My good friend Antigone today blogged about something I have been meaning to for a while now. I actually did blog about this back in July. Antigone did all the hard work this time, so I will link to her article.
The article details Bush's eleventh hour regulation, the "right of conscience" rule, enacted on December 18.
With some luck, the law will be quickly overturned after Obama's inauguration.
Monday, December 29, 2008
My good friend Antigone today blogged about something I have been meaning to for a while now. I actually did blog about this back in July. Antigone did all the hard work this time, so I will link to her article.
Posted by Jane Know at 3:22 PM
Friday, December 12, 2008
I have been absent from the blogosphere lately due to a number of reasons, including watching my (single, heterosexual) best friend have her baby and a recent conversation over at Opine Editorials and on my own blog.
I am attempting to sift through personal attacks and just plain mean-spirited, evasive responses to get to the real issues here in the gay marriage debate.
I am convinced now that the issue is much more complex than I originally thought and that many people can't see beyond their own prejudices on both sides of the issue.
The first, and most visible side to me (as a gay marriage advocate) is that of what we usually call "the homophobes." We see them in anonymous internet chat rooms, and as private citizens who vote against anything that has to do with giving gay people rights to form families, get married, or end job discrimination and hate crimes. Quite simply, they usually don't know any gay people, they have had a bad experience with one or two gay people, their religion tells them gay is wrong, or they just hate gay people because their parents and/or members of society taught them to and they never questioned it. Their reasons for wanting anti-gay measures to pass lie in the one fact that being gay is bad, sinful, perverse, or against the Bible or other major religious book.
These people are the reasons most of us LGBT folk (though not all) are fighting for equality. They are the ones we see in groups of 10 or so picketing gay pride parades and passing out Bible passages condemning homosexuality.
They enrage us, they incite us, and they often make us bitter.
Homophobes threaten our very existence. They would love for us to not exist, or at the very least, to be invisible to them and everyone else. They are oblivious to their own heterosexual privilege and see any attempt to normalize gay and lesbian relationships as a threat and "shoving sexuality in their faces." They see nothing wrong with making out with and groping their girlfriends or boyfriends in public while shunning a gay couple for walking down the sidewalk holding hands.
While these people are easy to counter and argue with, I don't believe they should be the sole reason to fight for gay marriage. In fact, I wish we could just ignore them until they change their minds. Unfortunately, because they rely so often on lies, defamation, and propaganda we can not ignore them. To ignore them would be giving up our voices to defend ourselves against their malicious attacks, as well as defending ourselves to the rest of society, to whom the homophobes are feeding misinformation.
Another set of anti gay marriage folks are the "gender integrationists." These folks are aplenty (or a couple) at Opine Editorials and elsewhere. They are the folks who insist on innate, immutable gender roles and the importance of a biological mommy and (most importantly) a daddy in every child's life regardless of circumstance. They often can not even acknowledge that sometimes (often, even) a biological mommy, daddy, baby situation just is not in the best interest of the child(ren) they claim to want to protect. They are also against gay couples adopting children on that same basis of them allegedly selfishly "intentionally depriving a child of a mother or father."
I would love to continue a discussion on gender roles. However, I am not inclined to discuss it with those who rely on knee-jerk reactions of "innate gender roles" without reputable evidence to back it up. Obviously, to me, gender is part biology/evolution and part social upbringing. Some things (like physical size and strength) are innate and biologically based, but many (like women belong in the home and only men should work) are not. Because there are biological differences in gender, I believe, is no reason to continue to perpetuate societal gender roles that have outgrown any evolutionary usefulness.
I wholeheartedly acknowledge that many boys may need a strong male role model in their lives, and girls a strong female role model. But I am not willing to discount gays and lesbians from adopting children on that basis alone, when role models can be people other than parents. I have seen the studies showing that adopted children of gay and lesbian families turn out just as "good" as those of heterosexual families.
I have also seen the many position statements that acknowledge this. Have our opponents?
Do they really attribute the entire body of scientific evidence regarding children raised by gay and lesbian parents to some vast liberal gay agenda?
I wonder why, if people claim to not be biased against gays and lesbians and not have ulterior motives, one would ignore all the most recent professional statements and research.
Sometimes it truly is hard to sift through the various agendas to get to what is really the heart of the matter. I am concerned that some of the fellas at Opine Editorials are either deceitful about their motives in the gay marriage debate, or not able to articulate what is important to them if they are so unwilling to concede what medical professionals and child welfare leagues are saying really is best for children.
That is where I misunderstand them a lot of the time.
It is true that our relationships demand the same respect as heterosexual relationships. Why? Because just as heterosexuals' romantic relationships and families are the epicenter of their lives, so are ours.
It is also true that gay marriage and federal, state, and local legal recognition of these relationships is one major step in the right direction towards true equality and lessening of discrimination, violence, and other unfair behaviors towards LGB (and sometimes T) people.
However, I now believe that one step in the fight for the end of discrimination is acknowledging that, on a basic level, gay couples will never be the same as straight couples in one major way: the ability to procreate.
Do I think this means that gay couples should be banned from marrying each other? No.
But I think if a change were to be made in the overall definition of marriage, there definitely needs to be a conversation regarding procreative rights, genetic engineering, and adoption.
Further because a change in the definition of marriage warrants discussion of these complex issues is NO reason to immediately deny the rights of gay people to get married on the basis of "it just being too complicated a discussion." I understand that many people are traditionalists and will automatically discount gay marriage on that basis alone. However, it just is not fair to continue to reward one type of romantic relationship legally and socially, while punishing another just as valid type. If one agrees that that type of relationship is valid and deserves respect. If one believes in human dignity.
Heterosexual couples, by their very nature, usually are able to biologically bear children that are genetically related to both parents. However, if they are not able to do so because of infertility, they can choose to undergo various fertility and/or family planning options, including artificial insemination, donor eggs, surrogate motherhood, adoption, and IVF treatment.
In that sense, a couple who undergoes any such treatment will usually only be biologically related to one parent. Or in the case of adoption, the child will not be related genetically to either parent. So it is my opinion that so long as heterosexual couples can legally pursue these methods of fertilization and family-planning, so should gay and lesbian couples be allowed. Regardless of whether their relationship is called "marriage," "domestic partnership," or "civil union."
As John Howard has brought up in previous blog comments, technology may be available in the future that allows same-sex conception of gametes that are genetically related (but we don't know how related) to both members of the couple.*
His major concerns with this technology appear to be that it is bad public health policy (resources diverted towards follow-up on children created this way, potential problems stemming from the new technology costing even more resources, poor segments of the population retaining the inheritable diseases while rich segments get to pick and choose their children's genetics, all that resulting in contempt for poor people and their natural diseases). As a public health person myself, I can acknowledge that these, finally, seem like real issues in the gay marriage debate.
If this truly is what many people fear with the passage of gay marriage, though, then why not shift the focus from defamation of gay people to one of a discussion on genetic engineering? Further, genetic engineering also does not only include gay and lesbian couples. Nor do I think that any of this should preclude a gay and lesbian couple from equal marriage rights. I think a compromise could be reached that banned gay couples from conceiving genetically engineered children together (until more is known on the topic) and still giving them legal benefits and protections, as well as adoption rights and the same rights to fertility treatments that heterosexual couples have.
I don't think many people have even thought that far ahead from their own knee-jerk disgust with gays and lesbians.
I would LOVE for the discussion to, for once, go beyond that. I would love to learn more about genetic engineering.
I guess I am just bored with arguing about and justifying my relationship to people who will never understand what being gay truly means.
But I would like this article to open a peaceful discussion on genetic engineering if anyone is interested.
