Friday, July 9, 2010

I'm Here. I'm a Gay Male and May Be Transgender. And I'm Not Used to it.

http://gender-sphere.0catch.com/aniyinyang.gif


SPHERE

 [image/symbol and name of non-gender-conforming web-group is from here]

We live inside someone's realised idea. 
We live inside someone's realised physical idea 
for what the home or village or town or city you are in 
was be designed to look like. 
We live inside someone's realised social and economic idea 
of what the civilisation you live in was designed to do. 
We live inside the political idea 
of gender, race, and human being 
designed by those 
who want the oppressed 
to serve the oppressor, 
or just die off altogether.

 -- Julian Real, 9 July 2010 ECD

This post concerns the matter of choosing the terms which best apply to our subjective experience of ourselves, which fit with how we are seen by society, which resist how we are seen by society, and which locate oneself in particularly personally important political struggles for human liberation from WHM Supremacist societies and Patriarchal Palien Paradigms. (No, I won't say--or write--that five times fast. I realise the A.R.P. Glossary is expanding and I'm trying to be mindful that a blog post filled with self-generated acronyms and made-up terminology can be very, very problematic, especially for people for whom English is not a First Language.)

Sphere is a group I've never belonged to. As noted elsewhere, I'm not likely to be part of a group that would have me as a member, and I do believe Sphere would welcome me with open cyber-arms. I like and appreciate Sphere, but also haven't spent much time there.

Hey, I've got blog posts to write!

Am I transgender? It's a question that has surfaced in my body and psyche--which is one, not two, things. It is a question that has been slowly shoving its way onto a  front-burner, so to speak. And plenty in my life is already burning.

To answer the question is to get into the thick of what gender is--what being non-transgender is, let alone what it is to be transgender. I'll tell you this: I've never been adequately or even remotely comfortable identifying as a man. I was confused about identifying as a boy. I identified more with girls when a child, but did have some close male-boy friends. I played on the elementary school playground with girls, and was forced to play with the boys. I never wanted to, but I was made to. Even the principle of my elementary school noticed this, and sought to properly, and not unkindly, socialise me to play softball, which is a sport I despised with a passion. I liked jumping rope and kickball. And, let's note, there were girls who hated jumprope and kickball, and just wanted to play softball, basketball, and U.S. football. Soccer wasn't a big grade school sport yet. Middle class U.S. "soccer moms" didn't exist yet either, and if they existed in other countries I doubt the sport was called "soccer". I remember children walking to elementary school or being brought there by school bus, not being driven there by parents. There were no SUVs then, only station wagons. And yellow buses.

I have never felt comfortable identifying with gay men, even though, to some extent, I do. It's not the man-ness I identify with. It's the being male-bodied and being attracted to male-bodied people including some men that I identify with. I would never, ever, tell you "I'm a man" unless I was coerced or forced to. Even my profile to the right identifies me as "a gay male" because that's the best I can do, for now.

I've not been sure what to do with my body during sex, although I learned how to have dominant heterosexual sex. I've also learned how to have standard heterosexist gay sex. But I've practiced very little of each. What I have often felt like I was having was non-patriarchal sex, which is to say it has been non-heteromale sex that isn't phallocentric and more often than not, didn't involve my genitals, unless a man (or woman) wanted the sex to do so. I've never been heterosexual or bisexual. I've had sex with a very few girls and boys as a child, with a few women and men as an adult, but have never dreamt of having sex with a woman, ever. I've never "desired" sex with women. This isn't at all to say I haven't enjoyed being sexual with women, but it is to say that enjoyment was more emotionally based enjoyment than physically based. And most, and possibly all, of the female women I've been sexual with have been friends of mine. Most of the time I've had to dissociate to some degree to be sexually active with people. For about the last decade, I've not been sexual with anyone else, out of choice, and out of a desire to be asexual, which I've mostly accomplished.

The connecting between "being sexually active" and being gendered has to do with how my body feels, and the attention to it that is usually required to be sexually active. To be sexually active is to be engaged with a gendered body--my own, and with someone else's too, if that's what's going on.

This post mostly consists of me stating some positions, or beliefs, or stances, or analysis, about society and gender. This post also gets deeply into one person's story of being transgender. I'm going to tell you about the guests on a talk/chat show about being transgender. I've taken the time to type out the dialogue, and will use it as a point of discussion for later posts on this topic.

