Yes, really.

Am I really 40 years old and getting my internet service cut off because I have been that behind on my payments and playing chicken with AT&T's willingness to roll me to the next month? Yes, yes I am. Did I just pay them my entire past due amount of $138.35, because I happened to have $202.88 in my checking account, and because I am so desperate for and addicted to internet connectivity that I've probably sacrificed my ability to pay some other essential bill that's direly overdue, leaving only $64.53 in my account to eat on til my next paycheck? Yes, indeed. I guess this is hitting financial bottom. I need to work more. Unfortunately, bookkeeping pays a lot more per hour than psychotherapy internships, so it looks like I need more bean counting gigs. The elusive quest for meaning in employment continues to fade away over the horizon. In other news, I still like my life, so I feel pretty grateful for that. Thank you, friends and family, lovers and playmates, for all the sweetness.

Spaceship

I dreamt that a huge spaceship, not unlike the mothership in District 9, was hovering over the cityscape. I felt excited and terrified beyond measure: would the aliens invade? Would they be friendly? I had the vivid feeling that everything that I knew was about to change dramatically.

Aside from the take-home message that marketing works (see the bus shelter posters, the write-ups in EW, the constant buzz in the blogo-twitter-facebooksphere) the dream perfectly captured that threshold between the amazing possibility and terror I'm feeling as I start my private therapy practice. My life is going to be altered in ways I can't quite imagine.

Crazy Spam

This one made me laugh out loud: Angelina Jolie set to destroy own vagina!

In other spam-related news, I keep getting these horrible ones that say, That's an ugly face you have there, Bree! Do advertizers really think I'm gonna click on a message that's insulting me?

Playing with (the idea of) Death

I'm so moved to continue redesigning the blog - not near satisfied with the template I chose, and I'm realizing now it's way too similar to the template I picked for my other blog. But I clearly don't have time to fiddle with it. Here I am, holed up at a café in the neighborhood, working on my final thesis draft. Or trying to work on it, and continuing to get pulled into tinkering with the blog design. What's nice is that I am finally getting into some free styling philosophical discourse in the paper, away from the ideas of the psychoanalytic canon and into my own obsessions about the dynamics of death inside intimacy. It's freeing to be here and begin to explore and articulate my ideas in tangible written words. In some way, I'm sure I hoped to master my own death anxiety by writing this paper, and I know I won't accomplish that (I think it's pretty impossible.) But the more I force myself to confront it, and in fact to become playful with the ideas, even, the less it's triggering my intense anxiety. I'm inspired by something Irvin Yalom (one of my current heroes) said about dealing with death anxiety. He said that while actual, physical death ultimately destroys us, confronting the concept of death is our salvation. And on that note, it's back to the drawing board with me.

Tech Difficulties

All: bear with me as I tweak with the design of the blog. Thanks!

Pavarotti vs. The Walrus

So Google is celebrating Pavarotti's birthday today by linking him on the homepage, a custom I've quite enjoyed over the years on various birthdays and anniversaries of important people, events, yadda yadda (e.g. The Lunar Landing, Einstein's birthday,etc.) My question is: what are the criteria (if any) that Google uses to determine who and what gets commemorated in this manner?

I became curious, because John Lennon's birthday was a few days ago, and I had wondered why Google didn't acknowledge it, and now Pavarotti is being celebrated, and I'm thinking, hmm...is opera so much more culturally relevant than rock 'n' roll, particularly when "John Lennon" registers a million and a half more Google hits than "Pavarotti?" Clearly, Google can't possibly acknowledge every outstanding public figure or historical event, so there must be some sort of formula or process that determines who gets the goods.

I emailed Ube's man, who works at "the Google" (in the words of G.W.), to see if he knows the secret. Anyone out there know?

xo
Bree

Upside down you turn me

Did anyone out there hear about the incident at Montebello High School that happened last year, in which students (apparently from neighboring districts) took down the school's American flag, flipped it upside down, and hung it below the Mexican flag? If you've heard about it at all, it's likely you gleaned the information from a frothy-mouthed mass email message that's been circulating for a year or more since the incident. That's how I got the info, just today, in my inbox, from a friend of my mom's who insists on including me in all her mass mailings, which include dumb jokes, prayers for our soldiers, mainstream-conservative political diatribes, virus alerts (all hoaxes), "Amber" alerts (actual and unsubstantiated), and god knows what else.

