Lingual Tremors

Whither Goes Roe...New York Need Not Follow

Our good friends, the ivied nonet of justice, in their April 2007 decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, paved the way for an assault on reproductive health.  Under the Bush administration, we have seen unprecedented, in a post Roe world, bans and restrictions on abortion. 

New York's Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, introduced by Governor Spitzer, would guarantee New York's pro-choice stance, regardless of federal restrictions.

Why do we need such legislation?  NARAL New York's fact sheet explains:

"In 1970, New York introduced one of the first laws in the United States decriminalizing abortion. New York modified its penal code and made it legal for doctors to perform abortions.

The law was visionary then, but today it is outdated and confusing. Current law does not contain the foundations upon which Roe was decided, including the fundamental right of women to make private medical decisions, nor does it take into account how abortion care is now provided. Much has changed since the 1970’s, and New York needs an up-to-date law that protects a woman’s fundamental right to abortion. 

The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection will codify New York’s longstanding support of reproductive freedom, while ensuring that New York State is prepared if the right to choose is threatened by a weakening of Roe or further federal encroachments."

This legislation is critical to ensure continued access to reproductive medicine for New York's women.  This legislation will also ensure that New York would remain a safe haven for women. 

How can you help?
1.  Inform yourself about the act and the protections it would provide.
2.  Talk about it with your friends, family, colleagues.
3.  Volunteer to help NARAL
4.  Give money to NARAL New York
For more information on actions you can take, click here.

Here's a new video about the importance of the act:

Moral Turpitude and the Curious American Obsession with Morality

"I love America,"..."Everybody gets a chance in America. In England, success only inspires envy, but in America it inspires hope." ~Sebastian Horsley

The next time you have the luck to find yourself bound abroad, do take a moment to stop in Customs and cozy up to your friendly neighborhood Homeland Security Agent to ask for a copy of the brochure that explains "Section 212 (a) (2) (A) (i) (I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended."  Oh, alright. I'll do it for you.  Click here. Scary stuff, eh?

I sincerely hope the likes of Eliot Spitzer and any other politician who has had a party in his pants with a prostitute doesn't try to leave the U.S. to visit Europe.  Because in Section 212 (a) (2) (A) (i)(l) (who the ***&&^%%^&* ever thought all of these parentheses made any sense???) of the "Classes of Aliens Ineligible for a Visa", prostitution ranks higher than terrorism.  I mean that quite literally--prostitution is item 2 (D) and Terrorism is 3 (B).  Guess philandering with whores is a bigger deal than threats to American security.  Perhaps someone ought to teach legislators the fine art of rhetorical organization.  The farther down on the list, the less important, no?

Anyway, how did I miss this story?  Self-identified London dandy & all around gleefully self-absorbed bad boy author & artist Sebastian Horsely was denied entry to the United States at Newark Liberty International Airport (get the irony?  Huh?  Huh?  Get it?  "Liberty"??? Get it???) on the basis of moral turpitude.  Translation?  He engages in activities considered offensive to the prurient & morally superior interests of the U.S. public.  Yeah.  Like Horsely is going to be a worse role model for us than our own elected politicians?  Than our own movie stars?  Than our own writers?  Than our own journalists?  Dare I continue...

Belly Up To The Bar, Boys: A Vote for Hillary is a Fuck You Vote to Mysogynistic America

Here's the thing:  if last night's Democratic Debate had taken place as a casual repartee at a bar, I would have smacked John Edwards and Barack Obama in that "wake up, buddy, I don't think so" kind of a way.  You know:  when the guy has crossed the line.  That line.

If the best you can do to promote your presidency is to attack the other candidate, then you don't deserve to be president of the United States because you don't have enough ideas to stand on your own.  We have enough problems in the U.S. without engaging in this kind of childish, amateurish behavior.  I'm interested in ideas and whether or not one of the candidates has enough vision to lead the U.S. forward, out of the muck of the last 8 (10, 16, 24) years.  (And that goes for attacking the Republicans too!  Seriously, folks, what are your ideas?). 

Edwards and Obama disgraced themselves in the debate last night by trying to make a name for themselves by bashing Hillary.  And in this feminist homestead, that isn't going to win them any votes.  Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd & Dennis Kucinich distinguished themselves by sticking to ideas and campaigning clean.

Although I've moved over the past months from "Woo hoo Hillary!"  to "okay Hillary" to "I'm not sure I really want to vote for Hillary", I am already sick of the "elect me because I can smack Hillary around." 

John Edwards and Barack Obama:  Keep picking on Hillary and she's my number one vote.  Why?  Because a vote for Hillary is a "fuck you vote" to mysogynistic America.
Yet again, Edwards and Obama slide waaaaaayyyyyy down my list of people I would vote for.   I am sick of hearing about them and I'm interested in hearing more about the other candidates. 

Joe Biden is impressive on foreign policy issues.  And we need someone who can mend relationships.  We need a foreign policy therapist at this point!  Bill Richardson keeps getting stronger and stronger as the campaign goes on.  Despite some of my reservations, I Clinton is very strong on a number of issues.  I feel like I don't know anything about Dodd & I'm not sure why.  Kucinich is always engaging, interesting, and provocative.  So, how about some more about these candidates?

Long-time Lingual Tremors reader texted me this last night:  "Tell me why Dennis Kucinich is not the leader in the democratic presidential race?!?!?!?!?!"  Well, I think many of us are feeling the same thing:  there's the "vote for the best ideas" versus the "vote for who can win" factor and it's not the same person.  Kucinich has the best ideas and the best voting record (DUH!), but he's not really electable.  I like Kucinich in the race because he pushes people on their ideas.

My Current Vote Priority (based on IDEAS & ETHICS):  Who's The Smartest?