1. I believe gender is entirely a social-political phenomenon. It is cultural. It isn't natural or biological, which is to say that non-human animals, not a one of 'em, have anything resembling "a gender". They may be sexed in ways English-speaking humans call "female and male". And there may be some "role play" but that doesn't equal "having a gender", to me. And, there may well be, and probably are, naturally occurring intersex non-human animals. We do know that some animals are asexual and do not reproduce through the combining of a sperm cell with an ovum. Parthenogenisis happens.

It is foundational to Patriarchal Palien existence and politics to see the world in dualistic ways, usually also hierarchical. Gender is both in such societies: dualistic and hierarchical. To pretend it is only the former is to betray human rights battles for liberation for women and effeminate and feminised people from male supremacy and the gross domination of the planet by men.

To be a patriarchy-denier is to support gynocide. To embrace a politically activist view that renders patriarchal harm invisible, is to throw women under the CRAP-loaded bus.

2. Queerness is a relatively new prominent term used by many non-heterosexual people as an umbrella term that currently popularly includes lesbians, gay men, woman-loving women, same gender loving men, transgender people, and, increasingly, intersex people. It also often includes heterosexual non-intersex people who are "gay-friendly" or "queer-friendly" or who are genderqueer or gender benders or gender transgressors. It also often includes friends of all the above. It is so inclusive that the only people it seems NOT to include are anti-queer bigots.

BUT, a group within queer society is anti-lesbian, anti-feminist, and, especially and increasingly, overtly anti-radical feminist.

One reason some people, trans and non-trans, reject or are hostile to radical feminism, as it is accurately or inaccurately represented by its opponents, is that it is "transphobic". I would argue radical feminism is no more or less transphobic than liberal humanism, than non-radical feminism, and than patriarcal political philosophies and politically pro-activist perspectives. I'd argue dominant political perspectives, philosophies, and societies are more transphobic than "radical feminists" are, per capita. And that focusing on radical feminists as THE population of transphobes is misogynistic, anti-lesbian, and pro-patriarchal.

3. Transgender identity is not fixed. (In  some sense, by it's very social nature, it is unfixed! Hence the "trans" prefix.) There is no agreement among those who are transgender about what that term means. It is not seen as essentially a biological phenomenon or reality, by many transgender people. It is seen as a reality or condition--depending on how much one accepts medical, psychiatric, or dominant media representations of what being transgender is--that both challenges and reinforces dominant views of gender. It does both.

Being transgender doesn't tell anyone anything about one's political views. One can be transgender and homophobic, anti-lesbian, woman-hating, man-loving, or none of the above. Transgender people are lesbian-identified, gay-identified, bi-identified, heterosexual-identified, and none of the above. Some transgender people change their sexual orientation if they surgically transition from female-appearing to male-appearing. Some do not. This is a source of endless curiosity for talk show hosts. The question often arises, to those transgender folks who are usually white and class-privileged, if "going from being a man to a woman means one is still heterosexual" (if said person ever was, in fact, heterosexual).

I've heard one transgender activist state, quite truthfully and impactfully, "I'm transgender: what does being attracted to 'an opposite sex' mean for me?" Being transgender can, but doesn't necessarily, interrupt the gender binary which, in the White West, is always a gynocidal woman-hating political hierarchy and never not a this kind of hierarchy.

I've heard some MtF transgender activists identify as women, who, when born, were accurately or inaccurately male-assigned, and boy-raised. And I've heard some MtF transgender activists identify as transwomen or transgender, stating they are not "women" in the sense that a female-assigned-at-birth, girl-raised women are women. There is no agreement within transgender community about whether or not transgender women are and ought to be considered exactly the same as "non-transgender women".

I find transgender community to be about as diverse as community gets; it crosses class, race, ethnicity, age, ability/disability, sexuality, and, obviously, gender. Unlike non-transgender community, transgender community is comprised of people who have been or are wrestling--deeply, profoundly, and with great effort--with what their own gender is, what it means, what it feels like, what it requires, and what the consequences are for changing it. I see this as a particularly and uniquely transgender issue and experience, with some overlap with gender-non-conforming non-transgender people, and some, but by no means all, intersex people, as not all intersex people know they are intesex. This is also to say, not all non-transgendered people and not all non-intersex people know they are definitely NOT transgender or intersex.