[I am purposefully ignoring John Howard's sentence for the time being: "We also need to figure out how to produce fewer gay people who are unable to love someone they can have kids with."]
Posted by Jane Know at 6:47 PM
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Jonah Goldberg's article, "An ugly attack on Mormons" was sure to rile up more than a few people. A little research on Golderg found that he is a conservative flame-baiter on any controversial topic du jour.
The gist of the article I mention, is basically that evil liberal supporters of same-sex marriage are attacking, completely unprovoked, Mormons. And that Mormons are the real victims in the Prop 8 hoopla in California.
Blahblahblah. Obvious flame-baiting.
Besides the fact that no one can prove whether the attacks are real or not, most supporters of gay marriage do not approve of physical attacks and violence. That anyone would attribute the actions of any extremist person or group to an entire population of people is an example of pure intellectual laziness.
Goldberg's article collected well over 1000 comments. Among these, not surprisingly were a mix of pro and anti same-sex marriage arguments.
I have noticed many trends in debating the merits of same-sex marriage online. I have noticed many ignorant, many religious-based arguments. However, it is my opinion that they can all be summarized into just a few basic ideas.
Here, from the collection of comments from Goldberg's article and a couple of other articles I easily found online, are the
1. The "I'm-Too-Manly-to-Say-I-Like-Gays-But-Still-Supportive-of-Their-Rights" Married Straight Guy:" "Hey, whatevs. If the homos want to jump into a 50%divorce rate, why not let them be miserable like the rest of us."
[Okay, while technically not an argument against same-sex marriage, this one annoys me.]
2. The "My Bigotry is for The Children" Olde Towne Crier: "Gay marriage puts sexuality in front of children long before they need to be considering it. Kindergarteners don't need to be taught about homosexuality."
[because, you know, straight marriage doesn't do that at all. Just the Gay Marriage.]
3. The I'm-Just-Jealous-that-Gays-Are-Happy-and-I'm-Not-Repressed-Homosexual- Straight-Man: "Gay rights??? The freedom to be openly sexual, the freedom to make others recognize your sexuality so you feel good. That is individual and self-centered by nature. Marriage is a sacrifice, people! I made that sacrifice! You don't deserve to be happy if I don't!"
[because, you know, allowing yourself to be happy basically equates to sinning]
4. The "Gays Are Nazis" Fundamentalist/Extremist Religious Follower:" "The 'Big Reveal' was to find out that gays are nothing but a fascist splinter group,that villified white heterosexuals, enjoys the benefits of being white, and when a democratic decision makes a decision, they take a page out of the Third Reich's book on how to hunt down people that disagree with them. Isn't it amazing to find out that fascism was also in the closet. Boy, was I right that Obama's victory would flush out the closeted bigots. The Gay Reich is on the march!" [note: exact wording taking from an actual comment to Golderg's article]
5. The Psychic Harbinger of The Day of Reckoning [dun dun dun!]: "There are many abominable causes, such as gay rights in America that are about to boil over. The day of reckoning is coming. There are those that are tired of seeing the sickness that is on display daily in America. Those from that silent majority are getting restless, when the pot finally boils over I believe the carnage that will result, will be greater than anyone could have ever imagined."
[Again an actual argument taken from Golberg's article]
6. Alas, beware The Dreaded Circle of No Return Argument: "Gay Marriage is wrong because it's against tradition because marriage is for heterosexuals because heterosexuals produce babies so gay marriage is wrong because it's against tradition because marriage is for heterosexuals because heterosexuals produce babies so gay marriage is wrong."
[It's best to just avoid entering this one altogether, as their argument is circular, and thus, neverending.]
7. The "Gays-Are-All-God's-People-But-They-Shouldn't-Force-Their-Lifestyles-on-the-Rest-of-Us" argument usually goes a little something like this: "It is homosexuals' God-given right to choose whichever lifestyle they wish. Christians are obliged to treat homosexuals compassionately, as they, like all of us, are children of God. If tolerance were the Gay Rights movement agenda, I would agree. If the issue were simply about a State-issued legal contract binding two consenting homosexual adults, I would support it. But the Gay Rights movement has demonstrated the issue is much broader: putting homosexual "discrimination" on par with racism and sexism, in order to legally force complete acceptance by society. Anyone who dissents is threatened with slurs or legal action."
[Yes, folks. We all choose our lifestyles of Homosexuality (let me find the ICD-9 code for that) and take our Radical Gay Agendas everywhere with us, threatening innocent little Cwistians]
8. The "I'm-a-Patriotic-Blue-Blooded-Gun-Totin-American-Born-American-Yet-Don't-Understand-Democracy" Argument: "Radical, liberal, progressive judges have overruled the will of the people in California. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a law, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. The law was voted on by the citizens of the state back in 2000. This judicial activism is a direct attack on American morality and traditional family values. This is outrageous, offensive, and the good people of California have been dealt a terrible blow."
[Yep, in my world too, is a Supreme Court composed of a Republican, conservative majority called, "progressive" and "liberal" and "activist." Only if it's opposite day!]
9. The "I'm Not Bigoted, I Swear! But Every Single Gay Person is Responsible For the Attacks on the Mormon Church Post Prop-8" Argument: "I was indifferent about the issue until I have seen the aftermath of protests and vandalism. I don't think MLK would have gotten anywhere in the realm of public opinion by sending powder filled envelopes to the state office in AL. I too think that sam-sex marriage is inevitable, but it will inevitably be delayed by the tactics that are being used."
10. The Insane Indecipherable Armageddon Argument: "we will all rot in HELL 4 siding with the DEVIL and his adgenda.To force people to do things against their beliefs is an adbomination .Forcing a photographer those behind this we burn in the fire of HELL.They should of got another member of the Anti-christ to shoot the pics."
[Perhaps I should borrow this person's tinfoil cap and then I, too, will be able to predict the future with such certainty]
11. The-I'm-Too-Ignorant-or-Stupid-to-Learn-What-Gay-Means Argument: "No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry. They have every right to get married, just like heterosexuals do. They can find an opposite sexed partner to do it."
[Just like how straight people can go find a same-sex person to enter into a "Homosexual Relationship" with. See below.]
And, finally, last but not least:
12. "I'm-Either-A-Proud-Gay-Hater-or-Jose-Solano-Who-Doesn't-Hate-Gays" Argument: "If homosexuals wish to obtain special privileges for their relationship they should campaign for a 'Homosexual Relationship License' and let the people vote on its approval..." or, "A man having sex with a man, or a woman with a woman, is a naturally absurd activity, an absurd relationship. No amount of clever sophistry can ever remove that realization from the depths of their consciences. So when the objective therapist or friend communicates from the foundation of this reality, he/she needs to realize that, of course, the homosexual unconsciously realizes this also. The homosexual suffers immensely in trying to reconcile his/her wants with what he/she deeply recognizes as absurd. Almost always the wants win out. This is generally the same with almost all manifestations of concupiscence. It is a truly lamentable hoax that has been thrust on homosexuals by telling them they have been born that way and cannot change. Homosexual scientists themselves have contributed to this hoax by insinuating the existence of a “gay gene” and allowing this debunked myth to proliferate because it suited their political agenda in gaining societal affirmation."
[Funny. Jose, I mean, "others" insist so very admanantly that they know about the course of human nature and science, as if it is all established fact based on scientific reasoning. He feigns to know something that well-established science doesn't yet know. Something like human sexual orientation, which, can not possibly be absolutely known or measured at this time. But I suppose we should just take this hater's word for it. I mean, "Jose's" word for it.]
While there are probably more arguments out there, these are by far the most common types.
I really urge opponents of same-sex marriage to do better.
