zimelela.net

Like my friend Michael Murphy, who just broke ground on a state-of-the-art hospital he’s designed with fellow Harvard design students for the Burera district of Rwanda. In attendance? Bill and Chelsea Clinton. (The Clinton Foundation is involved.) Mike could easily be a Hollywood superstar. (Seriously, look at him.) Instead he’s figuring out how to ensure sufficient ventilation in African hospitals to minimize on-site infection. Holla.

And like my friend Lisa Chamberlain, who has recently published her well-reviewed book Slackonomics, about the innovative ways Generation X has responded to the economic and social upheaval that attended our coming-of-age. It’s a fun, fast read, synthesizing statistics with pop cultural analysis into the most accurate and insightful portrait of our generation I’ve yet to read. I’m generally wary of zeitgeisty arguments, but I love this book–perhaps because it’s significantly more nuanced and complex than such arguments tend to be. Highly recommended.

Via Joe.My.God, a press release from gay cable network LOGO touts research showing, among other things, that “marriage equality” is the issue about which gay people are most passionate.

MOST passionate? Really? One might understand if it ranked as the most important gay-related issue, but to rank it more highly than “the environment, health care, and the economy,” as the press release suggests?

They’ll all be getting married on a barge if that’s what they care about the most.

I find this response completely unsurprising from a scholarly and zeitgeisty perspective–especially since it feeds right out of the same sentiment that my dissertation studies–but as an individual gay person with a political conscience I find it utterly baffling.

I dreamt last night that a typographical error in the program for the annual American Sociological Association conference somehow gave me the responsibility of chairing a session on a project I had nothing to do with. The project was some sort of interactive DVD thing on W.E.B. DuBois’s The Philadelphia Negro (which I haven’t even read), created by Northwestern University’s sociology graduate students. Or so my dream accidental chairing self thought. Upon announcing the error and attempting to turn it over to the folks who “did all the work on this project” (and, yes, I am quoting my dream verbatim), I was bombarded with objections from a host of people at lesser-known institutions who had apparently contributed to the project. Another score were upset with me for not bringing along copies of the DVD. And one guy denounced my “Studio 54 sense of entitlement” while another woman relayed a story she had heard from her host while a prospective student at Studio 54 about how I once misread this one article, proving that I was intellectually worthless.

In almost certainly related news, I am about to put in an application on an East Harlem apartment, to share with a gay University of Chicago graduate who is starting a sociology Ph.D. at NYU in the fall (and whom I’d never met before seeing the room listing on craigslist). The apartment is small, but the roommate and I obviously have a great deal in common, which I’m guessing will lead to genuine understanding about what we each need to live our lives. E.g., we’re both down for covering every living room wall in bookshelves. I also figured a tight two-degree connection to the NYU sociology department would be a good thing when it comes to attending talks and social events there, perhaps presenting my work, etc. I already know a number of people in that department, of course, but to actually be rooming with one of their number could help close the gap even further at a time when it will be very important for me to have access to an academic community where I live. (I’ll be commuting up to Plantation Town only once or twice a week, primarily to T.A.)

Based on my dream, it seems my subconscious is a little anxious about the possible dangers presented by such a direct connection to a foreign department. Of course, my subconscious is usually a little anxious about most things. Maybe I should look into some low-dose Xanax. What better way to become a true New Yorker?

By the way, nothing that exciting ever happens at a sociology conference. So I clearly am in fact crazy. Or just transposing law school onto sociologists.

The following firsthand account from Harare made its way into my inbox. Names and other identifying information have been removed, for obvious reasons:

Subject: Zimbabwe update 25 June 2008

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

When we left for [another African country] twelve days ago, politically-motivated
violence had already begun to appear in pockets within the city and by the
time we made our long journey back to Zim last Friday (via Dar, Nairobi and
an unscheduled stop-over in Lilongwe) Harare was like the rest of the
country, in the tight grip of ZANU-PF brutality and mob rule.