It turns out that the Montebello High incident, the result of last year's national walk-out to protest Congressional immigration reforms, is news that I happen to be interested in, when it's not couched in the right-wing vitriol of a random mass emailing:

"If you choose to remain uninvolved (Ed. note: i.e. if we don't stop those uppity brown kids), do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be 'redistributed' to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the 'fray.'"

Yeah, our American Way of Life is truly in danger when high school students march in solidarity to protest U.S. immigration law and (ooh, shivers!) turn a flag upside down (the sight of which, by the way, the mass email in question called "heart-stopping!") I guess they're really sullying that old First Amendment by exercising free speech and freedom of assembly. The argument can be made that school officials must keep kids in class; in fact, the Montebello kids weren't the instigators, because they were on lock-down and unable to participate in the demonstration. But shit, if kids are skipping school once in a while to engage in activism of all things, and they didn't even destroy the flag (an act I have no moral qualm with, though I could see someone getting busted for damaging school property,) what is the bloody fucking harm?



So, despite my interest in this particular subject, I decided to attempt to cut off any further junk mailings by my mom's friend. I hit "reply" on the message, and immediately fell into a writer's block when considering how to word such a request in a polite manner. I really wanted to say, "Pardon me, but I have no interest in this racist alarmist crapola and would you kindly remove me from your list?" Hey, at least that statement was half-polite. I found this site, which might be useful to folks finding themselves in a similar dilemma:

ThanksNo.Com

It's a pretty straightforward form letter available for linking to anyone you need to school in mass mail etiquette. After getting inspiration from Thanks No, I opted for my own wording, which I hope was innocuous enough:

I'm emailing you because I'd like to request that you take me off your "group email" list. While I'm always happy to receive personal, one-on-one emails from friends, or invitations to specific events, I'd rather not receive mass-forwarded jokes, political messages, etc.

I don't mean to be ungracious or rude. I'm happy that you include me among your nearest and dearest! I just don't like receiving mass-delivered mail.

Thanks a bunch, and take care!

Viva La Raza!
--Bree

Technorati

Just listed myself on Technorati. Check it out.

Technorati Profile

I've pinged them, but they're still only listing really old entries - does anyone know how this thing works? Thanks!

--Bree

Ranking

Astrid and I just wasted two hours (a collective four!) ranking movies on Netflix. We finally succumbed to membership after the unfortunate incident in which we ended up shelling out $30.00 in late fees for a single Buffy disc. Ranking, listing, and otherwise documenting one's tastes and proclivities is such a sexy wormhole to fall into. We could've actually watched one of the movies we rented in that time. Gah!

kisses,
Bree

P.S. Dax is whining about not being included in my Cast list yet. I think she needs to do something noteworthy first. ;)

What I'm doing instead of writing my term paper...

It's not like the topic is bland or anything: development psychology and queerness, basically. I'm working with a classmate on a paper and class presentation due on Thursday. What have I done today, my last free day to work on it?

- dustbustered the stairway
- installed a coat rack in the hall
- ate oatmeal w/ Astrid
- played around on Myspace, Friendster, and Orkut (and deleted my account on the latter)
- took a bath
- read Rolling Stone.

It's the last week of the term. I have an interview for a clinical internship next week. It's at a hospice program, which is one of the areas in which I'm most interested in working. Scary, though--the idea of several or all of my clients dying during the course of the year I'd be working with them. Strangely enough, working with dying and grieving people seems to me some of the work that I'm most suited for. I have yet to grasp how many of my old emotional buttons this will push.

Off to waste more time before sitting down with the paper.

xo

Bree

My Gripes with the GLBT Movement (or, really, one of the most visible representatives of it)

Some of you out there know that I used to work for Human Rights Campaign. I helped open their San Francisco Action Center Store in the Castro, and, thanks to my background fundraising for Peace Action back in the day, I was able to recruit for them a nice li'l pile of members during the year I worked there.