4. "Gender transgression" is a social stance, a set of actions, a mode of being, that has been embraced as "revolutionary" and "radical" within some queer communities. By and large, I consider it neither revolutionary or radical, and in fact find most of what I see from people who identify as "gender transgressors" to be liberally reinforcing the status quo, or, at least, doing nothing at all to uproot or transform white supremacist (palien) heterosexist patriarchy. Speficially, "drag shows", "burlesque", "queer porn", pro-BDSM politics, and other aspects of both heterosexual and non-heterosexual societies, are, to me, utterly PPP-serving and "politically correct", not at all transformative. I support the politics of radical social transformation, not liberal transgression.

5. For me, coming to terms with being transgender is similar, but not the same, as coming to terms with being gay. But I'd like to outline, below, how they are similar, possibly also noting how they are different, for me.

I'm next going to take you through a program I just watched, about being transgender.

I am carefully watching an Oprah show, with a guest, former U.S. high school football (not soccer) player born with the name Paul McKerrow. Paul was the Montana-born and raised high school quarterback and captain of the boys' football team, senior class president (at that time, misogynistically and typically chosen to be a student who was a boy, and most likely also male). Paul grew up wanting "to be one of the girls". Paul began cross-dressing, appearing as a woman in some social spaces, and as a man in others. Paul began taking "female" hormones, and in Paul's 20s, she transitioned surgically from male-appearing to female-appearing, at least to doctors doing the surgery, and to Kimberly (formerly Paul).

Oprah and others in the media discuss this as "being in the wrong body". It needs to be pointed out that even post- surgery, one is still in the same body--there is no such thing as a "body transplant". And it needs to be noted that having saline or silicone breast implants, or a non-cancer related mastectomy, or a hysterectomy, or a vagina-like structure fashioned from the skin of a penis, or a phallus constructed in any number of ways, or intersex genitals, doesn't make or not make someone the gender they are.

When media reinforces an idea that some transgender people who have "gender re-assignment therapy", including "sex-reassignment surgery" genitally, as "finally being in the right body" are misrepresenting a whole helluva lot about what gender and sex are. Dominant social designs flourish, and those of us who do not fit or don't wish to fit, are left out... again. Surgeons do not make people intersex on purpose, as a "final goal", usually. Surgeons do physically and emotionally traumatic things to children's bodies to fashion them into someone's design, some society's idea, of what "the male sex" and "the female sex" look like. As if that's all there is.

If I have the money to pay for it, and I want to have male genitals fashioned into something that is neither male, female, or intersex, which surgeon would you suggest I contact? If I want my gender to be neither manly or womanly, with which social-political architects would you have me consult?

Under Kimberly's name, the words "born a boy" are written. Kimberly (birthname Paul) was not "born a boy". Paul was assigned at birth to be "the male sex" ("as opposed to the female sex"). Paul was made into a boy, through socialisation, which includes decisions and force and fear.

As a male, in Kimberly's words, she was with males and females, or what dominant society calls "bisexual". She didn't really like being a boy, but is glad she grew up being a boy, so as to be given social permission to be bold, and not withdrawn. She felt an "unearned" "license" "unearned" to behave in ways not so allowed if one is a girl. When doing a paper route as a child, Kimberly dressed as a girl.

I'm never entirely sure what that means, personally. As girls I knew dressed more or less like boys. Same with women and men. When some white sexist gay men wondered if I'd ever "done drag" I asked them: do you mean dressing up like a woman?" When they said "Yes", I said, wearing a t-shirt, sweathshirt, and bluejeans, "I am right now". The women I knew wore those clothes, and didn't consider THEMSELVES to be "doing drag".

As many people in the non-heterosexual community have noted, everyone is in drag. Straight white boys are "in drag" if in football gear, for example. Or if in t-shirts and jeans.

First part of her life was denying being a girl, second part denying I was ever a boy. Now it's about embracing both parts of my life. She wishes girls had male entitlements boys have in a patriarchal/male supremacist societies.

Went to college in the San Francisco Bay area, where "anything goes". She tried dating men as a man. She kept feeling "I have to be female." And describes "a female life" on one side of the bridge, and a male life on the other side of the bridge. She was, when Paul, an exchange student in Norway. She realised she always there: her transgender self was always there and her need to be female was always there.

She's in a documentary film about her life called "Prodigal Sons".

Kimberly Reed is white, "pretty"--made up with cosmetics to be "pretty", and blonde, and is someone who isn't fat. She is wearing black high boots, and a black outfit that isn't overly femme but is not butch.