Everyone had a story. A colleague at work told of her daughter having
to rush into a downtown hotel to escape the rampaging youth militia. Our
domestic told of how her husband, a delivery-man, was stopped by ZANU
militia and forced to participate in a pro-Mugabe rally, to chant ruling
party slogans. Another colleague, an American, told me that one of his
security guards appeared at his gate with a broken arm courtesy of ZANU
thugs methodically scouring the neighbourhoods to intimidate the residents.
The poor man had been taken to a ZANU safe-house in the area – just a few
blocks from the USAID Country Director’s residence - brutalized and had his
identity card confiscated. He was told that he had to reappear at the house
today with proof that he supports Mugabe in order to collect the card and
the terrified guard tearfully begged my colleague to find him a ZANU t-shirt
to wear, so he might escape further injury or worse. Our cousins, —-
and —-, had close friends who had to suddenly flee the country one-step
ahead of ZANU pursuers. And just this morning a [NGO} staffer told me of
two people she knew – a neighbour and driver of a person killed last week -
dragged from their car in broad daylight on a major Harare road we’ve often
travelled, their maimed bodies found discarded in a field by early evening.
Another colleague whom I’ve known for almost ten years, recently arrived in
Zim to direct a [foreign aid] program for orphans and vulnerable children, had to
send her family back to [another African country] and re-locate to a guest
lodge to avoid recurrent bullying visits from a gun-totting immigration official.
She leaves tomorrow for two weeks or so. But she won’t let them drive her
out, she says. We’ll see. And I have just learned that a colleague from work
was killed last night in an accident on the Bulawayo Road, driving to
visit his elderly mother in her rural village to make sure she was safe.
Every day there is more and more.

I walk around with a lump in my throat and a knot in my stomach. We
phone to see who remains in town and who has left, heartened when we find a
friend or colleague still here, or an NGO still open. We listen to BBC and
CNN and try to find out the latest. In many ways the city looks eerily as
always but with far less traffic and people on the streets, the rickety
long-haul busses heading out of town now adorned with Mugabe campaign
posters on half the front windscreen, a talisman protecting against the
likely incursion by stoned war-vets and ZANU youth at makeshift roadblocks.
We drive about town cautiously, curtailing our movements, every day going
fewer places, sticking closer to home. The [children] do visit some friends and
have others over, but mostly they stay within the walls of our compound.
Our space is constricting. Could so much have changed so suddenly or did we
not fully comprehend and feel, or perhaps not want to really understand, the
terrible cruel power that rules here?

But then we get an invitation to coffee, or a delivery of a case of
wine, or a call to see if a tennis lesson is on, and the two realities - the
pleasant life of the expat professional and the grim intimidation of the
politician, the police and the mob – collide, leaving us out of kilter. Get
this message, that just appeared on the Zim “dipleague” listserv for expats
and Zim elite:

“Hi Guys,

Im looking for new (plain coloured) swimming towels for a safari lodge,
does anybody know where i can get them from??
Merlin don’t have in stock.

Reply to this email.

Thanks
——-”

As if nothing was going on. Can you believe it?

I can no longer abide the malignant Government propaganda, that once
held a strange fascination: like the recent assertion by police that the
violent gangs that attacked the MDC rally Sunday was actually staged by MDC
themselves to discredit the Government; or the announcement that two
thousand people in Chimanimani have voluntarily decided to rejoined ZANU
after realizing that MDC is actually a creation of white, western
imperialism. I can no longer get myself to listen to it or stomach the news
clips of Mbeki intellectualized, dissociated “quiet diplomacy”. When the
time of justice comes to Zimbabwe, as it surely will, I hope I am here to
see the people and land restored and the criminals brought to book.

If all goes well, early Friday morning [the rest of my family] will fly to
[a foreign African city]. I’ll wait it out here and we will take it one day
at a time.

Keep in touch. All our love,

—

And gone to heaven:

I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors — the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

For all the worry in the primary that Obama wouldn’t be tough enough for the general election, he sure has a stiffer spine than any Democratic presidential candidate since, oh I don’t know, at least LBJ. And crystal clear too! He’s like the anti-Kerry.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), is catching some flak from liberal blogs and LGBT activists for his admittedly confusing recent comments linking his thoughts on same-sex marriage to late 19th century pro- (or per- ?) secution of Mormon polygamy.

He voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage as one man and one woman for federal purposes and (needlessly) clarify that anti-SSM states would not have to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.

Part of his motivation, he says here, was concern that when the government gets involved with tinkering with the definition of marriage, persecution follows. (At least I think that’s what he’s saying.) The confusing part is that to many people, voting for the FMA amounts to performing the very persecution he’s worried about.