1.  Joe Biden (with one very bad "duh" moment)
2.  Dennis Kucinich (the UFO and the "Bush mental health" quips are problematic. Funny.  But problematic.)
3.  Hillary Clinton
4.   Bill Richardson
5.  Christopher Dodd
6.  The mysogyny twins, Edwards & Obama

My Current Vote Priority (based on ELECTIBILITY + LIKEABILITY):  i.e. my ACTUAL vote--who can take on the Republicans and who hasn't been a jerk in the campaign?

1.  Hillary Clinton
2.  Bill Richardson
3.  Christopher Dodd
4.  Joe Biden
5.  Dennis Kucinich
6.  The mysogyny twins, Edwards & Obama

Read On:

Live Blogging from the Debate (NYTimes)
Chicago Tribune on Obama & Edwards' Critiques of Clinton

Meanwhile, The Blogometer has a good overview of the Barack Obama/Donnie McClurkin incident.
Pam's House Blend on the issue (by the way TOBIAS WOLFF is advising Barack and they still ran into this?  Are you kidding me?)

Dreaded Dinner Party Question

So, you know it's already happened to you. You're at a dinner party, enjoying food, drink, and company, when the dreaded question arrives: "So, you know, who are you all voting for?" In New York circles, the time from your arrival at the party to "the question" is growing shorter and shorter and shorter. Any day now, I'm expecting to arrive at a party and have to declare my ballotorial intentions before I take off my coat.

And, as with the last election, there's no clear winner. I seriously think everyone keeps hoping Al Gore will run. But that's precisely the problem (see my "Why I Love Al" post...): Al can't run. For him to run now would be to risk compromising everything we are congratulating him for.

In many senses, the problem isn't Hillary or Obama or John. It's a broken government that creates broken candidates. Voting in the next few months will be an exercise in electing the palatable. And that's just it: no one really wants a milquetoast presidency. But have we ever, in recent memory, had anything but? If you think back to some of the "great thinkers", like Jimmy Carter, they were run out of office faster than anything.

Although I was an early supporter of Hillary, I have watched her message get diluted as the weeks to the election grow closer. The candidates in many ways are presenting a Borg like answer to anything controversial. They just want to be liked. And as we all know: the girls in 10th grade who "just wanted to be liked" were the girls doing stuff they'd regret in 1, 5, and 10 years later. Obama, Hillary, and Edwards all lack a certain conviction. They lack the stuff of passion about a particular idea or ideas that will transform our democratic tradition. They just want to be liked so they can be president.

In that respect, is our electoral process so very different than voting for class president? For the prom queen?

So, what's a good voter to do? I'm still voting Hillary because I do think she can get things done. I'm also voting for Hillary because on the simple platform that I reject all of the fundamentally sexist and patriarchal responses to her candidacy. Cleavage my ass. She's tough as nails and I think it would do this country good to have a woman as president. All the better if Obama would be her vp and have some real experience before actually running for president himself. That said, I'm not holding my breath for the transformation of the democratic ideal. We're still going to be in Iraq, folks. We're still going to be arguing over S-chip. And, a whole lot of us are going to continue to be unhappy. Maybe just a little less unhappy.

In the Valley of Elah

This weekend finally brought me some much needed down time (you know, squeezed in among everything else...).  I actually accomplished getting groceries AND getting the house cleaned.  I'm like Mrs. Cleaver here!  Anyway, I also got a change to see In the Valley of Elah.  It's the first in a spate of Hollywood films that are taking on the war right now, critiquing it in sync with the war actually happening.

Tommy Lee Jones is probably in the running for an Oscar for his performance of an emotionally restrained former army sargeant whose son goes AWOL upon returning from Iraq.  What the film does rather well is to hone in on the ways in which soldiers have to divorce themselves from the violence they see (and commit) everyday as part of their "work" so that they can continue living "normal" lives.  The film ominously portrays what happens when those two worlds come together and the violence cannot be compartmentalized (think echoes of the Vietnam-era film Jacob's Ladder).  It's an awful and tragic film that questions what happens to soldiers when they are asked to perform horrendous acts of violence in a morally ambiguous war. 

There are a lot of problems with the film (like, for instance, the contrived "on base" vs. "off base" action and the annoying tangential story of Charlize Theron's character who faces gender discrimination at work.  Ho hum.).  That said, the film is really about Jones' journey from the past to the present.  His character is so baldly from another generation.  He truly believes what he's been told about the war and the need to send his son into harm's way.  His life is dictated to by the conventions of life he learned early on and the discipline of the military.  In short, he is very recognizable--in all the good ways--as a "good American".  Hard-working, loyal, patriotic, and frugal.  To watch him unravel as he realizes the ways in which the country has changed and the ways in which the concept of "fighting for democracy" has been bastardized, is painful.  I'm certain that some viewers will see the last scene as over the top, but it has a certain poignancy for me that resonates with the character's changing understanding of our contemporary society.  His final move in the film is the ultimate patriotic act, the meshing together of past and present, and a call for new times and new thinking.  The movie takes a hard, moral stand on the moral ambiguities of our current administration. 

What I like about the film even more is the way it is raising issues that we don't often talk about.  Hollywood is doing a full court press on the war and the administration as it tries to provoke conversation and thought about our times.  With all of its virulent consumption and materialism and rampant excess, when Hollywood becomes the moral compass for the United States, you know we're in trouble. 

The Jena Six: Yet Another Failure of Our Educational System

The Jena Six were in the news again this week & like everyone else, I followed the story of the protest march in Jena with anxiety, hoping that no more violence would befall this small town and its residents. 

