reposting from a friend

Why unisex bathrooms are a civil right.

Haven't checked my reader since August, but once I catch up, I may have some things to share. Whoa, school. Whoa.

yin and yang

Well, with good news, there is generally bad (and vice versa).

To that tune, a debacle in an Indiana hospital in which a transwoman was denied medical care mars the reputation of medical professionals. I'm glad that--for once--it's not in the Deep South.

Also, not only did California's Prop 8 get overturned yesterday in California's supreme court (in a stunning decision based on multiple findings of fact, beginning on page 54), it also inspired Lady Gaga. Rejoice, all ye!

Also, my school will be paid for this year, as I'm officially a Graduate Assistant. Huzzah!

Capital Q

Last post of the day, I promise. Well, okay, I don't promise, but I'll cross my fingers on your behalf.

I sometimes get a little annoyed at the LGB community for forgetting the T's and us Q's. Q's--generally accepted as "Queer," sometimes stated as "Questioning"--don't really fit in the fairly binary boxes of L, G, or B. Likewise with T's, but as an outsider, I don't feel qualified to speak on their behalf today.

Anyway, that's really just a side rant.

In Queer news, I wanted to share a couple of links here.

First, a post from Offbeat Bride on the crossroads between heteronormative expectations and Queer identity in the wedding planning process. As a Queer female who married a Queer male, and who was pronounced married by Luke Skywalker in front of an abandoned building while dressed as Mr. and Ms. Pac Man, I totally get this. My partner and I wanted to break from the normative politics of a traditional wedding. Mostly, though, we wanted to have fun.

Still, we were pressured into paying for catering rather than having a pot luck or going Dutch, guilted into sending paper invites by expectations of some attendees, and instructed to have a gift registry (we hadn't wanted gifts, but figured we could have the option of charitable donations). Moreover, as the wedding got closer, the stress of planning a "real" wedding started to hit. This wedding was supposed to be fun, like having a party; why had that changed?

Anyway, it's worth a read, and made me think a lot about Queer identity and the way it can be hard to reconcile with the institution of marriage. Which we already knew, but despite our feelings on marriage--and especially on the lack of marriage rights for all--US immigration laws wouldn't acknowledge our partnership without a certificate. So, anyway, we figured we'd make a big old Queer spectacle of it and try to preserve our own values while still honoring the commitment asked of us.

Bit I digress...

The second link is just a pretty awesome link someone shared with me about an international Queer film festival in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. I really appreciate the way foreign films tend to deal with LGBTQ issues more intricately, and with less stereotyping, and I'm excited to see how many of these films I can find on Netflix and online.

wait, what?

So Chinese LGBT activists are picking up/ramping up the good fight. Which is, obviously, good. But one thing I found just fascinating was this snippet:

Li’s research in cities suggests about 91% of people are happy to work with gay colleagues – a higher rate than in US surveys – and that 30% back gay marriage.

a step in the right direction

Filed under "it's about doggone time," the Department of Labor is preparing to extend FMLA rights to LGBTQ employees.

Maybe I live in a bubble, or maybe it's because I have so many LGBTQ loved ones, but I can't understand why, in 2010, there are so many loud, angry voices trying to dehumanize and deny the queer community. Here's hoping for a sea change in the next few years.

Work is a distraction from life.

Sorry for the hiatus. Work has been keeping me busy, and I'm now in formal orientation (go figure), which will last over a week, and will be the first time I'll have missed watching the National Spelling Bee in years.

Anyway, just to condense things down to a list, for simplicity's sake, I've been sitting on the following links:


1. Supply chain management becomes much more important during economic recovery. Booyeah for my career choice!

2. On God and gays. A look at the hypocrisy of religious anti-gay sentiment.

3. Carbon counters may change the future of accounting for sustainability.

4. More on immigration. El Paso, Texas, as a model city. Not despite its immigrants, but *because* of them.

5. Food porn.

[EDIT: Also, happy to be blogging again on the day when BP plugged the oil leak!]

more political than I usually prefer to get

...which is ironic, considering my undergraduate education.

1. A handy map of states in which it's legal to marry your first cousin. Note that in general, these states don't overlap with states where you can legally marry your same-sex partner. I think it's clear to see these states have their priorities fixed.

2. An article on why we should worry more about America becoming a kleptocracy than a commie regime. While I wouldn't necessarily go as far as calling this country a kleptocracy, I'd say greed and misinformation are definitely two of our greatest national threats.