And of course many have taken offense to his seeming equation between polygamy and same-sex marriage:

“Talking about polygamy and same-sex unions in the same breath — on the face it’s offensive,” said Frank Dixon, a Democratic Party and gay rights activist.

I, however, think he’s onto something here: Mormons were persecuted (rightly or wrongly I’ll leave to you) largely (but not exclusively) because of their marriage practices. Thousands of federal troops invaded Utah. Many people died as a result. (Interestingly, this fact seems to have been scrubbed from all the histories of Mormon polygamy I can find online. I’d rather give you a link, but I guess you’ll have to take my word for it.)

And Americans’ (again, right or wrong) visceral disgust regarding Mormon polygamy remains strong enough today that hundreds of children were recently seized from a Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints ranch on flimsy legal grounds, and slippery slope fears continue to haunt the entire same-sex marriage debate.

Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage debate itself is certainly borne out of widespread persecution of a minority group because of their relationship practices. (Although, it should be pointed out, the SSM debate has largely unfolded in a different historical period from the era of widespread direct, physical persecution of LGBT people. Unlike polygamy, which was criminalized, same-sex marriage is simply unrecognized. Maybe the SSM-polygamy comparison is unfavorable to gays and lesbians in yet other ways than LGBT advocates realize?)

What I think Smith may want to ask here, but stops short of saying directly, is “Why is the government in the business of defining marriage anyway? Legal marriage definitions seem inevitably to lead to persecution, deeply divisive disagreements, and may even represent a seizure by government of authority that traditionally, if not properly, belongs to private institutions.” Maybe Sen. Smith is halfway coming out as a closet disestablishmentarian. But, since that is not a politically tenable position, he retreats to the next best alternative (from his point of view): consolidating the existing marriage definition in (vain?) hopes that such a move will tamp down the controversy. Yes, it’s still a bit incoherent, if persecution is indeed his main worry. But I think it might be possible to trace how he arrived where he did.

Seems to me he’s mixing some old-fashioned political triangulation with some bona fide principle, but because his view of both the politics and the principle is a bit out of the mainstream, he’s rendered himself quite literally impossible to understand. And so another dissertation chapter was born…

As you may already have noticed, Republicans and the McCain campaign are trying to caricature Hyde Park, Barack Obama’s home neighborhood, as some sort of San Francisco Midwest Annex. As most of my few readers and I can personally attest, Hyde Park–and, more specifically, the University of Chicago–may not be typical American institutions, but neither are they left-wing hotbeds, by any stretch. The Wall Street Journal (natch) agrees.

The New York Times reports yet more depressing news out of Zimbabwe today, this time regarding allegations that government officials confiscated some American food aid and distributed it at a pro-Mugabe rally.

It all allegedly went down at the Bambazonke police station. Government officials claim there is no such place called “Bambazonke.”

I can’t help but note that, at least in Zulu (a close cousin of one of Zim’s two major indigenous languages, Ndebele), “bambazonke” literally means “hold everything/everyone.” While “-bopha,” meaning “grab,” is the word most commonly used to refer to arrests (and, by extension, prisons, prisoners, etc.), “-bamba,” meaning “hold,” also shows up sometimes as a quasi-Orwellian way to connote both the more touchy-feely and the more punishing dimensions of “holding.” See, for example, the “Bambanani Against Crime” effort in Cape Town (where Xhosa, another Zulu cousin, is the most commonly spoken indigenous language): “Bambanani” literally means something like, “we and all of you hold each other,” and here refers to a project of increased police visibility.

In any event, back to Zim, I can’t help but wonder if “Bambazonke” is the name not of the village in question but of the police station itself, which may help explain some of the confusion.

This excellent post at fivethirtyeight.com (run by a fellow U of C alum) raises an interesting issue–since we are now eight years past the most recent census the electoral college is almost as out of whack with the actual population distribution across the 50 states as it is possible to be. Because most migration has been from the northeast and midwest toward the south and southwest, this means there are more people living in (currently) red states than is reflected in the electoral votes.

So why the “Oy?”–this actually means the current electoral college advantages Obama in November, as compared to what a newly reorganized electoral college would give him. That certainly is good news, but it raises some cause for concern looking ahead to 2012 through about 2016-18. By 2012 the electoral college will have been reorganized–as will have the underlying distribution of federal House seats on which the electoral college is mostly based. (Currently) red states will have more House seats and more electors in 2012 than they do now, which–all other things being equal–should tilt House and Presidential politics somewhat in Republicans’ favor.