I haven't posted on the Jena Six because I've been doing a lot of thinking.  Often, my immediate reaction to things is a sort of knee-jerk fury about injustice in the world.  And so, my immediate reaction is that no one, anywhere, has any business in 2007, hanging nooses from a tree.  I wanted the white boys punished for their racist stupidity.  I wanted them arrested for harassment and hate crimes and for, well, for just being damned stupid jerks.  And, while the beating of one white boy was serious (leading to a concussion), I also wanted to argue that if we begin arresting all of the kids in the United States who engage in schoolyard fights, well, we've just found a whole new way to underwrite the prison industrial complex, haven't we?  Charging the African-American boys with attempted murder?  Are you kidding me?  And, to the legal system in Jena (and the D.A. who told a group of kids who protested the noose-hanging incident that he could end their lives with the stroke of a pen) I want to see some serious disbarments.  NOW.  And, I might also add that some unfortunate geographical stereotypes might have also entered my early thoughts.  So, I didn't post.  I spent a lot of time thinking and trying not to write out of anger.

Have you been to Louisiana?  I have.  I've actually spent a fair amount of time in Louisiana, but never in Jena.  What always impresses me is the way in which local communities are still communities who can come together, culling the resources of each and every resident, to deal with trying times.  I love that about Louisiana!  And, what troubles me deeply are the ways in which regional attitudes sometimes (not always) hearken back to a previous era.  Just reading local Louisiana message boards (really--why link to them?  If you really want to read them, you're google savvy.  I don't want to give that kind of hate air time) reminds me that we haven't conquered racism (well, that and riding the subway in New York almost daily...'cause racism isn't just a southern thing).  See the BBC's "Stealth Racism Stalks the Deep South."   

So, as the case unfolded, I began to think that what this whole incident reveals is a terrible failure in our educational system.  I think, from the beginning, the whole incident was badly handled.  A generous dose of considering the teachable moment might have gone a long way towards preventing the terrible events in Jena.  I think the fault of Jena lies in a broken educational system, an institutional hierarchy built on fear of students, and an over reliance on traditional concepts of punishing bad behavior.

So, here's a proposal for what I think should have happened.  It's presumptuous, because I'm not in Jena.  But, I think Jena has also demonstrated that the local community resources weren't enough to meet the challenges of what happened there.  I think the children of Jena need a serious education in Civil Rights and the historic racism of the United States.  I also think the community needs an opportunity to think and talk about these issues.  Particularly in the rural south, as in large urban centers, schools are underfunded and under attack from legislation like No Child Left Behind.  In trying to teach to the tests, other information--like in-depth history and immersive courses in important topics--are left out.  So, this becomes a "moment to reclaim the classroom and the very notion of what it means to teach. 

1.  The white boys should not have been suspended or expelled.  Since when is letting kids off the hook a good idea?  Instead, I think the entire incident should have merited the boys a year long course, taught by the principal, on the era of civil rights, racism, and the United States.  No football, no extra-curricular activities, no study halls, no free time.  Instead, every moment that those boys weren't in their regularly scheduled classes like math or English or history, they would be in a special course--designed just for them.   And, any white kid involved in any of the ensuing violence would also earn a ticket to a little course called "Racism 101".

• Begin with Eyes on the Prize.  The entire video series.
• Move on to Hollywood-ized versions of history, including films like Mississippi Burning. 
• Move on to selected texts from the Civil Rights Movement
• Take a field trip to Birmingham, Alabama to the Civil Rights Museum
• Interview people (coordinate with the Civil Rights Museum) who participated in the Civil Rights Movement
• Read books like The Bluest Eye and other novels that document, from a fictional perspective, the conditions leading to the Civil Rights movement
• Study the constitution & the  language of equal rights
• Write papers on selected texts
• Bring in teachers who may have taught this material--or related material to these boys before--and have them "teach again" to emphasize the importance of information like this
• Create in-class only activities to help students understand disenfranchisement & racism
• Make it real, make it relate to them, help them understand it
• Connect racism to classism, homophobism, sexism, religious intolerance, and other forms of hatred to help students understand why their actions were objectionable (and to give them a frame for thinking about other kinds of hate)
• Reward the boys for every single gain they make in understanding the material
• Require additional volunteer work with Teach for Tolerance or the Martin Luther King foundation or Friends of Justice, or another locally based group, as appropriate.
• And, I mean it when I say this is a year-long course.  If they haven't learned it by now, then they need time to consider and absorb and truly learn the material.

2.  And for the African-American boys?  Another course, specifically designed to help them navigate conflict and violence.  A year-long course in peace-making and conflict resolution.  And, depending on the actual local curriculum for U.S. history, if the boys have also not had enough of this, then include them in the class above.  Again, a key to success is rewarding the boys for understanding course material and, in the case of conflict resolution, for putting those principles in action

3.  For the parents:  an intense workshop on how to help their children overcome conflict, including conflict mediation strategies

4.  For the legal system:  despite the fact that U.S. Attorney Donald Washington conducted an "investigation", his conclusions that everyone has been treated fairly seem to contradict the obvious:  there is a separate and unequal system of justice in Jena.  Therefore, a serious intervention by state and federal authorities is needed (a group--composed of geographically diverse authorities) investigating all of the incidents involved in the tragic time line for this event and why some events resulted in police intervention and others did not.  Related to community intervention #1, the police and local officials need to have a long-term training on racism.  And, as with suggestion #1, this is not about "punishment" but about education.

5.  For residents of Jena, like the LOCAL TOWN LIBRARIAN Barbara Murphy who said "We don’t have a race problem. It’s not black against white. It’s crime. The nooses? I don’t even know why they were there, what they were supposed to mean. There’s pranks all the time, of one type or another, going on. And it just didn’t seem to be racist to me"  I would further recommend:

• a carefully planned shared reading program (a "community book" program) with a speaker and discussion series that focuses on issues of race and racism
• an intensive series of ecumenical workshops offered by the local churches on racism and ways to combat it
• an option to take a community version of the civil rights course proposed above
• local education and legislation on hate speech and hate crimes

I know this is "pie in the sky" thinking, but I do think that we seriously & repetitively overlook teachable moments.  What might have happened if the school had intervened immediately in the incidents by trying something like #1 and #2?  What might have happened if the community had focused on education and developing resources?