Or not. The more ignorant and crazy they sound, the better for us. Until next time...
Posted by Jane Know at 2:57 PM
Monday, December 1, 2008
I had a very busy weekend and first day back at work after the holidays today. There are lots of sick people in Chicago and today was a bit overwhelming.
So, I am sorry for the re-post from one year ago, but this is all I can do for now. I wrote this while thinking of a dear family friend who passed, much too early of AIDS several years ago now. Here is what is left of any creative writing talent I have.
In honor of World AIDS Day 2008, my friend "B," the brave patients that I watch fight the disease every day, and those we have lost in the struggle:
In honor of B for World AIDS Day, 12/1/07.
You were too young.
Once she was beautful. I think she is beautiful still.
How does this happen?
Your name kept coming up, your name was everywhere that night.
Every time we listen to that song.
A moment of perfect grace. You are ravishing.
We kept coming back. Coming back to you.
I'll never forget the way you looked.
We knew it was you.
The night you died, we all went bar-hopping. I'm sure you would approve.
Your name still comes up every time we go out. To that one bar. To where it used to be.
When so much is yet to be writ-
We went looking for you once. Your grave was unmarked.
Yet we kept finding it anyway.
We laughed and reminisced through the jukebox of frosted glasses of cheap draft beer and smoke-filled rooms.
Why save your songs for spring? There are more.
We held back our tears. Then we cried.
The Soul of the World awaited him and he would soon be a part of it.
You are ravishing...
What is a stranger doing in a strange land?
We wondered. I wondered, what happened?
We hid from you before. We didn't want you to tell on us. We danced and we hid.
Then we drank with you.
And we cried.
You saw us anyway. And you told on us.
I'm sure you would approve.
We all do now.
Once he was beautiful. I'm sure he is beautiful still.
Posted by Jane Know at 8:44 PM
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Certain bloggers have, as a major reason for their opposition to same-sex marriage, insisted upon the existence of a monolithic usage of "identity politics" by gays and lesbians as some sort of evil, echo-chamber-y, brainwashing mentality used by The Gay Agenda to take over the world. Or something. They never quite illicit why identity politics is bad. It just is. And these men expect us to just sort of take their word for it. You know, like red-scare tactics that are all too common of other similar bloggers.
So let's discuss identity politics a little bit deeper for once, shall we?
First, one common definition of identity politics from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is that it "has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination."
The explanation continues a little later, "Identity politics as a mode of organizing is intimately connected to the idea that some social groups are oppressed; that is, that one's identity as a woman or as a Native American, for example, makes one peculiarly vulnerable to cultural imperialism (including stereotyping, erasure, or appropriation of one's group identity), violence, exploitation, marginalization, or powerlessness."
I don't think many would disagree that certain groups, based on identity alone, are oppressed. People are killed in many parts of the world for their same-sex orientation. Many children in the U.S. alone are raised to believe that being gay is wrong.
Fathers are still telling their sons they would rather them commit murder than be gay. (as a gay college professor's dad told him once)
To deny that gay people are oppressed is a farce. And I think most people can at least acknowledge that much, whether or not they think the oppression is justified.
I also don't think that many people, in theory, would disagree that it is okay that these groups should seek to empower themselves. I mean, no one wants to openly be an asshole.
Yet, those same oppressed groups, in reality, often face a huge amount of resistance when they do try to empower themselves. (see women's rights, civil rights, etc.)
My argument here is that identities are defined by the in-group, the ones who hold power. Not the oppressed. Gay people wouldn't know they were "gay" or "queer" or "fags" or "dykes" if it weren't for all the hooting and hollering about it by conservative, right-wingers. By parents. By classmates. By teachers, oftentimes.
Yelling that LGBT folks are playing "identity politics" to get gay marriage passed is merely an attempt to disarm the LGBT person or ally to stop them from fighting for equality.
It is a blatant denial of oppression that is very real.
I understand that many white, heterosexual cis-gendered males may be able to toss around terms that to them are only theories. But to the rest of us, these rights we are fighting for are real. They are our lives.
The formation of identity politics for most LGBT people started on the schoolyard, when a boy called another one "faggot." Or when another boy was beaten up for being "too much of a sissy." Or when the athletic girls were called "dyke" by their classmates, or made an outcast by homophobic teammates.
The formation of politic action groups to protect these people kinda makes sense then, right?
That's why I am extending an open invitation for Chairm, Op-Ed, or anyone else at Opine Editorials to explain why identity politics is bad. Do it on your own blog, do it here. Just explain it for once.
I won't hold my breath. But I just wanted to get my piece out there.
I had the privilege of watching the movie "Milk" yesterday, and though he was assassinated, his words ring on. Everyone should come out of the closet. It will help others see that we really are no different, that we are normal, that we are usually friendly, nice, successful human beings with real needs, too. And none of us deserve to be treated as anything less.
Posted by Jane Know at 5:53 PM
Thursday, November 27, 2008
In the midst of heated debates with other bloggers/commenters on issues like gay marriage and gay rights, it is easy to forget the many luxuries that I do have. For today I would like to forget about debating and just appreciate what I have in the now. Not only am I privileged for living in the United States, as a (relatively) free person, but I am privileged as a white woman who is educated and employed. While I have worked very hard to get to where I am today, I am not blind to the fact that I have also been privileged in many respects compared to what others in our own country and world face.
So, in great Thanksgiving tradition, here are the things for which I am thankful:
-the delicious food I will eat today (most importantly)
-my family and friends
-my girlfriend who, I have no doubt, loves me very much and is good to me (even when I spend too much time in the blogosphere)
-my dog, who also loves me (unconditionally)
-that I have a stable job in tough economic times
-my career is one of a select few in which job prospects will only increase for me over time
-that I am furthering my education and learning a great deal
-that many people in our country likely set aside personal prejudice to vote for Obama, and that he won
-that nearly half of our country believes in equal rights for gays. While, of course, not ideal by any means, it is a huge step from where we were even 10 years ago.
-other bloggers and commenters (on all sides of any debate that I enter), for they truly help me sort out issues, strengthen my arguments, and encourage me to delve much deeper in my thought processes.
Thanks to all who have helped along the way, and have a great day!
Posted by Jane Know at 12:33 PM
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Today, in honor of International Transgender Day of Remembrance, I would like to take the time out to write about and remember our trans brothers and sisters who have died or otherwise been victims of violence due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. While not included in the official "death stats," this also includes those members of the trans community who have inflicted self-harm or committed suicide as a means of escaping a society that has not been ready to love and accept them as people.
What is important to remember, in the midst of a still very transphobic society here in the U.S., is that these victims were not all transgender (some were transvestites, cross-dressers, or other gender-variants), yet they were all harmed due to bias against transpeople as a whole.
I think this rampant transphobia warrants a further discussion on genderism (the belief that there are only two genders, and that gender is is inevitably tied into biological sex). This is something I am passionate about, yet in light of the day, I will remain silent, leaving only this quote by which to remember our trans brothers and sisters who have passed on at the hands of others:
"The violence, discrimination and hatred heaped upon differently-gendered people is an enormous wrong. This bigotry will stop only when the rest of "us" are able to accept our own gender conflicts and pinpoint our own prejudices about biological sex and social sex-roles."
Posted by Jane Know at 8:20 PM
Saturday, November 15, 2008
I attended the Join the Impact Proposition 8 rally in Chicago today. Just thought I would share the one picture I took from my camera phone. (Thankfully my two friends brought their own cameras and I will get more pictures later).