3. Bill Moyers on Net Neutrality.

4. For feel-good value, a friend shared this with me. Ay, ayayay! Canta, no llores!

Win-Win is a sort of dangerous term

I had a professor who argued that there's no such thing as win-win in conflict negotiations. In her opinion, if neither party is compromising even slightly, then there wasn't an actual conflict to begin with. As a political scientist by education, I tend to agree. It's the basic Prisoner's Dilemma: the only way to win 100% is if the other party loses 100%. The 'win-win' most folks refer to is, in reality, Nash equilibrium, which is a situation where you optimize both parties' outcomes by compromising slightly in order to avoid getting totally screwed over. Else they're referring to synergy, which is a misapplication of the term. (Synergy is creating something greater than the sum of its parts, whereas Nash equilibrium is effectively creating something less than the sum of its parts.)

With that said, though, I'm going to clunkily segue into this story about Don't Ask Don't Tell.

The amazing Ian sends this article, and adds:

Everybody wins!

* The military generals seem not to have a problem with it.

* Evidence of similar equality in other Western armies (like the UK) suggests that the ranks will be against it in general, but that tends to melt away when it actually happens.

* Lieberman gets to run with it, giving him a chance to reestablish his liberal credentials (he took a huge hit in Connecticut over the HCR mess), whilst also making it somewhat more palatable to pick off a Republican or two.

* The public is now in favour of repealing DADT. Even Dick Cheney thinks it's time!

* It's the White House's idea to give it to Lieberman, so if it gets through, they get a big slice of the credit.

* And homosexual soldiers get to serve openly. Obviously, the most important winners :)

Here's crossing our fingers it gets passed quickly and smoothly. If it does, I think it does basically end up being an excellent example of 'win-win' synergy, as the military gets back an incredible number of mission critical members, and gays get to serve openly without fear of retribution for their private lifestyles. I'd like to add that in this case a 14-year-old conflict actually does exist as well.

On the other hand, the opposition then send articles like this one, which is ominously titled "Troops oppose repeal of 'don't ask'." Meanwhile, if you actually read the article, nearly 80% are fine with repealing the policy. How should we expect this policy to change when those who oppose the repeal of DADT think that 19% opposition from a traditionally wildly conservative organization is considered broad enough to blanketly apply to the majority of service members?

The sin of omission...

This is just pathetically sad.

I thought we were a decade into the 21st century. What's the deal, folks? The LGBTQ community is a legitimate population, with measurable purchasing habits and demographic information, and even has representatives holding public office. Even if I don't understand or agree with people's feelings against same-sex marriage, I sort of get it, you know? But thinking that it ought to be okay to openly discriminate against people because you disapprove of them personally? Just wrong.

Oh, wait. I shouldn't be surprised, coming from this guy. What surprises me more is that there are enough people like him to have elected him.

Yes, despite everything, maybe I'm more of an optimist than I get credit for.

thoughts for when I ought to be studying for my finance exam

Sea change beginning? I hope so. (link courtesy of Awesome Ian)

Hideously disturbing. Sometimes wish there were some way to control who reproduced and/or raised kids that was more effective than DSS/CPS.

Really rather hilarious (and, I suppose, also practical) patent issuance. Please check out the images. You'll be so happy you did.

Via Make, a really awesome mini-documentary about how vinyl records are made.

Now, I go to sleep. Two hours too late. Stupid mid-evening nap.

Yesterday's News (literally)

Defense Secretarry Gates and Joint Chiefs' chaiman Mullen came out (pun not intended, but I like it) in support of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. In an "it's about dadgum time" moment, the pair announced that repealing it was "the right thing to do" and that the Pentagon is working on a plan to transition to the new gay military.

In his twitter feed later, Mullen added:

Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity.

I couldn't agree more.

judicial neutrality (or, how I learned to stop faking it and openly accuse the president of lying)

Well, for all the awful things that one can say about the state of judicial neutrality these days (especially among the SCOTUS), at least one of the completely neutral, wholly impartial, non-activist judges just up and outed himself. And, of course, was lionized by GOP pundits and lambasted by Dems.

I'm not sure which I find more disturbing: the downward spiral of the judicial branch over the past couple of decades, or the fact that Fox News is the most trusted news source in the US (link via the always amazing Ian). I suppose there's some comfort in the following:

Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

I suppose it makes sense that people trust a news source that agrees with them more than a one which falsely purports neutrality (though there is that issue of "fair and balanced"), but it still gives me the shivers.

Maybe if we can get Prop 8 overturned I'll keep the faith.*




*(I'm not holding my breath.)

[UPDATE: Mere moments after posting this, I received this relatively auspicious link on DADT from Amazing Ian. Maybe there's hope for Prop 8 as well?]

2010 best places to work

The HRC has posted the 2010 best of the best--the Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies on their policies re: LGBT inclusiveness and parity. We Q's feel left out, but hey... if a company gets 100+, we're probably doin' ok, right?

twenty twenty hindsight

It's a great blog from a local (linked as a Durham blog, but actually the author lives in Carrboro). Typically, it's kind of an amusing recounting of the author's life. It's very gay, and can be quite raunchy.

I really wanted to share this post in particular; it's kind of a beautiful musing on queer love and heartbreak.