I say “(currently) red states” because, eventually, these migrations will probably purplify these states. The new population, largely composed of migrants from blue states and burgeoning Hispanic populations, will generally favor the Democratic party. At some point their numbers will be large enough to outweigh the existing, more Republican population. (Plus older generations, currently tilted towards Republicans, will die off and younger generations, currently favoring Democrats, will get older, coming of voting age and voting more reliably than they do now. If their voting preferences remain stable over time, that will help bolster the purplification of the south and southwest.)

The troubling spot is the interim period, after House seats are reapportioned but before demographic trends enable these new voters to turn their states blue. Two big lessons pop out for addressing that interim period:

1) Governorships and state legislature control are going to be crucial battles in 2010. In the vast majority of states, these institutions will draw House district lines. The more Dems who occupy those spots, the faster these demographic changes will be reflected in House elections.

2) Texas, Texas, Texas. According to current projections, Texas will get three additional House seats and three additional electoral votes in 2010. As a Texan myself, I have long insisted that it should be considered a remote but still possible Obama state even in the upcoming election. That certainly is true in 2012 if Obama’s first term is a success. In the longer run, however, Hispanic and techie professional growth, combined with the re-emergence of Texas’s more libertarian tendencies over its socially conservative elements (which I’d call the “Jefe’s Daddy” factor if he actually voted) could render this a key presidential battleground. And given the shifts noted above, Texas may well become one of the best possible strategies for closing the White House deal.

NY, CA, and IL are firmly in Dems’ corner for the foreseeable future, as are the rest of the New England/I-95 corridor and the Pacific minus Alaska. Based on current projections, this brings us to 189 electoral votes–or 81 short of an electoral victory. Meanwhile, it seems pretty likely that migration will make OH and MI redder as
time passes, since those who move out-of-state are more likely to be educated folks looking for vibrant urban locales that just don’t exist in those states any more. Even though their electoral count will diminish over time, these two states will remain large, and may well become more and more difficult for Dems over time. PA is less worrying, given the existence of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, both of which are desirable destinations for some urban professionals; besides, the state is already somewhat bluer than OH and MI to begin with. That would bring us to 209. I’d expect IA and WI to continue to trend in our direction, so call it 225. Throw in CO, NV, and NM and we’re at 243–still 27 electoral votes to go.

We could get there with any of the following: FL alone; TX alone; or some combination of MI, OH, MO, VA, NC, AZ, AR, and WV. MI and OH are worrying for the reasons already noted. VA+NC already looks good, and is probably the best option–all the more reason to fight hard there this cycle. (Especially because a Dem message that works there could eventually also work in GA and maybe even TN.) FL maybe, but I’m less optimistic: FL population growth is driven not by technology but by tourism and retirement, and therefore less indicative of liberal tendencies. Moreover, a significant proportion of FL Latinos are Cuban-American and therefore more conservative (a tendency that is diminishing in later generations, but still). AZ will also start to look better, but only gives us the victory in combination with at least two more of the remaining states that don’t deliver victory on their own.

What I like about TX from all of these options (apart from long-deferred home state pride) is that it builds in a ten-vote cushion. Win TX, and we can lose CO or NM or NV or AZ. In order to make it happen, then, we need to lay groundwork now. Consider supporting the TX Democratic Party today.

I just got off a conference call held by the Obama campaign for members of the LGBT community. Hosted by openly gay Deputy Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand, the call offered up little news; the main goal seemed to be to help bring Clinton supporters on board. As I’ve mentioned before, Clinton received the lion’s share of LGBT support in the primary. They are trying to schedule another such call with Obama himself in the next two weeks. Interest in this call was high, with over 1200 participants.

My only other general impression was that the call was also heavy on the other HRC, namely the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is the biggest, best funded, and most cautious LGBT rights organization in the country. I was a quasi-employee of theirs for the 1996 election cycle, and now wouldn’t give them a dime. Hate. Of the various LGBT orgs that exist, they are the most focused on national electoral politics, so their heavy involvement was not surprising. But it would be nice for, say, NGLTF to get some love as well.