Though it was cold and windy (typical Chicago weather), the protest was a good couple thousand people strong, at least, though I am not the best at estimating crowd size. It was very peaceful, organized, and emotional (for me). A handful of Chicago police officers were standing by, chatting amicably with protestors and observing the demonstration. At no point were there any threats or acts of violence. The Gay Men's Chorus sang, several people gave speeches, a little marching band was there, and thousands of LGBT people, families, children, and straight allies mingled and held up their signs. It was a great event, and I feel thankful to live in such a tolerant city. Even the onlookers walking by and people driving by in cars were supportive. At one point, someone mentioned some counter-protestors, but I never saw any of them (I am assuming their numbers were so small they were pretty much invisible).
Just wanted to give a little update from my perspective. Thanks to all who attended the event! It was a welcome, sane, peaceful sight in light of the many events and accusations that have transpired since election day. I am confident that our numbers of supporters will continue to grow, so long as we keep having events like this.
Peace and enjoy the rest of the weekend!
Posted by Jane Know at 5:54 PM
Thursday, November 13, 2008
What is all the fuss about that pesky cholesterol, anyway? Why do doctors and nurses care so much about it?
Having high cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for life-threatening cardiovascular events.
For those interested in more detail, cholesterol is a soft, waxy-like substance produced by your liver. Everyone has cholesterol and everyone needs it. Cholesterol produces cell membranes, some of your body's hormones, and other important structures. However, technically, your liver produces practically all that your body needs (about 1000mg per day). The excess comes from your diet (anywhere from about 500-1000mg/day), and that is where the trouble usually begins. If your body has excess cholesterol, it lingers in your bloodsteam and clogs your artieries, causing atherosclerosis, strokes, and heart attacks.
For a good breakdown on types of cholesterol, you can go here.
Do you know your cholesterol numbers? If not, you should, as that is the first step in reducing your risk of cholesterol-related cardiovascular events.
If you have already had a lipid panel, and your previous cholesterol levels were normal, then you only need to get re-checked every 5 years. Of course, that time frame decreases if you already have high cholesterol.
Why am I bringing up this seemingly random topic, you may ask?
Because researchers are making important discoveries regarding medications for cholesterol, and they affect each and every one of us. These studies, for the first time ever, included black people, Hispanic people, men, and women.
And, in all of its inclusiveness, these studies focus on people who already have low cholesterol. In other words, they focus on what nurses love best: preventive care.
A couple years ago, in one of my pharmacology classes, my professor mentioned that cardiologists with already-low cholesterol levels were all taking statin drugs as heart prevention. It appears that they, as would be expected, were probably ahead of the curve.
The above-mentioned study showed that when people with relatively low cholesterol levels take statin drugs like Crestor (rosuvastatin), their rate of heart attack and strokes were half that of the group who took the placebo. [Note: The study I am referring to involved Crestor. However, the researchers believe that the cheaper generic statins would be just as effective in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. Also note that other statins are relatively safer. Crestor especially has been known to cause a rare, but serious, muscle side-effect.]
An article on MedicineNet describes the reasoning behind the study here:
"Statins are generally prescribed only for people with high cholesterol or those who have borderline high cholesterol and other risk factors for heart attack and stroke, such as diabetes or established heart disease.
But as many as half of all heart attacks and strokes occur among people without these risk factors who have LDL cholesterol levels that are below recommended thresholds for statin treatment.
The newly reported trial was designed to explore whether statins might also benefit these people."
The study was originally planned to last for 5 years, yet independent monitors stopped the study when they determined that those in the Crestor-group were faring better than the placebo-group.
Whether or not this finding is cost-efficient is another matter. Crestor is expensive, and that rare muscle-side effect can be very serious. Are the benefits worth the risks and cost in a person with practically no risk factors for heart disease?
The specific findings are as such: "Looked at another way, there were 136 heart-related problems per year for every 10,000 people taking dummy pills versus 77 for those on Crestor."
From the Crestor package insert:
"Creatine kinase (CK) elevations (>10 times upper limit of normal) occurred in
0.2% to 0.4% of patients taking rosuvastatin at doses up to 40 mg in clinical studies. Treatment related myopathy, defined as muscle aches or muscle weakness in conjunction with increases in CK values >10 times upper limit of normal, was reported in up to 0.1% of patients taking rosuvastatin doses of up to 40 mg in clinical studies."
So there we have it. Here is a quick break-down:
-If you have low cholesterol and don't take a statin, you could be one of the 136/10,000 people who have a serious cardiovascular event (1.36%).
-If you have low cholesterol and take a statin, your risk of a cardiovascular event decreases to 77/10,000 (.77%).
-However, if you do choose to take a statin, your risk of rhabdomyolosis is about 0.1%.
One thing worth mentioning is that if you have low cholesterol, your doctor is not going to put you on a maximum dose statin, either, as that increases the rhabdomyolosis risk. While I am not a fan of having to take or prescribe daily medications when they aren't necessarily indicated, the study offers promising news in preventing those heart attacks that occur despite a lack of any known risk factors. Or in preventing heart attacks in those with low cholesterol but high C-reactive protein levels, which some doctors believe increases risk of heart attacks.
Just a thought, while I am not saying that everyone should start asking for a statin prescription today for heart attack prevention, it is something you can bring up with your doctor if you are concerned. It is perhaps especially worth mentioning to your doctor if you have any other risk factors (high blood pressure, smoking, obesity, family history of high cholesterol/early heart attacks) or your cholesterol levels are nearly elevated.
It will be interesting to see if any physician groups or the American Heart Association start to change their guidelines and advocate for use of statins for everyone for heart attack prevention.
Posted by Jane Know at 2:51 PM
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
This has been taking up too much of my time. And, honestly, the end of the semester is nearing, work is busy, and the holidays are approaching. I am working on putting a lot of this nonsense drama-queen Proposition 8 stuff past me so I can move on with my otherwise happy life.
However, I was compelled to write one last bit before I completely switch gears. I am completely burned out on the topic of Prop 8 and the 2008 election, so this will be it for a while.
It has come to my attention that some anti-SSM bloggers are throwing a fit over one of my recent blog articles.
Within the article I wrote, I had pasted a picture of two little girls wearing "god hates fags" shirts, immediately after a sentence in which I had linked to Opine Editorial's member "On Lawn" and his blog article, where he discussed celebrating the passage of Proposition 8 with his first-grader:
"Last night our first grader (who stood with us cheering on prop 8) was noticeably sad. She was worried Prop 8 would not pass. When she told me why, I was nearly devastated.
It turns out she thought if it passed, same sex marriage would be the law -- meaning men have to marry men and women have to marry women. The wording "same-sex marriage" has a large part to blame in that, but so do we as parents who did not explain it better before. It took a moment of deep empathy to feel the pain she must have gone through to believe that defeating Prop 8 meant breaking up our marriage. Even though her fears were not true, they were real."
Haha! How like, totally, cute. And stuff. His first-grader thought her daddy was going to have to marry another daddy!
While I probably should not have posted a picture of anonymous children wearing such hateful shirts, and for that I apologize, I refuse to apologize for my words that came after:
"I think it's sad that those who shriek at the thought of schools teaching 'sex and marriage' in schools to first-graders are the same people who have no problem telling their first-graders about 'sex and marriage' (ie-gay people) in their homes when GLBT rights are taken away."
What is also sad is that children, before their parents are able to teach them that homosexuality is wrong, often have no reason to dislike gay people, or to root for the passage of a measure that leaves intact gay and lesbian-headed families without the same legal rights as intact heterosexual-headed families.
It's a sad day when children start to believe that their parents' prejudice is "the way the world should be." It is sad because a little girl who cheers for the passing of Proposition 8, an amendment that I am sure she did not look up the meaning of herself, might take that support she learned from her father, and put it to use by making fun of a child with gay parents. Or in some other way she may try to make that child feel inferior.