Oprah describes Kimberly as "the quarterback who became a woman". She went to her 20th High School Reunion in Montana. The party is at the man who was the teenage boy who was the co-captain of the football team. She meets up with Claire, who Paul dated in high school.

Tim was Paul's best friend in high school, and friend since first grade, actually. He's joined via satellite from Missoula, MT. He is still a best friend of Kim. He told Kim, "Wow! You went ALL THE WAY!!" "She was good at basketball and other sports. Mark, a brother, wanted to excel at sports like Paul, but never did.

Oprah, to Tim: "I heard you were kind of attracted to her [Kim]."

Tim: "Well, sure... I mean... LOOK at her!" Everyone chuckles. He goes on "I didn't know if she was gay or straight..." and tried to "just be in the moment, and take it as it comes".

Kimberly recalls how these former football players show up with cases of beer, and felt "this is going to be all right; this is going to be okay".

"After a while there comes this point... that [old friends] realise "I am the same person". Even while she acknowledges she looks different.

Oprah: "She is more authentically herself now".

Kimberly: "I was having so many problems trying to figure out my gender. I used to have these games, I'd play. If you don't [win the game of the day], you'll have to be a girl tonight", and then would lose on purpose to be a girl. Reflecting on watching footage of old high school football games, Kimberly says: "It's a shame that I just had to forget half of my life." "I wish I had done it [transitioned MtF] earlier.

Oprah: "Kimberly [is] a woman from head to toe, and also a lesbian."

Mark was adopted, held back, and was in the same grade with Paul throughout grade school. At 21, he got into a car accident, and has suffered brain injury, clinging to the past. "I was more popular than him!", Mark exclaims. He asks Kimberly if she's been reading the Bible (some unidentified version and translation of the Christian New Testament).

Mark was taken to jail. "There was all this jealousy about you being 'the golden boy'." Kimberly agrees. Their mother strongly felt the sibling rivalry, partly because Mark was adopted, "but also because he had his own strengths, but single-mindedly wanted to be Paul."

Kim's mom says, of Kim's gender transition, "I knew this was a decision that was painfully arrived at."

"I had been this perfect son" to my dad. "I was afraid to take that away from him." Kim was reluctant to tell her, and his health was an issue so Kim's mom postponed telling him. She got herself into therapy and on the third visit brought her husband and told him. She was also juggling the whole extended family.

Kim: "I put her through a lot". "I'd do it differently now." (By coming out earlier). Maybe in the future--due to Kim and others being out about being transgender--someone can come out at fifteen. And then maybe earlier.

Claire is Kimberly's girlfriend of ten years.

Oprah [to Claire]: "You say Kimberly is more feminine than most women you've met?"

Claire: "Well, let me put it this way... I think we're all a little bit in drag, and trying to project ourselves in one away or another. And for women, that's 'feminine'. And I know I tried real hard to match up to a standard of what feminine was. [Oprah interjects: "what femininity is. Yeah."] "But what's striking to me about Kim, and attractive, was that she was so comfortable [with] herself. And that, to me, is feminine. That's a female strength that is really attractive."

Oprah: "It's all about what is authentic, what is true for you, isn't it? [Oprah nods and also says "Yeah." Sort of affirming the validity of her own understanding and words to herself.] Claire nods in agreement, saying "Yeah" or the equivalent.] And I imagine that when you... 'cause you're a lesbian, right? You had to be lesbian, correct?

Claire says, very affirmatively: "Yes." And nods and smiles.

Oprah: "So when you're lesbian, are you trying to strike a balance between 'what is feminine', 'what isn't'"?

Claire: "I don't... I had some gender struggles of my own. Certainly nothing like..."

Oprah: "How feminine to BE, how feminine NOT to BE?"

Claire: "Yeah. And I liked a lot of boy things. Certainly not to the degree that Kim did."

Oprah: "Mm hmm. You weren't playing football."

Claire: "No. But yeah... I think I even overcompensated a little bit. I was afraid that people would look at me as lesbian. I mean I've grown out of that."

Oprah: "I think it's also evolving, isn't it? Isn't it changing?" (I assume Oprah means here that society is getting less homophobic/lesbophobic.)

Claire: "Yeah... yeah." (I wonder if Claire takes this to mean "how one's own identity, and comfort with it, is always evolving and changing.)

Oprah: "So that people can just be who they are."