Ultimately, I think the organization plays an important role in the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender equality--they're well-funded, well-organized, and media-savvy. Their core issues: marriage equality and LGBT family issues, workplace discrimination, health and other human rights issues related specifically to GLBT folks are all crucial issues needing organized advocacy.

But I find that too often, they fall to the right of where I am politically, and I know that I'm not the only one with this complaint. The classic examples are their focus on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, their disproportionate focus on the marriage issue which many progressive queers have no interest in, and famously, their willingness to endorse conservative candidates, sometimes in "lesser of two evils" strategies and sometimes simply to endorse incumbants so as to appear more in line with their perception of how "most GLBTs might vote" (HRC endorsed Bob Casey in PA, who I've blogged about, Joseph Lieberman, and even GOP candidate Alphonse D'Amato against Charles Schumer in the 1998 senate race in New York).

Any old way, the following is a letter I wrote to HRC this week about the hubub around Ann Coulter calling presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot." As you'll see, I don't fundamentally disagree with HRC's strategy on this issue, but I am appalled by the language they use to frame this debate. First, I present to you the letter, then HRC's response, then, navel-gazingly, my response to their response. Bonus: I also included a letter to them I sent two years ago about the gays-in-the-military issue, to which they'd never gotten around to responding. HRC's email to me this week addressed both letters. Enjoy, and of course, feel free to add your two or three cents.

xo - Bree

* * * * *

March 6, via email:

Hi there,

I'm contacting you regarding the goal of your message on Ann Coulter. I am shocked and disappointed at the wording of your take-home message:

"It's time to remove Ann Coulter from public discourse!" (emphasized by appearing in your action alert in large, bold, blue font).

There is no question that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" to demean John Edwards was wrong, and that HRC should take action on this issue. I do not disagree with the tactic of alerting HRC members and the public at large and encouraging a consumer boycott of companies who publish her and sponsor her site. But in suggesting that Coulter should be "removed from public discourse," we are playing right into the hands of those who would discredit us: this is the cry of censorship, and, taken out of context (and I promise you, that pull quote will be taken out of context) it is a dangerous sentiment to espouse. Not only will conservatives jump all over HRC as "un-American," this statement will be seen by progressive GLBT folks (myself included) as a telltale sign that HRC does not represent their/our interests. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right, even when the speaker is an inarticulate asshole.

As an HRC member and a former Action Center staffer (San Francisco store), I am invested in the goals of the Human Rights Campaign, and I want to see the organization continue to grow and become a more inclusive, diverse, and effective agent for change on GLBT rights. To that end, I feel that I have an obligation to be critical of the organization when I see it veering in the wrong direction. I also feel that I have a right to a thoughtful response on this issue, and I would appreciate just that (I contacted you on a different issue previously, and received nothing back. Below, please find a copy of that message, which I sent originally in March of 2005, even before I worked at the HRC store in the Castro.)

As always, I appreciate your hard work in the fight for GLBT equality.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message.


Bree
San Francisco, CA


Previous email from March, 2005:

To the program staff at Human Rights Campaign,

Hi. I hope this message finds you well.

I'm a member of HRC and also, myself, a pacifist and a firm opponent
of U.S. military aggression around the world. I understand the
importance of eliminating discrimination against gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgendered armed service members, and I support HRC's
policy to work on this issue. But I also feel strongly that GLBT
organizations must come out decisively against U.S. militarism, the
so-called "War on Terror," and against the inherent racism, sexism,
and homophobia embedded in the culture of militarism. We are natural
allies to cause of peace and global justice, and we need to start
treating this issue as the core value it should be in all our work to
combat homophobia.

GLBT Americans share a bond with every innocent Iraqi being targeted
by U.S. armed forces abroad, and we share a bond with every Arab and
Muslim in our own country being subjected to hate crimes, illegal
detentions, and the undue disruption of their lives on a daily basis
as a result of this brutal, endless war. We share a bond with every
human being who has been labeled "The Enemy," and I cannot, in good
conscience, actively take part in a campaign that, while right-minded,
is essentially helping to bolster the ranks of the U.S. military. I
do not want to see my gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered brothers and
sisters turned into agents of a hateful, murderous foreign policy, not
to mention turned into cannon fodder in the process.