Chairm, in his reprimand to a pro-SSM blogger, continued about me,
"The mischaracterization produced by that blogger is par for the course for her and almost every SSMer in the blogosphere.
In that blogger's case, this is what she does, relentlessly, and is not something that arose, momentarily, due to dissappointed [sic] with the vote on November 4th."
He also ordered her to "Please acknowledge, confirm, clarify, and/or correct the compliment you gave for that blogger, under that blogpost, before proceeding any further here in our comment sections."
[She did so, which you can read here.]
And you can read my response.
While I am ashamed at some of my past actions, notably even bringing up someone else's innocent children [who may or may not grow up to be just as homophobic as their fathers], I stand by my statements that I made about this anonymous "On Lawn" character over at Opine. I also can not take back anything in the past that I have said or done. Some of my comments, especially the older ones, are when I was also a neophyte blogger and were my knee-jerk responses to blatant homophobia and ill-will towards me and my family.
While I am sure Seda would love a civil discourse, and it looks like that has been going on over there for the time being, what I do not appreciate is being made, by Opine Editorials, to look like some overly sensitive lesbian blogger who thinks that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bigot.
I have had many a thought-provoking, decent conversation with people who oppose SSM and have ended up agreeing to disagree on the issue. The difference has been in their approach, lack of overt hatred towards GLBT people, and kindness.
I think that people can, actually, oppose SSM and not be homophobic. It's just that that is hardly ever the case.
You see, while Chairm was busy trying turning me into the bad guy in all of this, he casually forgets his own mistakes and bias. While he is busy turning every pro-marriage equality argument into "just another example of overly sensitive gays and lesbians playing identity politics," he is forgetting that he is playing his own form of identity politics, his own heterosexist invisible ideology.
If I have seemed unjustifiably harsh towards the Opine fellas by calling them homobigots, it is because for the past year and a half, I have seen them stand idily by while other Opine members say horrible, horrible things about gays and lesbians, and worse, about their families and children.
And nearly every time outright bigotry has been brought to their attention, someone at Opine rationalizes the bigoted behavior.
I would not feel so inclined to dismiss them as more bigots if they didn't have, as a tagline to their blog the following Shakespeare quote:
"Were kisses all the joys in bed,
One woman would another wed."
[Obviously, they have practically no understanding of what lesbians really do in bed]
While they feel completely justified in attacking our families and the way we raise children on a daily basis, they don't understand why they are called out sometimes in the way they are raising theirs. They can't see that attacks on our family lives are just like attacks on theirs.
That gosh darn invisible heterosexism again.
My current thinking, then, has been that some people are so incredibly far to the right on the issue, that they can't concede even the simplest of things about gay and lesbians families, that they will never change their minds.
In case people have forgotten, I have made several honest, good-faith attempts at dialogue with Opine members. Ones that were actually grossly misused and taken advantage of.
I am open to considering other points of view, but when those points of view are stubbornly strewn about with innaccurate information and religious-based articles, there is really no point. At least, there is no point in wasting my precious time and energy engaging in direct dialogue with people who bombard and constantly bait and switch. Bait and switch. Ad nauseum.
And if that means calling people out and exposing them for what they are, then so be it.
No one's real identity is known here. They can go about their lives in the real world, while quietly [or not?] obsessing over gay families on the internet every day.
With alleged friends of homosexuals like Opine Editorials claims to be, I would rather them my enemies.
All that being said, I wish Seda the best of luck in her dialogue over there. For the time being, they seem to be abiding by her rules respectfully.
Listen, I would love to think that the boys at Opine have somehow changed their ways and are now all of a sudden all about peaceful, respecful dialogue. But I won't hold my breath.
[UPDATE: In case anyone thinks Opine has changed in the least bit, I invite you to observe the following conversation they are having with someone named "Velvet Blade" just today, observe how they ignore homophobic Jose's long-winded diatribes against "sodomy." Observe how On Lawn and Chairm make up their own propaganda speak and then expect their opponent to intrinsically know what it means. And if you don't know what it means, watch them order their opponents to go read through the propaganda archives of their blog. Observe how several members at once write book-length comments to Velvet Blade and expect him to address each and every point they make... or else that means he isn't sticking to the original topic. Watch Fitz dismiss arguments as "silly," forgetting that he can't spell or use simple grammar most of the time (as a lawyer). I'm just sayin'. They will never change.]
Posted by Jane Know at 9:11 PM
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Los Angeles Times recently published an interesting perspective of Proposition 8.
Jasmyne Cannick, an L.A. resident, offers her perspective on the issue as a woman who belongs to two groups with often conflicting ideological views (black and lesbian). I'll be honest, it was hard for me not to become angry and defensive when reading her letter. Her letter, at times, comes across (to me) as an attack on white gays and lesbians.
And yet, putting myself in her shoes as much as I can, I understand her perspective a little more. She is both black and gay. And, In the midst of many white gays placing immediate blame on blacks due to Proposition 8's passage, she is likely also coming from a defensive standpoint. She also may, right now, feel like she has to "choose" who she is going to side with on the issue.
Just another example of how anger and hostility can keep on escalating, so that in the end, we are all just our separate little groups at war with each other instead of a stronger, more united front. In an effort to unite us, I thought long and hard for a couple days about what an appropriate response to Cannick's letter would be. I know she will likely not ever read this. And I know my blog isn't read by a huge number of people. Yet, I could not rest until I wrote this.
Cannick states that she canvassed the streets urging people to vote for Obama, but she was not inspired to tell them to vote against Proposition 8.
"Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue."
It is true. All of it. In the hierarchy of social issues like employment, socioeconomic status, and police discrimination black people have it worse than white gays and lesbians. No one is denying that. They, I am sure, have more pressing concerns than gay marriage.
"The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?"
To this, my answer is that we must vote in every election on issues that may or may not directly concern us. But if one is truly to say that they believe in equality, then surely ending this type of discrimination against same sex couples is a step in the right direction for everyone.
I am not about to argue with someone over which group, gays or black people, have had it worse. One has to admit, on any side of the debate, that both groups have been treated rather shoddily by a mostly white, mostly straight, mostly religious majority in the U.S. We have a remarkably embarrassing past in the way we have treated black people, and the effects are still evident in many ways today.
Yet, 94% of our nation's people would vote for a black president. And thank the goddess, we finally have a President of our country who is not white. A President who gives more hope to all of our nation's black men and boys that they, too, can aspire to our nation's highest office.
I know, gays were never slaves, we have never had to sit at the back of a bus, we aren't always easily spotted as an "outsider." Yet gays are still fighting discrimination in very real ways, too.
Roughly half of our nation's people still think it is okay to pass laws specifically banning "homosexual" couples from things that heterosexual couples take advantage of every day. Only 55% of our nation's people would vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate who also happened to be gay. In many ways, America is still stuck in the 1950s regarding issues of gay rights.
That is different from me claiming that gay people are treated exactly like black people used to be treated. The two groups, and their members whose Venn diagrams overlap into the two groups, have unique challenges and obstacles. The types of discrimination the two groups face are completely different.
And yet still so very much the same. Discrimination is still discrimination. And anyone that is not fighting against it, may as well be marching up there with a "God hates fags" shirt (which is why I purposefully included that picture in a previous blog).
More excerpts from Cannick's letter I wanted to address are as follows:
"Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote."
"Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park -- the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification -- to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either."