Anyway, here was the lineup, with a few notes:

1) Elizabeth Birch - ex-Executive Director of HRC and strong Clinton supporter (and someone who, despite my HRC issues of both varieties, I like a great deal)

She spoke primarily about what Clinton supporters are going through right now, describing her unexpected tears at Hillary’s loss on Tuesday. She put it down to three things: the disappointment that always accompanies a vanquished warrior, disappointment that her 9-year-old daughter wouldn’t see a woman president at a formative stage in her life, and the emotions attached to her own dream as a 12-year-old for gender equality and the possibility that women may govern differently from men (and some weird references to the high estrogen levels floating around at that historical moment).

That said, she also emphasized that electing the first African-American president is equally important, especially since her daughter and twin son are biracial. She also said that defeating McCain was imperative for our community, our country, and our planet.

2) Steve Hildebrand sketched out the campaign’s shift into general election mode, said they’re setting up operations in all 50 states, and moving to integrate the campaign with the DNC and convention staff. Interestingly, Brian Bond (formerly of DNC LGBT outread and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund) will be heading up all constituency operations for Obama–i.e. he won’t be ghettoized to LGBT work but will also oversee Af-Am, Latino, etc. constituency outreach. This, combined with the central role of Hildebrand himself, should demonstrate the sincerity of Obama’s commitment to LGBT equality in my mind. Underlining that fact, Melissa Etheridge is one of the co-chairs of the 50-state voter registration drive.

3) Joe Solmonese, current exec. dir. of HRC announced HRC’s endorsement of Obama and contrasted their records. Despite McCain’s record as a social moderate (and consequential support by many in our community), he in fact has voted against the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act on multiple occasions, does not support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and actively campaigned for the failed same-sex marriage ban in his home state of Arizona. Obama, by contrast, supports all the good bills as well as complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. (Clinton, BTW, only supports a partial repeal.) David Mixner (see below) later mentioned that Obama has also announced his opposition to the SSM bans now on the ballot in CA and FL for the fall.

One interesting note from Solmonese is his excitement that the community most actively opposed to the CA and FL bans is also one of the groups most fervently supporting Obama: young voters. The implicit message was that a strong Obama turnout in those two states will help defeat the bans.

4) David Mixner - crucial LGBT fundraiser for Bill Clinton’s presidential run, helped put gay issues on the map of that administration (and felt the burn of the later betrayals perhaps more acutely than anyone). He had supported John Edwards this time out, but was warmly welcomed into the Obama fold after Edwards dropped out. He sees this year as the biggest opportunity since 1992 for the LGBT community to make its influence heard in a national election.

5) Tobias Wolff - Penn law professor and key LGBT policy advisor for Obama campaign (and author of the piece linked in the below post). He emphasized that as our community has matured we have learned that leaders have to earn our trust, and that Obama’s challenge was that (contra Clinton) he hadn’t had the time to do that. He emphasized that Obama is aware of this challenge, and that this is shown by Obama’s repeated willingness to address gay issues in front of non-gay audiences (Ebenezer Baptist Church, 2004 convention, etc.). He (rightly) emphasized that Obama has given gay issues more central and integrated prominence than has been true in any presidential campaign in history. (Ahem.) Says that Obama feels gay issues in his bones, does not take the community for granted, and is moving beyond the traditional gay issues to also talk about trans issues, gay seniors, and gay youth.

Reading over my notes, the biggest takeaway for me is that so many LGBT people and (even more) their straight allies are so unaware of just how dastardly McCain is on our issues. He may not be genuinely committed to anti-gay bigotry (something which many think could be said of W, BTW), but nonetheless he has become a bigot for political expediency’s sake. The thing is, most of these issues put him out-of-step not just with LGBT people but also with the general public, and particularly with the moderate Republicans and independents he needs most. I call these the “Karen” voters after a friend of mine who supported Reagan in the ’80s but for whom employment non-discrimination and the like are sort of litmus test issues that she uses to assess candidates’ general cultural attitudes. Emphasizing McCain’s extremist record on LGBT issues is not only crucial for bringing LGBT Clinton supporters into the Obama fold, but can also be a great way to destroy his moderate image. We should talk it up every chance we get. It’s a no-lose proposition for us: he either loses swing voters or alienates the Republican Party’s social conservative base. So get out there and speak some truth!