Read On!

Democracy Now on the Jena Six
Watch While Seated's video blog on the Jena Six
Jenasix.org
Friends of Justice,a great organization doing work in Texas and Louisiana
NPR's splash page with links to all of their stories on incidents in Jena
The Washington Post on 2 systems of justice
Vox on Jena
Vox's update
News via YouTube (an excellent overview of the whole timeline by Collateralnews)...

Action Steps: 

The boys should not have beaten Justin Barker to the point of unconsciousness.  They shouldn't have beaten Justin at all.  However, Jena speaks to the problems of historical racism and the ways in which it is insidiously embedded in American culture (and not just in the south, either!).  The "Jena Six" need to be treated with compassion and have a moment of grace. They should not go to jail and should not face charges;  they were irrevocably caught up in a history so much larger, so much more intense than their small offense in Jena.

So, do what you can to participate in the "Free the Jena Six" campaign:

1.  Consider donating to:

Jena 6 Defense Committee
PO BOX 2798
Jena, LA 71342

2.  Sign the petition to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department

3.  As everyone has been doing, blog it, log it, write it, video it, and speak it.  As Collateralnews says, we need to bring national attention to bear on this. 

Fruit Raids and Simon Says

Regular readers of this blog know that I am addicted to Weekend Edition.  Listening to 2 hours of news on Saturdays & Sundays is what, for other folks, the New York Times Sunday edition is.  I love the depth of the commentary and the way that program has guided many of my adult decisions about politics and the way I view the world (and also, the way I disagree with the world, and with NPR...).

This morning, Scott Simon offered one of the most thoughtful and interesting commentaries I've heard about Senator Larry Craig and the incident leading to his arrest this summer.  Simon talks about the people who have been crowing about Craig's arrest (rejoicing in his "getting his" and pointing out the hypocrisy of Craig's public and private acts).  Among the many interesting things Simon says is the fact that the whole incident reminded him of an earlier era when police regularly went on "fruit raids" to arrest men engaged in sex in public places.  As Simon considers the very nature of a police state and the ways in which policing sex is a dangerous precedent, he points out that Craig wasn't engaged in a sexual act, only in determining interest between 2 consenting adults.  Scott Simon's thoughtful commentary really hammered home something I've been wrestling with--why, in 2007, are police in Minnesota setting up traps for gay men in public bathrooms? 

I really appreciated Simon's careful reflections on the case and the ways in which he questions both the arrest (and the conservative agenda it revealed) and the public outcry (and the liberal inability for compassion it revealed).  I also appreciated the way Simon reminded his listeners that Senator Craig's sexuality--and whatever he may or may not be struggling with--is none of our business.

Listen to it...

Seriously: Crucio Curse for Ron Charles (or maybe Imperio)

So, in about 10 hours, I will be queuing up, along with the rest of the world, to procure my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  This will be preceded by a day of making pumpkin pasties and butterbeer and decorating our apartment with potions, Mandrake roots, torches, and Gryffindor banners, all in the celebration of reading.  Since the third book, it has been the Lingual household tradition to read the books aloud (so it takes us just a little longer than everyone else...).  Did I mention that we don't have kids? 

In a lovely little piece called "Harry Potter and the Death of Reading" in last Sunday's Washington Post, literary critic Ron Charles takes aim at the popular Harry Potter series. 

But all around me, I see adults reading J.K. Rowling's books to themselves: perfectly intelligent, mature people, poring over "Harry Potter" with nary a child in sight. Waterstone's, a British book chain, predicts that the seventh and (supposedly) final volume, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," may be read by more adults than children. Rowling's U.K. publisher has even been releasing "adult editions." That has an alarmingly illicit sound to it, but don't worry. They're the same books dressed up with more sophisticated dust jackets -- Cap'n Crunch in a Gucci bag.

I'd like to think that this is a romantic return to youth, but it looks like a bad case of cultural infantilism. And when we're not horning in on our kids' favorite books, most of us aren't reading anything at all.

Now Charles' op ed has a larger point:  he's worried about the future of writing and publishing in the face of corporate media in the 21st century.  And, I would argue that all of us who are writers, readers, and thinkers, share a similar concern.  As a working poet, I can testify to the fact that I never, ever thought I would be able to make it financially as a writer.  So, into academe I went.  Call it poetry as a profession, with a little academe on the side. 

But, Charles' op ed would have convinced me more if he hadn't struck such a low blow.  His piece is filled with the kind of literary snobbery that drives me wild.  Charles is hoping for the American & British public to read higher literary fare;  although at the end of his piece he talks about books like Jonathan Strange and Mrs. Norrell, the work of Philip Pullman, and other high end fantasy and fiction, I think he's being disingenuous.  In the hallowed halls of literary academe, Strange & Norrell didn't get a second glance.  It was dismissed at "Harry Potter for adults."  In short, it's not the "stuff" of literature.  In fact, nothing that smacks of genre is (one need only to look at the derisive early reception of magical realists in this country to see the ways in which American literature is more the realm of Steinbeck and Hemingway than of Borges).  No, instead, I'd hazard a guess that Charles' is actually the stuff of deeply dark and sorrowful contemporary American literature in which a sadly troubled protagonist comes to some larger epiphany about the harrows of contemporary life.  Or, as Harold Bloom would have us read, the stuff of the literary "masters."