I am offended for one that Cannick claims white gays can somehow afford millions individually for anti-Prop 8 advertising. As if we are one monolithic white gay culture feasting at $500 plate dinners, donating our hundreds of thousands of spare dollars to the campaign, and then jetting away to Milan.
Most of the anti-Prop 8 donations were small sums from individual donors. The millions were from large organizations and celebrities. It is just as racist to accuse an alleged monolithic "white gay culture" of all being rich, snobbish, and single-issue oriented. Many of us are hard-working, honest, non-profit salaried employees working for largely poor, largely black/gay/Hispanic organizations. I'm just sayin'. Drawing inaccurate charicatures of people does nothing to alleviate racial tensions.
Now, if that bit about Leimert Park is true, it is a shame. But I think we all need more information regarding whether the white people were "too scared" to venture elsewhere in the black neighborhoods.
Also, racism indeed exists in the white gay community. I have seen it time and time again, having grown up in a small, mostly white, rural area. But I believe I have done my part to help To be white, gay and racist it hypocritical. But it works the other way around, too. To be black, straight, and against gays also seems a little hypocritical to many white gay people. The same way being black, gay, and against whites would be too.
But don't think that just because I am not black, I am not going to fight against racism. Honestly, I don't notice how racism affects me, like, ever. Laws concerning blacks and minorities don't affect me in the least. And honestly, when other things come up that do affect me more directly, I am more interested in them. But I also can reject racism, acknowledge that in many ways I am privileged solely on the basis of my whiteness. And I can still help in the little ways I know how to fight racism against black people and other minorities.
Because, as my 6th grade teacher taught me, to be silent, to be apathetic "just because it doesn't concern me" is wrong.
The person who witnesses a violent crime and does nothing to stop it,
the person who watches a schoolyard bully call an innocent boy "faggot" and does nothing to stop it,
the person who sits silently as racist jokes are being told,
they all may as well be the perpetrators of those injustices.
I know there are larger, more important issues than gay rights and same-sex marriage. But most people, at least I hope, are not single-issue voters. Further, simply because there are more important social justice-y issues is absolutely no excuse to let them slip on by, under the radar.
I will end with the same Elie Wiesel quote that Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese ended with in a mass email he recently sent out:
"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
Posted by Jane Know at 11:01 AM
Sunday, November 9, 2008
According to the One News Now website, the organization is now shrieking at what they are calling "Homosexual Pledge Cards." To everyone else, the pledge cards are simply a promise not to call others LGBT-related slurs.
You know, slurs that people learn from their parents and other children, and then think it's okay to use on the playground at school. "Faggot," "queer," and "dyke" are, to many kids still today, the ultimate put-down and insult.
To folks like Peter LaBarbara, apparently, this is akin to Nazism:
"This is just bizarre, and it shows how the teachers with their radical sexual agenda want to start early to reprogram these kids' minds. They want to undermine the faith teachings that the kids have at home; this is part of a plan," he suggests. "To me, this is like Hitler with Nazi Germany and the Soviets wanting to get to the youth and change the kids by getting to them at a very young age."
Um, since when is vowing to make schools a safe place for everyone and promising to stop using harmful slurs on par with the Nazis? They seem to think that there is some hidden "Gay Agenda" at play with every move that includes "LGBT" in it, when usually it. really. is. just. about. equality.
I have a feeling that if schools were instead teaching children that homosexuality is wrong, an aberrant "lifestyle choice," they would find nothing wrong with that. So, it isn't the alleged "teaching of homosexuality" they disagree with. It is the teaching against hate speech that they disagree with. Okay, got it.
And seriously, Nazi references are a bit overdone by now, don'tcha think, Peter?
Do they ever learn?
They should be ashamed. And even if they will never be ashamed, they should learn by now that if you don't really have a valid argument to make, simply throwing in a "Nazi" reference is only going to hurt your side more.
Posted by Jane Know at 7:47 PM
Friday, November 7, 2008
I ran across an interesting article by Yale professor of psychology, Paul Bloom, today in Slate. The title is "Does Religion Make You Nice?" Given the current political climate, I was immediately drawn to it.
Bloom begins the article by providing us with the link to a 2007 Gallup Poll, which shows a majority (53%) of Americans would not vote for an otherwise qualified Atheist presidential candidate.
95% of Americans would vote for a Catholic person
94% would vote for a Black person
92% for a Jewish person
88% for a woman
87% for a Hispanic person.
72% for a Mormon
67% married for the third time
57% 72 years of age
55% for a homosexual
45% for an atheist
Good to know where we all stand.
To me, the Presidential candidates our country would vote for are a litmus test of tolerance towards anything other than white, male, and Protestant. If people will automatically discount an otherwise qualified candidate solely on one of the above bases, that is the textbook defintion of intolerance and prejudice.
You can go read the poll for yourself, but it's no surprise that conservatives are far less tolerant of most "non-traditional" groups than liberals and even most moderates.
[On a side note, this is a big, fat told-you-so to those who insist that about half of our country's people are not homophobic despite voting against gay rights consistently]
But I digress. In a nutshell, Bloom tells us of a review published by Science last month, in which "psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff discuss several experiments that lean pro-[Laura] Schlessinger." In other words, if you believe a God or other deity is watching over you, you are less likely to cheat, and more likely to donate money.
More surprisingly even, people are less likely to cheat or misbehave in a room where the posters have eyes on them. Maybe then, if religious people are indeed nicer, it's because they believe someone is watching them at all times.
However, before we start having to defend our atheist and agnostic selves against the religious people in America, Bloom writes about the Danes and the Swedes, who are "probably the most godless people on earth."
He goes on:
"They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.
Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy. "
Bad news for the religious Right in the U.S. When they treat sex, drugs, and rock&roll like Eve's forbidden fruit, they of all people should know the consequences.
Bloom goes on to say that perhaps the reason religious people do so well in the U.S., is not so much their "religion" but the sense of community they get from it. Here, atheists are ostracized from many communities.
Bloom states, "Humans are social beings, and we are happier, and better, when connected to others."
Since America is so obviously still a Christian nation in many respects, perhaps it is true that atheists are not as happy. But this is not really the fault of atheism, or not having a god.
"[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them."
I don't mean to say, of course, that all atheists are unhappy and do not have a sense of community. Nor that they are bad people. I have been atheist or agnostic since I voluntarily stopped going to church in 5th grade, around the same time I told my parents that I had known for years that Santa Claus wasn't real.
Sure I was happier not going to church. I no longer had to pretend to believe in something that to me was entirely not real. It's not fun to live a lie.
However, it hurt to be ostracized and judged by my many neighbors who were avid church-goers and believers. What Bloom's article gets at then, is not that atheists' unhappiness in America is due to atheism; but that our country, no matter what our Constitution claims, is still too religious to tolerate anything that is not Judeo-Christian.
Or as Bloom says, "The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one."
Posted by Jane Know at 1:31 PM
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Some vocal pro-Proposition 8 voters in the blogosphere apparently have not forgotten their alleged "homosexual" "friends."
[In case you were in a coma yesterday and today, Proposition 8 very narrowly passed in CA, 52-48%.]
I find it ironic, to say the least, that one giant step for civil rights for racial minorities has also led to pretty big step backwards in civil rights for gays and lesbians. Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, and California all passed some form of anti-gay measures yesterday.
Further, 70% of black voters in California supported Prop 8, while whites narrowly opposed it, and Asian and Latino voters were split.
Yet, before we go getting all racist and starting a Black vs. Gay war, let's remember that black people only made up 6% of the total vote in CA. More importantly, let's remember the major funders and creators of false advertising for Proposition 8 were the Church of LDS and "pro-family" organizations.
Let's also remember that black people have been fighting their own war against horrible laws and prejudices for centuries. I don't mean to take anything away from Obama's victory and what it means for black people in this country.