Claire: "It's amazing how much time it takes and how much work it takes, to just shed that... that false exterior."

Oprah [back to Kim]: "Yes, but don't you find that when you shed your false exterior, that the world and your perception of the world also changes?"

Kimberly: "Oh absolutely."

Oprah: "When you change here, it changes."

Kim nods and says "yeah".

Oprah: "Yes, 'cause it responds to you."

Kim: "Yeah." [And she nods throughout what Oprah says next.]

Oprah: "And all the things that you were afraid of, the people you thought would reject you, the people who wouldn't love you any more, still did. The people who were upset and enraged and jealous of you, still are. None of that's changed."

Kim: "Yeah." 

Oprah: "It takes a lot of courage to stand up for who you really are. What I'm hoping is that this hour, number one, inspired you to see the movie--and if you would like to see where it opens in your city, throughout the country, you can go to oprah.com, but also to inspire you to dig in and figure out what's keeping you from being 'the best that you can be', 'cause that's really what we all are here to do--is to become more of ourselves. Thank you for watching today. Thank you."

This is but one snapshot into dominant media's view of transgender experience. To me, it is a typically liberal one, and humanistically liberal in its unquestioned acceptance of being transgender. For a largely non-transgender and middle class audience, I'm happy to see that. I think many white middle class transgender people may feel a bit more validated, if they are in the category of being transgender that Kimberly is.

But most transgender people are NOT like Kimberly. Most are not white, are not middle class, are not "pretty" are not blonde, and are not media-friendly and media-savvy. Kimberly chose to have a film made about her, which indicates a level of comfort with "the camera" that, I, for one, do not share. So what about us? Most people who are termed transgender are not Western, are not EFL speaking, are not educated in the academy, and do not graduate from high school or the equivalent of it. Where are the poor or illiterate white transgender voices? Where are the Asian-born and African-born college-educated transgender voices? Where are the dark-skinned transgender people? The transgender people who are ALSO genderqueer and gender non-conforming? Where are the butch women, period? (Transgender or not transgender?)

What seems clear to me from the program, which is a snapshot that is tossed on a pile of similar snapshots I've seen on network and cable TV, where are those of us who question what gender is as a hierarchy primarily? I was very happy to hear Kimberly address male privileges and entitlements, that she had as a boy. I was thrilled to hear Claire discuss what SHE meant by struggling with her own gender issues.

But does this hour illuminate the lives of most transgender people, who will not seek out surgical or hormonal solutions to their gender dysphoria or transgender identity issues?

What about those of us who are transgender who don't LOVE the term "transgender" because it implies going from male to female or female to male, from woman to man or from man to woman, and that's not the gender journey WE'RE on?

What if "going all the way" doesn't mean getting our genitals reshaped surgically and presenting publicly as the gender we DIDN'T get assigned as a child? What it it means something else altogether?

See Sphere for more. I don't make any claims about it being a person of color-friendly space, a woman-friendly space, a lesbian-friendly space, or a feminist-friendly space, although I suspect it is most, if not all, of those. I also suspect it is comprised mostly of Western white, class-privileged, college-educated people, in part because it is an English-written site. It is designed to be most comfortable for people who do not speak ESL.


In a new post, coming soon, I'm going to compare my own struggles around coming out as gay, with coming out as Jewish, with coming out as white, with coming out as transgender, if, in fact, that's what makes the most emotional/psychological/social/political sense for me to do. Welcome to my coming out process.

It's now a few hours after this post was written, and I've decided, with all my privileges in tact, that what I am is "intergender". I'll explain more of what that is next time the issue of gender and sexuality is discussed here.

On a problem with Queer Identity and Politics: "I'm Here. I'm Anti-Heteropatriarchy and pro-Lesbian Feminist. Get Used To It"

 [this statement is from here, and appears on Carolyn Gage's blog post, excerpted below]

The white radical lesbian-feminist playwright and author of so many other forms of writing, Carolyn Gage, has newly taken to blogging. And we are better for it, as she is, after all, a writer, and her posts are wonderful to read.

I recently commented on one of them, having to do with the anti-lesbianism and anti-radical feminism (and, I'll add here, a rather complete obliviousness to womanism) in white-dominant/dominated queer community and white-dom queer politics. This is an on-going source of dismay and protest by me.

Below are some excerpts from her post, which may and ought to be read in its entirety, *here* @ a post titled "Umbrella Terms: All Wet".