But here's the thing:  these critiques overlook one of the oldest obligations of literature--the giving of pleasure.  Rowling truly offers something that those writers don't.  She builds a world that different and exciting.  I've written before about the wonders of writer Michael Chabon (who, I would argue, is the best contemporary American writer) and artist Matthew Barney for their incredible world-building.  Rowling does the same.  Hers is a world, call it the "alternative real," that readers want to enter and explore.  She creates a world by naming and description that is enthralling and captivating.  Haven't butterbeer and Hippogriffs and the "crucio" curse all become a part of the Harry Potter lexicon and something just a little bit "real" in your imagination?  Who hasn't dreamed of their own four poster bed in Hogwarts?  And to me, the mark of a good book is one that takes you away from everyday life.  And when you leave it, you feel just a little bit homesick.  Rowling does that for her readers.  Or maybe I'm just the victim of a 10 year love potion.

The thing is, a lot of contemporary "literature" just isn't good at that kind of world building and myth creation.  While I am a HUGE fan of contemporary American literature (and in my day job, also a scholar of said field), much of it is stuck in the stultifying present.  There are of course many exceptions to this statement, but by and large, a lot of contemporary literary fiction pushes its readers towards wider revelations about a character or place (anything that makes a political or social revelation is still dismissed in elite circles as some kind of muckraking) and it doesn't speak of any sense of wonder (and remember, here critics of Rowling aren't talking about any kind of genre, pulp-fiction.  They talk about "literature."  That's capital "L" with no room for the likes of pot boilers or derivative fiction).  I've long held that American literature has a lot to learn from Latin American magical realism in its truest sense.  Many (not all) contemporary American writers dread straying from the oppressive real.  The most recent novels of Tom Wolfe to Philip Roth to Jonathan Franzen to Jeffrey Eugenides to Cormac McCarthy (wow--that's a surprisingly male list!) all reveal a kind of deep, morose and desperate contemporary moment.  And not that we're not in a deep and desperate moment.  I believe deeply in literature's important role as social commentary.  I also believe in the beauty of language and prosody.  (Quick side note:  I would like to also say that I think this lack is precisely the void that women writers like Toni Morrison, Amy Tan, Maxine Hong Kingston, Julia Alvarez, Carole Maso, Michael Chabon, and others have filled.  Charles also bemoans the loss of "biodiversity" in literature. But, that's been the whole point in the struggles for multiculturalism in the literary canon in the 1980s and 1990s.  Give me a break: nothing says homogeneous like the male, white writers who overwhelm American literary studies [not to mention Western European literature].  It's been hard for anyone else to get a place at the literary table).

It's more than just world building and myth creation with Rowling, however.  She's also a master of character development.  Anyone studying fiction writing today should be required to read the series to learn how to deftly "grow" characters from childhood into adolescence.  The changes in Harry and his friends have been remarkable.  Rowling has captured them, and those around them, with a deft and compellingly compassionate pen.  In the last book, who knew that we might feel sympathetic towards Snape or Malfoy?  Rowling has not only taken the most celebrated boy of her universe--Harry--and made us all fans, but she has also rescued the least and the last of her own world--outcasts like Lupin and Dobby and Black--and made us love them.  When Dumbledore died at the end of the last book, readers truly grieved the loss.  When was the last time you cried when reading a book?  There's a lot to be said for a writer who is so skilled at the affective.  There's also something remarkable about a writer who can command her readers' devotion to such a host of characters.   Rowling has created something akin to a "collective" hero in her books, making Harry a protagonist whose success is always linked to those around him.  (I seriously wish that I cared about any one of Philip K. Roth's characters as much as I care about Ron, Hermione, Harry, Dumbledore and the gang.  Instead, I usually want to slap his characters into a stupor.)

Which brings me to my last point.  Rowling has also achieved something extraordinary in her writing.  She has created a generation of readers linked by their love of Harry Potter, and because of the changes in our modern world, with the auspices of Net 2.0, she has created a Harry Potter community.  Before, the idea of communities devoted to a writer was the stuff of the most elite academic circles.  Think Shakespeare scholars and the Folger library.  Think of Victorian literary scholarship.

While children's books have often served to make children fans of a particular character (Nancy Drew, Junie B. Jones, Encyclopedia Brown, etc.), the Harry Potter phenomenon is something altogether distinct and I think it has something to do with that previous idea of world building.  People so desperately want to be a part of the Harry Potter world that they are finding more ways than ever before (yes, yes, I know fan fiction preceded Potter) to extend Harry's world into our own.

To wit:  last night I had an extraordinary experience.  The Harry Potter Alliance, which aims to connect the idea of "doing good" in Harry's world to fighting injustices like Darfur in our own world, hosted "Wizard Rock" at the Bohemian Hall in Astoria, Queens.  Three bands, paying homage to all things Harry, played book-inspired songs in celebration of Harry Potter.  We heard Harry and the Potters, Draco & the Malfoys, and The Hungarian Horntails. What a hoot!   

Draco & the Malfoys:  (Press photo from Evil Wizard Rock)

It was a raucous evening, reliving the different episodes in each book from 3 different perspectives.  Fans from 3 to 80 showed up with hats, wands, scars, school colors, and a rambunctious attitude.  Despite a threatening summer storm, the crowd braved the rain to "Party Like You're Evil" and to celebrate the love that fans hope will bring Harry through the next book.

Now, I know that many sci-fi and fantasy writers have their own followers (ever been to a Trekkie convention?).  But, this is something different and larger because it cuts across so many different kinds of readers and ages in our society.  Think about it:  how many other books do we share as a society?  While the much embattled literary canon sets out a list of writers that people "should" read and we are exposed to in our schooling, how many kids have opted out via Cliff or Spark notes?  Harry Potter is a literary phenomenon because so many people have willingly sought it out on their own.  And what's more, as a testament to Rowling's creation, they've stayed through 7 books.  Critics like Charles want to accuse the literary public of some kind of capitalistic stupidity.  Buy an iPhone, buy your Harry Potter, drink your Starbucks.  But really:  marketing doesn't account for everything.  There are millions of products, including books, that we're told to buy everyday and we don't, or that we do buy and then we're disappointed about having given into the hype.