And, of course, let's remember our black AND gay brothers and sisters. They often fight homophobia from within their black communities, and racism from within the GLBT community.
While no one likes to paint herself a victim, nor do we sit idly by and let it happen, these ARE realities for gay people and racial minorities. Homophobia and racism, obviously, exist.
So, while I just claimed that gays and lesbians suffered a giant step backwards in the civil rights timeline yesterday, the truth is that we should all celebrate the giant leap forward that Obama's nomination is for everyone.
As an aside, I think the connection between the pro-Prop 8/black vote is rooted in Christian fundamentalism, not race. Higher percentages of black people are religious, and their religions tend more often to be the ones that disapprove of gays and lesbians. And fundamentalist religious people oppose same-sex marriage in much greater percentages than do non-religious people and non-fundamentalists.
Pam, over at Pam's House Blend, addresses the issue much better than I ever could:
"For those of us who are black and gay, a group too often marginalized within a marginalized community, I see this as a clear signal to the LGBT advocacy community. There hasn't been enough outreach to those groups who voted against us. We haven't reached them; there hasn't been enough effort expended"
Now we know where to direct some new outreach efforts.
I was just sayin', as I said yesterday, it was a bittersweet election.
But, we will trudge on and keep fighting. While hugely disappointed in the outcome of the different amendments last night, the fact that much of the opposition to equal rights for gay and lesbian families is rooted in homophobia/sexism/bigotry just makes me want to keep fighting even more.
Which leads me to my next topic. Some homo-bigots in the blogosphere, in the midst of celebrating with their first-graders the passage of discriminatory homo-bigot laws, have decided to offer their warped version of "consolation" to their "homosexual" "friends" [sic].
It's times like these I wish I had access to a magical split-screen camera to show across the nation. One would show bigot-headed families like On Lawn's, celebrating with their children the fact that they helped restrict innocent people's civil rights and pursuit of happiness. The other would show a family headed by a gay or lesbian couple, hanging their heads in sadness at the continued discrimination they will face by laws in this country.
I think it's sad that those who shriek at the thought of schools teaching "sex and marriage" in schools to first-graders are the same people who have no problem telling their first-graders about "sex and marriage" (ie-gay people) in their homes when GLBT rights are taken away.
In spite of the mockery On Lawn and other anti-gay people purposefully make towards gay families on a daily basis, I was surprised at his attempt at reconciliation today. While I am sure in his delusional mind, he believes he is now making nice with the families he denigrates every day, observe how he ignorantly fails miserably:
"Its [sic] a somber day for those who's [sic] efforts did not bring victory last night. Lets remember that it could have been us. I feel a great empathy for them, though the fears and emotions are not true they are none the less real to them."
A-wha? Did I just hallucinate all that hoopla about rights getting stripped from gays and lesbians last night? Thank you very much, On Lawn, for telling us exactly how we feel, and which of our feelings are figments of our sensitive, wittle gay imaginations.
I mean, is he serious? Some people just never get it. And I have a feeling he never will.
On Lawn then provides a link to Ken the Playful Walrus' article, entitled, "To My Homosexual Friends [sic] Re: Marriage Amendments."
Ken states, "I voted for Prop 8. I argued vigorously for it in this very blog. I do not hate you. I don’t think most of the people who voted for these amendments hate you. Do you really think that blue state California is so full of homophobic bigots? Some, yes. But so many? If you tell yourself that, you misdiagnose the situation, and that will hinder your future success."
Ken offers the following "advice" to gay people:
"Stop obsessing so much about what other people think of your relationships. If you think your happiness depends on what other people think of your relationships, or what the state calls it, you’re going to be miserable for a long, long time..."
I take issue with this. Serious issue. Not because it is not true. Of course it's fucking true. Yet I doubt any gay or lesbian couples placed all of their happiness eggs in the Proposition 8 basket last night. We gays are pretty smart people.
What does our "friend" Ken think gay and lesbian couples have doing since time immemorial until today? Sitting around crying and being miserable until the homo-bigots say we are no longer sinners?
Thanks, but no thanks.
We have gotten by and will continue to do so. My relationship will not fail because homobigots aren't ready to share a word they think belongs only to them. Nor will we ever stop existing. Ken is right about one thing, the fight is far from over, and I know one day we will get marriage equality.
All that being said, if you yourself have access to a word, with all it's legal privileges, rights, and responsibilies, that other people don't have, you are in no position to tell them they should not want it.
My response to Ken, therefore, is this: if YOUR happiness so greatly hinges on what other people think of other people's relationships, then you my friend are already in serious trouble.
The picture I get in my head of Ken, is one of an overweight man eating a giant slab of mouthwatering chocolate cake, matter-of-factly telling a starving man, "If your happiness depends on this cake, then you're going to be miserable for a long, long time."
You know, Walrus, sometimes it IS about happiness. Or at least a fair shot at happiness that heterosexual couples enjoy. It is already established that marriage is supposed to be that one ultimate form of relatioship, a symbol of undying, unconditional love for your partner for life. On the relationship hierarchy, it is tops, eins, numero uno, the Great Bambino of relationships.
Restricting our right to a shot at that kind of legally and socially recognized relationship, is kind of a big deal.
So yes, it is about happiness.
And it is always about dignity. Separate is NOT equal.
But I doubt Ken or On Lawn know anything about either of those things. While gays and lesbians will get by as we always have without equal marriage, one day we hope to have equal access to happiness and dignity that heterosexual couples often take for granted and abuse every single day.
One day in the not-so-distant future, adults will be adults and learn how to share a word. Or better yet, a Right.
And they will realize, sharing isn't so bad. It's the nice thing to do, really.
And they will say, "What was all that fuss about? I am still me. I am still happy. I am still legally married to my own loving spouse. In fact, nothing at all was taken from me."
And then they will say, "Now I know what it is like to truly call a homosexual 'my friend.'"
And then they will find a new group to hate...
Posted by Jane Know at 8:38 PM
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Posted by Jane Know at 11:47 PM
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Continuing his excellent work regarding "sexual orientation, prejudice, science, and policy," Dr. Gregory Herek offers an analysis of the most recent field polls indicating support of and opposition to California's Proposition 8. You can find it here.
Dr. Herek's analysis and explanations are among the most detailed found on the internet right now. I will let you all read it for yourselves, however opposition to the proposition is still in the lead 52% to 44% in support of it. This is a significantly tighter race than in September.
Of note, regarding why the race is still so close, Dr. Herek's explanation is that "old prejudices die hard." He states:
"Perhaps instead we should be remarking on the fact that so many voters have proved reluctant to write antigay discrimination into the California constitution. The widespread opposition to Prop. 8, and the fact that proponents of the measure have been so careful not to publicly bash sexual minorities, are signs of a sea change in public attitudes.
Nevertheless, old prejudices die hard. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are still stigmatized throughout the United States and in much of California. Powerful groups — including the Mormon Church and Focus on the Family — have dedicated their vast resources to perpetuating sexual stigma. And many heterosexuals with generally enlightened attitudes are still uncomfortable thinking about same-sex relationships.
In my own research, I’ve found that heterosexuals’ opinions about marriage equality are very closely linked to their general attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Other factors are also important — including religious beliefs and political values — but antigay attitudes are usually the strongest predictor of marriage attitudes."
Herek's advice? The key factor in the election will be trying to sway the undecided voters. He is urging those who oppose Prop 8 to talk to everyone they know, urge them to vote NO, and tell them why you are voting NO on 8.
I am excited for the likely advance in civil rights that will take place on election day!