The excerpts are  followed by my commentary. It ought to be noted, I suppose, that this is the first comment in which I "out myself" as transgender. More on this to follow in future posts. Probably soon, now that word is out.
"Queer has become so inclusive that it doesn’t allow the space for lesbians to exist." [-- Susan Hawthorne, white lesbian feminist, activist-publisher-poet]

I am old enough to remember when "men" and "man" were used to mean "men and women." Which is like telling people, "Well, now, when I say 'dog' you know what I really mean is 'dog and cat.'"  No self-respecting cat would fall for that for a nano-second. They would know that it was a political ploy intended to privilege the interests of dogs, erase the traditional animosity between the two species, and, basically, make the cats suck it up.

Sadly, women, and especially lesbians are not cats. We have and continue to fall for it. Imagine a gay man being told, "Okay, so from now on, the term 'lesbian' is going to be the term used to refer to both gay males and lesbians."  No self-respecting gay man would fall for that for a nano-second.  They would know that it's a political ploy to privilege the interest of lesbians, erase the ... well, you get the picture. [...]
Our suffrage sisters could tell us all about false inclusives. How Thomas Jefferson (enslaver and impregnator of an enslaved captive) added the words "all men are created equal" to the Declaration of Independence, and how women were assured that this meant us, also... oh, except for when it didn't... like, for instance, when it came to being able to vote.

What I'm trying to say is that words matter. Toni Cade Bambara, whose work the entire world should know, and whose book The Salt Eaters should supplant Moby Dick... ANYWAY... Toni used to say how she took "acts of language" seriously. We all should. Seriously.

Men are not women. Gays are not lesbians. And... okay, "queer." What about "queer?"  Well... I am not queer. I am not odd or unusual.  To cite another awesome African American goddess, Florynce Kennedy, "I never stopped to wonder why I'm not like other people. The mystery to me is why more people aren't like me." Yeah. What she said. Now, Florynce did not identify as lesbian... so she's not talking about that. But she is talking about how supremely natural it is to be wild, social-justice-loving, inventive, outside-the-box, feral, decolonized, and liberated. Women's natural state. (Color Me Flo, her autobiography, is a great read.)

"Queer" might work for someone who experienced their same-sex attraction as a burden, or an affliction, or a disability... something they were born with and have to learn to live with. "Queer" might fit for someone who views it as a quirky, deviant lifestyle.

My lesbianism feels like a homecoming to me. It feels like a beachhead from which women, all women, can effectively fight for our truths, our lives, and for the planet. In a world where women are still forced to offer up our sexuality and our emotional resources to men, where we are still killed, incarcerated, or faced with the slow-motion violence of poverty for choosing to put women first in our lives, there is nothing queer, odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, freakish, eerie, unnatural; unconventional, unorthodox, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, anomalous, atypical, untypical, out of the ordinary, incongruous, irregular; puzzling, perplexing, baffling, or unaccountable about choosing women. There is something tremendously courageous, with a deep core of integrity about it.

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:36:44 am
Thank you, Carolyn. [Note to A.R.P. readers: this comment has been slightly altered from the original posted on Carolyn's blog, particularly the last sentence.]

I detest[icle] what's been going on in predominantly white male queer communities with the invisibilisation of women-as-women and the marginalisation, derision, and silencing of lesbian women. To say Queer means "Anti-Lesbian" wouldn't be an egregious overstatement, to me.

The only case I know of for some in our non-heterosexual community to reject the term "lesbian" is on eurocentric grounds, by women who are not of european descent and don't see or celebrate the source of their woman-loving as ancient Greek society. I find that to be a legitimate political stance, as eurocentrism rules this country in oppressive, genocidal, and gynocidal ways. [Pardon my Latin and Greek rooted terms.]

Similarly, there are African American who reject the term "gay" and instead choose the term SGL (same gender loving). I find that to be a political "act of language" worth supporting for a variety of reasons. One is that decentering white male supremacist, even if not heterosexist, terminology, is important in this country.

Which brings me to a somewhat problematic, if possibly useful, analogy regarding the term "American".

The term "American" is habitually, ritually, and obviously wrongly used to mean someone born and living in the U.S. Because Argentinians and Mexicans, and, for that matter, Canadians, are ALL Americans.