But tonight, millions of readers are showing up at midnight not because they are stupid, not because someone told them to, not because they don't know anything about literature.  They are showing up in droves, dressed like wizards and muggles alike, because Rowling has achieved something extraordinary for her readers.  She's created a world where they want to be and that they care desperately about.  Tonight, millions of readers around the world, myself included, are lining up to go home to the enchanting world of Hogwarts and the world of Harry Potter.  We've been homesick for two years.  And, we will relish the journey, live each step with Harry, and dread the inevitable end of what has been one of the most amazing, epic literary journeys any writer has ever invited us on. 

A Little More on Wizard Rock

• Wizard Rock (with a complete list of all bands--I just highlight a few below)
• Harry and the Potters
• Whomping Willows
• Draco and the Malfoys (Hilarious!  My definitive favorite.  Listen to "Party Like You're Evil" and "Voldemort is Awesome)
• The Remus Lupins
• The Mudbloods
• The Moaning Myrtles
• Harry Potter Alliance
• The Weird Sisters/Switchblade Kittens

Other posts on reading Potter

• Amanda at Pandagon on leisure time

Hidden AIDS Crisis: Rural America and HIV

I was a little taken aback by this one.  Just when you think we've come a long way comes this latest AIDSphobic incident.  I first saw this at Pandagon.  Here's the original news item at NBC 15:

A couple who checked into a recreational vehicle park with their 2-year-old foster son were told the boy couldn't use the showers, pool or other common areas because he has the HIV virus.

The couple said that in the future, they will not discuss their foster son's condition to avoid this kind of prejudice.  The owner of the RV park was concerned that the child might spread the disease by using the common areas or the pool.  In rural Alabama, it seems, there's still a lot of work to be done in HIV/AIDS education. 

"Most people know you can swim in the same pool or use the same bathroom without the danger of contracting the virus. Definitely, we still need education efforts out there, especially in rural areas," said David Little, executive director of Mobile-based South Alabama CARES, an AIDS education and outreach organization that serves 12 counties in south Alabama.

There are more than 8,252 AIDS cases in Alabama (those are AIDS cases, not HIV cases based on the 2005 CDC surveillance report).  Clearly HIV/AIDS is an issue in Alabama, but education efforts need to go a lot further.  We hear a lot about HIV/AIDS in urban areas;  the subways and billboards often carry educational messages about HIV/AIDS.  In rural areas, however, where car culture dominates, I'm not sure where people would get this education.  There may be some PSAs on the television or radio, but they don't dominate in the same way visual rhetoric speaks to urban culture.  Coupled with increasingly conservative abstinence-only sexual education programs and science curriculum dominated by creationist rhetoric, it seems like rural areas, particularly in the South, have some amazing challenges ahead because medically accurate information is hard to sell. 

Kathy Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama says:

"Unfortunately the South has the top ten cities for STDs in the country, it's been that way for as long as I can remember. And by the same token the South is absolutely exploding with HIV disease. We are seeing the disease move along socio-economic lines into poor communities, rural communities, women and certainly minorities and young people.

Hiers is the CEO of AIDS Alabama. AIDS workers have known for years the virus was moving to rural areas. To try to stem the tide of infection Alabama launched a rural outreach program called the Alabama Rural AIDS Project. Hiers says launching the project was no easy thing.

Read the entire 2006 article on AIDS in Alabama.  It has some very interesting thoughts about HIV/AIDS and rural America.

China & Carbon Emissions: Economic Exploitation

The Guardian has done a very interesting series of articles on the recent news that China has outpaced the United States in carbon emissions.  I think the U.S. media has jumped on this because they are so happy that it's finally not the United States.  In essence, the prevailing sentiment is "yay!  We can blame someone else!" From the articles (and the images I posted last week of the polluted water in China), the environmental situation seems pretty dire.  Here's a description from one of the Guardian's articles:

On a bad day - which can be hundreds in a year - the ancient city of Linfen in the northern province of Shanxi is environmental hell. Named by the World Bank last year as having the worst air quality on Earth, its 3.5 million people more often than not choke on coal dust; its soil and its rivers are covered with soot, and its Buddhas are blackened and shrouded in a toxic mist.

China's entry onto the world stage has been literally fueled by coal.  Much of the carbon emissions are related to an over-reliance on coal as a source of energy.  From afar, it sounds horrifying and reminds me (and probably everyone!) of the early history of industrialization.  This seems not so far removed from Dickens' soot-covered London or the sooty tenements of New York City.  The article goes on to discuss how the Himalayans are melting and rivers are drying up.  Among the consequences on China are health, environmental degredation, and inaccessibility of clean water.  A different article explores China's rising cancer rates:

Chen Zhizhou, of a cancer research institute affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said the situation was getting worse. "Many chemical and industrial enterprises are built along rivers so that they can dump the waste into water easily," he told the China Daily. "Excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides also pollute underground water. The contaminated water has directly affected soil, crops and food."

While China's carbon output has caught the attention of the global community, I was interested in two items buried in that news. 

The carbon footprint of the average Chinese last year was only a quarter of an American, or half that of a Briton.

and

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, said: "Responsibility for China's soaring emissions lies not just in Beijing but also in Washington, London and Tokyo. The west has moved its manufacturing base to China knowing it was vastly more polluting than Japan, Europe or the US."

Although China has outpaced the U.S. and other industrialized nations, in many ways, the west is still to blame for this.  By moving our manufacturing base to China and India, we avoid taking responsibility for our own production and consumption.  It's a form of extended economic colonialism reliant on the exploitation of others.  What if the U.S. and other industrialized nations worked to support green business practices in China (and at home!)?  What if we actually paid for what things cost instead of always trying to get more for less?  There are, of course, no easy answers here, but it feels like China is in the midst of a horrific environmental disaster and it's hard to watch that from afar and know that the U.S. is integrally linked to that destruction.