Posted by Jane Know at 12:18 PM
Saturday, November 1, 2008
In what may have been the worst move yet in the entire Proposition 8 debacle, the Yes on 8 movement has likened a U.S. with legally recognized same-sex marriages to that of Nazi Germany.
In what has sadly become an overused scare tactic piece of propaganda, Pacific Justice Insitute invoked images of Hitler and Nazi Germany as part of that organization's campaign on behalf of Proposition 8 [I refuse to link to it on my blog].
The Anti-Defamation League has issued the following statement in response to the ad:
"We are outraged and deeply offended that a spokesman for the Pacific Justice Institute has chosen to invoke images of Hitler and Nazi Germany as part of that organization's campaign on behalf of Proposition 8. ADL opposes the Proposition, but in our view, no matter what position one takes on this controversial contemporary moral and political issue, this analogy is hurtful and inappropriate. We should not lose sight of the fact that six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. Unfortunately, it has become all too easy for some advocates of various political positions to suggest that their opponents are like the Nazis. Such comparisons are profoundly hurtful and should be off limits."
What I find the most ironic and asinine is that they are grossly misusing the Holocaust to their advantage, while at the same time practicing anti-Semitism within their organizations!
Do the intolerant have any boundaries? I think their actions speak for themselves.
Posted by Jane Know at 5:21 PM
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
It looks like the once-popular, all-too-hard-to-get-out-of-your-head, Bee Gee's song "Stayin' Alive" might, in fact, be a real lifesaver.
University of Illinois College of Medicine researchers in Peoria recently conducted a small study in which 10 doctors and five medical students who listened to the "Saturday Night Fever" tune while practicing CPR not only performed perfectly, they remembered the technique five weeks later.
The song plays at 103 beats per minute, which coincidentally, is just the right rate for CPR, per the current guidelines.
"One trouble with CPR training, Matlock said, is that most practitioners, from trained medical professionals to people who take classes at the local fire department, fail to perform the potentially lifesaving technique aggressively enough."
Further, "Both the message of the title and the mechanics of the music support the CPR message, said Mary Fran Hazinski, a nurse at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital in Nashville and senior science editor for the heart association.
While the song's new potential use is amusing, it could save tens of thousands of lives each year. Just this year the American Heart Association (AHA) published a report entitled: Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Call to Action for Bystander Response to Adults Who Experience Out-of-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Arrest. The current recommendations are as follows:
When an adult suddenly collapses, trained or untrained bystanders should—at a minimum—activate their community emergency medical response system (eg, call 911) and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest, minimizing interruptions (Class I).
If a bystander is not trained in CPR, then the bystander should provide hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.
If a bystander was previously trained in CPR and is confident in his or her ability to provide rescue breaths with minimal interruptions in chest compressions, then the bystander should provide either conventional CPR using a 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio (Class IIa) or hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.
If the bystander was previously trained in CPR but is not confident in his or her ability to provide conventional CPR including high-quality chest compressions (ie, compressions of adequate rate and depth with minimal interruptions) with rescue breaths, then the bystander should give hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over the care of the victim.
Remember, you don't have to be trained in CPR to perform chest compressions. Many health-care providers have never done CPR, either. If you witness a sudden cardiac arrest, that person's best chance of survival is immediate chest compressions and automatic defibrillation (many public places now also have defibrillators).
Just hum to the tune of "Stayin' Alive" while doing those compressions, and the rate should be close to perfect.
Who knew that the overplayed disco song is useful not only for making white people dance badly at wedding receptions, but also for saving lives?
Posted by Jane Know at 1:20 PM
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Happy National Coming Out Day to all!
Gay pride and national coming out day is something that is still necessary, as we fight for equal rights in this country. While some of our opponents label gays as "non-existent," or sexual orientation as a "political identity," those of us who are actually gay know that our sexual orientation is something real and central to our happiness and well-being. Because so much of our personhood is wrapped up in who we love and make families with, equal recognition of our families by the government is only fair and just.
I think most people know this by now, as more people are coming out, and as the rest of the world realizes that gay people are often kind, loving, generous people (like most heterosexual people). Once people can put a face to a label that, for so long, was taboo, that label is no longer so scary.
In the sense that many of us in same-sex relationships are fighting for equal rights, being gay is a political identity. Yet, the very reason we seek equal rights makes it that way. The point of a National Coming Out Day, then, is to make our orientations a non-issue. A non-political-identity, if you will. The very people who critique gays for alleged "political ideologies" and "gay agendas" are the very ones who make such "agendas," if you can call it that, a necessity.
It reminds me of those who oppose gay parenting on the grounds that the children might be made fun of by their peers for having gay parents. Why should innocent gay people be punished for the intolerance of ignorant people?
For, the day we stop having to fight for equal rights, protections, and treatments is the day we will be able to stop using our sexual orientations like a political category and get on with just living our lives with the person who makes us happiest, like our heterosexual brothers and sisters. That is when the anti-gay protestors acknowledge that same-sex relationships are necessary for the happiness and sanctity of other people's lives, and not just a political football to sway ignorant masses, or to make money for a select few "pastors" of "churches." And, definitely not a mechanism to elect corrupt, often adulterous, politicians into office.
I wish everyone well on this beautiful weekend. And don't forget to come out to someone today. Whether you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or an ally, putting a face to those labels is one of the best things you can do for our fight for equality.
Posted by Jane Know at 12:55 PM
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Should become a doctor or nurse and move to India or other developing countries where the problem is, by far, the largest. Thanks to unprotected heterosexual sex.
The homobigots who only care about The AIDS insomuch as it furthers their anti-gay identity politics, should also read the article, so they learn where the true spread of disease comes from.
I'm just sayin'. Sometimes it's completely obvious that even when you make all attempts to not let your homo-bigotry come out of the closet, it shines through like a rainbow.
Posted by Jane Know at 8:15 PM
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Emily Bazelon, over at Slate, writes an opinion piece titled, "The Un-Hillary:
Why watching Sarah Palin is agony for women."
In it, she describes the grief that women, conservative and liberal alike, encounter when watching and listening to her flawed responses to opponents in debates"
"Conservatives express straightforward disappointment. 'I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful,' Parker writes glumly. 'Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.'"
"But Palin's gender is at the center of another set of reactions I've been hearing and reading among women who don't support her ticket, filled with ambivalence over how bad she is. Laugh at the Tina Fey parodies that make Palin ridiculous just by quoting her verbatim. And then cry. When Palin tanks, it's good for the country if you want Obama and Biden to win, but it's bad for the future of women in national politics. I'm in this boat, too. Should we feel sorry for Sarah Palin? No. But if she fails miserably, we might be excused for feeling a bit sorry for ourselves."
I'll admit it. While I am an Obama supporter, of course, a part of me cringes at seeing the only prominent female political figure of the moment mess up so badly, so often. She can't hack it in the big leagues, that much is obvious. But the problem with that for women is that a lot of people are going to attribute her incompetence to her gender. Because Americans really are that stupid.
Another part of me is so incredibly angry that a woman like Palin has sort of undeservedly slipped into a role that replaces uber-prepared and competent Hillary Clinton as our gender's lone representative on a major party ticket.
So put me in Bazelon's camp:
"And yet. When I watch Palin, I can't help but cringe along with Parker. Call it women's solidarity, however misplaced. I keep coming back to this prim phrase: Please, don't make a spectacle of yourself. String some coherent sentences together. Your efforts to wrap yourself in Hillary's mantle make no sense in terms of what you'd actually do in office. But if you could pull off just a bit of her debating prowess—just a bit—I'll step a little lighter when I wake up Friday morning."
Posted by Jane Know at 6:05 PM