the strike. I believe this is an important struggle. I believe in a country like the United States where strikes are so rare, people who do make the huge decision to go on strike never make that decision lightly. While I don't understand all of the issues at stake here, I do believe that the writers understand them, and have good reasons to fight their fight. In a society that sinks deeper into reckless, unequal (but "compassionate") capitalism every day, I believe there is no such thing as privileged unionized jobs. There's only under-privileged non-unionized jobs. Those people might earn more than you do, but it doesn't mean their fight isn't right. It's not by running a race to the bottom that we will better ourselves.

My heart is with the writers. I hope that they come to a satisfying settlement soon and that people will be supportive. I would love to still be down in L.A. tomorrow to go show my support - so if you are, if you can, do it. Go talk to them, engage them in discussions, honk as you drive past. People who strike might look like they're only fighting for themselves, but they're not. They're fighting for something bigger than that. Never look at a struggle on its own - that's what the media wants you to do, but that's not how it works. It's all interrelated.

In the words of (amongst others) Alan Tudyk: power to the people, baby. Participatory democracy is our chance, so don't look down on those who act on it.

Francophones du monde (ou en tout cas de ce LJ), vous vous souvenez peut-être que j'avais évoqué l'annulation d'Arrêt sur Image.

C'était un choix regrettable parce que l'équipe de cette émission donnait un regard un peu plus critique que d'habitude sur notre actualité... du coup, bonne nouvelle, ils ont décidé de se lancer sur le net avec @rrêt sur image.

L'idée c'est de se financier grâce aux internautes et à de la pub (malheureusement on ne peut plus jamais faire sans, on dirait...), vous pouvez donc choisir de vous abonner pour soutenir le projet. Pour les étudiants, chômeurs et précaires, l'abonnement est de 12 euros par an; le tarif plein est de 30 euros par an. (Et j'aime beaucoup qu'ils aient choisi de faire confiance aux internautes pour payer le tarif approprié.) Pour en savoir plus, cliquez ici.

Je trouve l'idée très positive, et il y a déjà des chroniques très intéressantes sur le site. Je viens de lire Fragments d’un discours hasardeux : la rhétorique sarkozienne décortiquée et j'ai trouvé cet article particulièrement efficace (je n'ai rien appris de très nouveau, mais j'ai bien aimé pouvoir suivre la logique). Tout ça pour dire que je vais essayer de suivre l'actualité du site, que je vais très sans doute ajouter ma modeste contribution au projet et que je vous conseille viviement de faire au moins un tour sur le site...

California is still struggling to pass same-sex marriage: the Californian Senate sends a bill to the governor's desk for him to sign into law. This is the second time the legislature tries to pass a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, but the first time Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.

I find it incredible that Republicans would whine about "activist judges" and then when a same-sex marriage bill is validated through the legislative system, therefore representing the view of the people that the aformentioned activist judges are apparently so little aware of, they veto it. WTF. I find Schwazenegger is overall more liberal than some of his Republican fellows, and I'm really hoping he doesn't veto this second bill. And it would be huge, if he doesn't - the first time same-sex marriage is legalized in the US through the legislative process.


In other LGBT-related news, despite the fact that the American Red Cross (unlike the French Red Cross - consistent policy what?) and other blood groups have been criticizing the policy that stops gay/bisexual men from donating blood, the FDA has reasserted it would not change the policy. This policy means that any man coming in to donate blood is asked if he's had sex, even just once, with another man since 1977.

This policy, as far as I can tell, is common amongst blood-donation groups across the Western hemipshere. I've talked about it with a number of friends but apparently I've never mentioned it here. I'll just copy-paste my thoughts on this from what I told rabidmaiden (who just learned about this policy and was consequently pissed off), since I was pretty articulate there.

It's something that I've always been very angry about, because to stop gay men from donating blood on the premise that "men who have sex with men" as a group are more at risk is, simply put, discriminatory. "Sexual contact with another man" does not mean you're more likely to have contracted HIV. Anal penetration is the risky practice, and while it's obvious that it's a common practice amongst men who have sex with men, it does not define sexual contact. A woman who's been anally penetrated is taking just as many risks as a man - if not more, because I wouldn't be surprised to hear condom use for anal sex is more common amongst gay men than amongst their straight peers.

The assumption that all gay men have anal sex and therefore should be banned from donating blood might seem harmless because it's a correct assumption in the majority of cases. However, like many assumptions, it has unwanted consequences on our perceptions, and in this case, it's very telling of the way we compartmentalize sexuality. It's dangerous not only because it ignores that the ACTUAL risk is anal sex and not "gay sex", but also because it perpetuates the belief that "having sex with other men" is somehow fundamentally different from straight sexual intercourse. Sexual behaviors doesn't abide by boundaries... and to believe that a sexual orientation is linked to a specific sexual behavior allows us to continue to make gay men (and gay people) different because of what we fantasize happens in their bedroom. Newsflash - you never know what someone does in the bedroom until he or she has taken you there.

I've talked at length about the same-sex marriage debate that's been going on in Massachusetts since the Supreme Court ruling in November 2003 that it was unconstitutional in the state of MA to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Well, this is (hopefully) going to be the last post on the topic, at least as far as MA is concerned:
Today, MA lawmakers have finally rejected the possibility of putting an anti-gay amendment to the vote in the 2008 ballot. Proponents of the amendment can start rallying support again and try and put the vote on the ballot in 2012, but "with public opinion polls showing Massachusetts voters becoming increasingly comfortable with same-sex marriage it is considered unlikely any amendment would be approved."

Seems that same-sex marriage doesn't lead to the total destruction of society as we know it. Shocker.

I wish I'd been there demonstrating outside the State House. Would have been a lovely echo to 2004, and one that would end on a much more positive note, too. Now let's hope other states or the country as a whole can learn from this valuable lesson.

Anyway, while I'm on the issue, might as well spam you with it. Recently was the 40th anniversary of the Federal Supreme Court Ruling "Loving vs. Virgina" which ruled that denying interracial couples the right to marry was unconstitutional in the US. If you look into it, the whole interracial marriage struggle is eerily similar to the challenge same-sex couples are taking on today.

In the same spirit, I highly recommend visiting the website for Faith in America, a group that fights against religion-based bigotry. "Don't accept bigotry disguised as religious truth."

They have great posters to promote their ideas, all available in pdf form on their site:
- A simple history lesson
- Religion-based bigotry has been used by those who wanted us to believe...
- Christ and His Disciples confronted it centuries ago...
- Sexual orientation is not chosen.
- Whose standard?
- Do you know someone who's homosexual?