China's Carbon Footprint:

Guardian Articles:

• China Overtakes U.S.
• Beijing Blames Pollutants for Rise in Cancer
• China's Climate Change Plan
• As Glaciers Melt and Rivers Dry Up
• Isabel Hilton, We Must Take the Lead

Accountability: Making People Do Their Jobs

It's about time.  Carolyn Maloney and Frank Lautenberg introduced cutting edge legislation on Wednesday, 6 June 2007-- (was the name, the ABC act, an inspired reference to the ABC (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms) approach to AIDS education?) to ensure women's access to birth control.  You can read the entire Access to Birth Control legislation here.  I'm delighted to see some movement on this key issue for women.  The announcement from Maloney's website says, "In addition to guaranteeing women the ability to fill birth control prescriptions, the “ABC” Bill would make it illegal for a pharmacy to refuse to return a birth control prescription, or for a pharmacist to intimidate, threaten, or harass customers, or intentionally breach, or threaten to breach, medical confidentiality."

What you need to do:

Contact your legislators (click here to check who your representatives are).  This is an election year, folks, let's make that pressure count!

Read more:

NOW's press release.

Common Dreams

National Women's Law Center

NOW's Action Center

Open Letter to Arlen Specter

Dear Senator Specter,

As the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you might be interested in a terrible violation of the government's hiring policies.  You may have heard, on news outlets such as ABC and CNN, that President Bush has recently hired a "war czar,"  Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.  You probably heard about it on the news because it didn't come through the Senate or the House.  In violation of the rules for hiring listed on the OPM (Office of Personnel Management), President Bush didn't list the job with the OPM.  In fact, it doesn't seem that the job was listed at all.  And I would like to apply.

In the newly created position of assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation, Lute would have the power to direct the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies involved in the two conflicts.

How do we know that Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute is the best candidate for the job?  According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, there are a variety of rules that may have been violated in creating this new position, including prohibited personnel practices such as:  deceive or willfully obstruct anyone from competing for employment; give an unauthorized preference or advantage to anyone so as to improve or injure the employment prospects of any particular employee or applicant.  Arlen, my point is this:  there may have been many great applicants for the job, myself included!  While I'm sure Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute is a viable candidate for the job, I would like to point out that he only holds an M.A., and I hold a Ph.D.  I have taken the civil service exam and am eligible for federal employment.  Shouldn't I be given the chance to apply for the job and to offer my ideas about coordinating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Doesn't this seem like a little bit of an inside job?

Arlen, maybe you should consider a special investigation into this? An inquiry?  A few questions at least?  Call me once you have this straightened out.

Sincerely yours,

Lingual X (and really kickin' war czar candidate.)

What "Good" Education Means Today

L.A. teachers Marisol Alba and Sean Strauss, of the Celerity Nascent Charter School, were fired after supporting students who wrote a letter of protest about the school's decision not to let students read a poem about Emmett Till during a school-wide assembly for Black History Month.  In defending the decision to both censor the students and fire the two teachers, the executive director of this "school" said:

"Our whole goal is how do we get these kids to not look at all of the bad things that could happen to them and instead focus on the process of how do we become the next surgeon or the next politician," said Celerity co-founder and Executive Director Vielka McFarlane. "We don't want to focus on how the history of the country has been checkered but on how do we dress for success, walk proud and celebrate all the accomplishments we've made."

Welcome to "No Child Left Behind" schooling in the United States:  you need to drill and skill to learn information for standardized tests, creativity isn't welcome, and history, when ugly, need not be part of the curriculum.  Because nothing says "Let's Celebrate Black History Month" like erasing the ugly history of racism and deluding kids into thinking the racism they see everyday isn't in any way connected to the history of the U.S. 

Read the whole disgusting incident here.

An update to this post, on 3/26/07, is here.

Everyday Orwellian: The Iraqi War, Again

4 years is 4 years too long.  1984's replacement of Eastasia with Eurasia is slightly reminiscent of today's Iraq/Iran debauchle.  Orwell reminds us:

Oceania was at war with Eastasia:  Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.  A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete.  Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound tracks, photographs--all had to be rectified at lightening speed.  Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere.

Hugo Chavez Rocks. That Is All.

I hate 20/20 and almost never watch it because their politics tend to be fairly insipid, but last night I saw that Barbara Walters was going to interview Chavez tonight.  It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that I like Chavez very much. 

So, I watched the short interview.  In it, Chavez claimed that if he were a U.S. citizen that he would win an election against Bush.  And I believe him!  He has a great charisma and a gentle demeanor.  Where Bush often comes off as arrogant, Chavez seems much more populist.  His Socialist politics and his goals to change life for the poor in Venezuela seem to me to be the new model for Latin America.  But the very word "socialist" and Chavez's connections to Castro (and his vehement rhetoric against Bush) make his acceptance in the U.S. problematic.

Most recently, I have really loved Chavez's attempts to change his image in the U.S.  You've seen the ads for low income oil, promoting Citgo's low cost oil program, featuring people thanking Venezuela for their help.  Although I tend to agree with some more conservative analyses of the program that this is propaganda for Chavez, it's still a good program.  And one might ask why we don't have a federally funded program that mirrors it. 

Read More:

Washington Post's "Is Citgo Program for Poor, or For Chavez?"

Citgo's Low Cost Heating Oil Program

Promotional Brochure (via Citgo)

Democracy Now's interview on the Citgo program

Nobel President

Via I Blame the Patriarchy, I learned that Rigoberta Menchú Tum is running for president of Guatemala.  What a novel idea, a nobel president:  quite literally.

If elected, Menchú would be the first woman president of Guatemala, the first indigenous president of Guatemala and the second Nobel Laureate from Central America (following in the footsteps of Oscar Arias of Costa Rica).