Please respond, and let me know what HRC is planning to do to denounce
U.S. militarism and the racist scapegoating being carried out in our
names as GLBT Americans.

Thank you so very much for your work, it does not go unappreciated.

Sincere regards,


Bree
San Francisco, CA


HRC's response

March 7, 2007

Dear Bree,

Thank you for contacting the Human Rights Campaign regarding censorship and the First Amendment.

We take freedom of speech and First Amendment issues very seriously, and we understand your concerns.

We believe that this is not a question of censorship. There are plenty of other people on the right who share Coulter’s values and views but understand the value of civility and respect.

Ann Coulter is free to spew her vile and hateful speech but as a community we are also free to exercise our collective power. And when Coulter defends herself on Fox News by saying “‘faggot’ isn’t offensive to gays,” it is our responsibility to make sure she, and those who carry her columns, understand that we know otherwise. “Faggot” is a loaded word — a word that too often is used as a weapon to demean and wound our community.

If she had made a racist or anti-Semitic remark, there would not have even been a question of whether a newspaper should continue carrying her columns. We must speak out in order to move the “F word” into that same column of universally understood hate speech.

I also want to address the email you sent us 2 years ago, I truly apologize that you never received a response as member services does attempt to answer all inquiries. As you know HRC’s mission and statement of purpose due to your work experience I’m sure you know that HRC works specifically on GLBT issues and securing equality. The war in Iraq and the atrocities occurring there are certainly sad and difficult for the entire nation to accept however commenting on the status is not within HRC’s domain. However, HRC is working to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the U.S. policy on gays in the military that forces people to be dishonest about their personal lives or be fired. You can learn more about our campaign by visiting: http://www.hrc.org/alva/dadt.html

I hope I answered your questions and concerns.

Thank you again for contacting us and if you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Respectfully,

Lisette

Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278
Phone 202.216.1525
Fax 202.216.1505
hrc@hrc.org


And here is MY response to THEIR response: (which has, of course, not been responded to)

March 8, 2007

Hi Lisette,

Thank you so much for the quick response. As I had said in my original letter, I support HRC's action on this issue, and agree that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in this incident should be condemned. I also made clear that I agreed with your tactic of calling for a consumer boycott, a strategy that has been effective time after time in movements for social change. I appreciate your response, and will think more about the implications of language and the responsibility that publications have in shutting down the use of hate speech.

But I still take issue with the conceptualization that informs this phrase, "to remove Coulter (or anyone) from public discourse." Sure, other conservatives are "civilized" (as civilized as, say, a right-wing preacher can be when condemning gays to hell, for example). Is that not "hate speech?" Where do we draw the line, in engaging in this "public discourse," between "hate speech" and "speech" or "beliefs?" And again, your tactics are not what I have issue with, but the way you approach the issue is what alarms me. We can still send a strong message to combat hate speech without calling for the outright elimination of speech we disagree with. I feel that your response failed to capture this subtle distinction. Remember, I'm not arguing with the tactics or goals; I'm at issue with the way the message has been crafted.

Thank you also for responding to my previous letter. I'm well aware of the limitations of the organization's mission, and of course I understand the strategic reasons that HRC won't take positions on issues it defines as beyond its purview. Again, though, I feel my main concern is being glossed over and not really acknowledged. Homophobia (along with racism and sexism) are at the core in a militaristic culture such as ours. Working for the inclusion of GLBT folks into the ranks of the military is, of course, one way to address homophobia. But it seems rather beside the point when we are not asking the question: why are we sending our people to kill and die in the first place?

When I attended the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender March on Washington in 1993, the issue of gays in the military was first entering into the national consciousness. I saw a sticker on someone's jacket there that read, "Don't join the military - dismantle it!" I loved that moment. Of course we must fight against discrimination in every sector of society, including within the military. I understand that that's your job, and I applaud you for it. But there must be some voice from inside the organization, inside the movement, calling for a reprioritizing of issues. I know I'm not the only one.

Thanks again for your time on this. If there is anyone in the national office who can speak further to these concerns, I would love to hear from them.


Take care,
Bree

Testing

One two three...