Menchú's story was first introduced to the world in the book I, Rigoberta Menchú when she chronicled her family's story under the brutal repression of the right-wing Guatemalan government.  For her work on behalf of indigenous people, she won the Nobel Prize for Peace.  Although her story came under attack, particularly by the controversial work of conservatives like David Stoll, David Horowitz, and Dinesh D'souza, Menchú still carries the respect of the world community for being willing to attest to the atrocities of that time in Guatemala (the attacks on her work have much to do with understandings of autobiographical theory and cultural differences, among other things).  Her foundation, and her work on behalf of indigenous peoples has gained the respect of international organizations like the United Nations.

Menchú's bid for the presidential election signals a serious change in Central America with more and more indigenous people asserting leadership roles in the government, calling on the power of democracy and representation.  As the election unfolds, this promises to be a clash between the indigenous cultures traditionally marginalized in Guatemala and the "main stream" culture of Guatemala based on the colonial tradition.  It also promises to raise issues of gender, class, and history.  More importantly, I wonder what it says about a country that the presidential candidates include someone whose work is recognized on the world-wide stage:  unlike a leader with provincial ideas and limited international expertise, Menchú has already proven herself abroad.  Maybe it's time for those lessons to come home.  The months ahead will prove to be interesting.

About Menchú

Biography from Nobel Prize

Menchú's Foundation

Interview with Global Vision

About the Presidency

Early Reuters' article

BBC coverage

Guatemala Solidarity Network

Global Vision Online

Books (in translation)

I, Rigoberta Menchú (Rigoberta Menchú Tum)

Crossing Borders (Rigoberta Menchú Tum)

Hacia Una Cultura de Paz (Rigoberta Menchú Tum)

Our Culture is Our Resistance  (Jonathan Moller and Rigoberta Menchú Tum)

The Girl from Chimel (Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Domi and David Unger)

The Honey Jar (Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Domi and David Unger)

Buried Secrets:  Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala (Victoria Sanford)

Unfinished Conquest:  The Guatemalan Tragedy (Victor Perera) 

Rigoberta Menchú and The Story of All Poor Guatemalans (David Stoll)

The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy (Arturo Arias)

More on the Edwards/Marcotte/McEwan Debaucle...My Big Anti-American Post

Okay, I've been fretting over this one for three days;  this is when I know I still have a lot of growing to do as a blogger.  Sometimes I sit on a post for too long because I'm not totally sure what I want to say and then the moment's passed because everyone else has already said it!

But, for what it's worth, I wanted to weigh in on Amanda and Melissa's resignations from the Edwards' campaign.  I'm really sad that Amanda and Melissa had to make a decision between safety and freedom of speech.  The hate mail and threats they received are inexcusable, no matter whether or not you disagree with them.  I sincerely hope the IP addresses can be traced.  If you want a sample of the range--and outrageousness--of comments, I suggest that you read the entire comment thread at Salon following Amanda's explanation of her resignation.

Of her experiences, Amanda writes:

Blogs are popular because they provide space for everyday citizens to engage in politics, in the language and manner that is comfortable for us, if not for the establishment. To my mind, however, it would be a terrible thing if bloggers did heed the advice to mind our manners and ape our betters if we want in, since this is supposed to be a democratic system that respects the right of everyday, common people to participate in politics. While there's a chance that the crusade to separate McEwan and me from the Edwards campaign was just a singular happening, the possibility lingers that this was just the first sign that the established media and political circles will not be letting the blog-writing rabble into the circle without a fight.

So, we arrive back at "the personal is political," only with an ugly slant.  The reason many of us love blogging is because it allows us to voice our opinions.  But why does "the left" become fodder for the right so easily?  Why is it that FOX news flourishes while Air America struggles for funding?  Why is it that Donohue's ad hominem attacks became news?  How did we arrive at a place where a few women with strong opinions get trashed in the media as the holy Vagina Dentata of Democratic Feminazi Anarchy (VDDFFA, for those of you who care to go anacronym)?  and Bill Donohue gets presented as "rational" and the face of the "real" American public?

(Although not quoted here, you should also read Melissa's piece up on The Guardian)

Finally, I guess I agree with Gary Kamiya at Salon:

From a cultural perspective, the new democracy of voices online is a wonderful thing. But writers have an odd and ambiguous relationship with their readers, and the reader revolution is having massive consequences we can't even foresee. Writers are being pulled, or lured, down from their solitary perches and into the madding throng. This has opened useful debate and made writers accountable. But it has also thrown open the gate to creeps, narcissists and wannabe Byrons who threaten to damage the fragile, half-permeable membrane writers use to keep the world from being too much with them.

Here's to figuring out how to keep the bubble in tact while Donohue and his ilk are out there with pins...

I Am Spartacus

 

Because Melissa and Amanda resigned from the Edwards' campaign.  Because they were attacked for being strong women with opinions.  Because speading your mind and writing provocatively shouldn't be a crime.  Because it could happen to any of us at any time.  I am Spartacus.   

Edwards: Peace at the Okay Corral

So, as of 11:36 a.m. this morning, it seems Amanda and Melissa aren't fired.  Here's from the Edwards' campaign:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

But ya know, if John-boy wants to play in the blogosphere he's going to have to be faster than that.  It took him way tooooo loooooong to release a statement on a story that's already google worthy in the blogosphere.  Plus, he pissed off a whole lot of the "leftosphere."  Oh, yeah, and there's still that question about whether bloggers as paid political campaign bloggers works.  Does this mean no more Virgin Mary popping Plan B from the likes of Amanda in the blogosphere?  Because the loss of that voice would just be a damned shame.

More on this later...

Blogilante Justice: The Blogging Shoot-Out At the Edwards Campaign

So, I'm a little late on this, but for the record, John Edwards sucks.  Salon is reporting that John Edwards fired (and will ??? perhaps ??? rehire ??? how's that for ambiguity?) Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon) and Melissa McEwan (