I have begun to write North American in place of U.S.er, when possible, as a protest of how Africa gets called a country and is considered one safari-filled, single-tribal culture all the damn time by U.S. whites--former loincloth-wearing, gun-toting white bad-boy Ted Nugent being a recent example. I seek, in acts of language, to decenter the U.S. as "a country" and demote it to just being part of a continent. "U.S. out of America" remains one of my favorite bumper stickers, and political ideas. From an Indigenist point of view, what is termed the "United States of America" was and remains "international".

The continents that comprise the Americas are burdened with the celebratory moniker of a pale alien (palien) invader--mystifyingly called an "explorer"--named Amerigo Vespucci. But only the U.S. has a holy-day for the slaver, genocidalist, rapist, and founder of sexual trafficking of girls of color to [soon-to-be-white] men, the savage, barbaric palien Christopher Columbus.

Carolyn, we know this is just another case of the ol' whiteboys not being able to admit "I'm lost" and drop the sky-godly ego to ask for directions, because to ask would mean they'd have had to admit the people (about whom they then sent word to the homeland for reinforcements to slaughter) were, in fact, more knowledgeable human beings than they were. And we know how much whiteboys hate having to do THAT.

So, white supremacists insist that anyone who comes to the U.S. MUST learn "American" English and ought to consider themselves un-hyphenated Americans. (Never mind that these Americans are pre-hyphenated, as U.S.-Americans.)

The tyranny of queerness is that it prioritises a politic of inclusivity within Homo (meaning "Man") Palien (meaning pale invader and occupier) supremacy and dominance over a politic of liberation from Homo Palien supremacy and dominance. Indeed, the term itself ensures and enforces marginalisation, and, as you note, quoting Flo: isn't THE PROBLEM that THEY (the Homo Palien invader-occupiers) aren't more like the racially, ethnically, and sexually marginalised and oppressed?

I agree with you that the quandary of queerness is that it further invisibilises, stigmatises, and shames lesbian existence, and practically burns at the stake anyone who cheerfully, if not queerfully, mentions lesbian-feminism, let alone RADICAL lesbian feminism. Talking about raining on a Pride parade! (I can hear the queer-cheerers striking their matches as I type this.)

As a radically profeminist white gay male who may or may not be transgender, I resist and reject the holy and, as you say, holey queer umbrella as pro-patriarchal, and anti-lesbian.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

On Palien vs. Indigenist paradigms for saving the planet: scientist whiteboy Gwynne Dyer and ecofeminist (and scientist) Dr. Vandana Shiva

 [photograph of ecofeminist, philosopher, author, scientist, Dr.Vandana Shiva is from here]

For more on Vandana Shiva's work and appearances on the U.S. West Coast, please go to this website.
For her website for the U.S., please visit www.vandanashiva.org/.
For her organisation website, please visit www.navdanya.org/.

It's not ALL here, but on some level, this video tells the tale about the arrogance and ignorance of the Global North, dominated by hetero Homo Palians (WHM), and the Global South, which has lots of woman-led Indigenist activism fighting for survival of Gaia. The Global North has Indigenist activism too, of course. In both hemispheres, we know who controls political and economic systems, and who doesn't. WHM do, and so their paradigms rule--but not in a "cool" way. And not in a way that will responsibly cool the Earth.

Pay attention to the moment where Gwynne Dyer, someone who whites in the U.S. would probably consider "a good guy" calls ecofeminist Vandana Shiva, "ridiculous". Yeah, about that matter of being unsustainably ridiculous. Proponents and protectors of the Patriarchal Palian Paradigm (the PPP) wrote, republish, and mass distribute the damn book on it, putting out free, non-biodegradable copies along with the New Testament to brainwash everyone else. Note how Mr. Dyer apparently "makes sense" except, well, that he doesn't really once you REALLY listen to what Ms. Shiva has to say.

What follows is from *here* at Democracy Now.


Guests:
Gwynne Dyer, freelance journalist and specialist on international affairs and geopolitics. His latest book is, "Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats."
Vandana Shiva, Indian environmentalist, scientist, philosopher, global justice activist and eco–feminist.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Gwynne Dyer, he’s author of Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats and Vandana Shiva joins us, an Indian environmentalist, scientist, philosopher, global justice activist and eco-feminist. A longtime critic of genetically modified crops and the system of corporate driven agriculture and neoliberal globalization that’s privatized natural resources and impoverished farming and indigenous communities across the global south. Well we’re talking about geoengineering. You just came from giving a speech last night at St. John the Divine. What are your thoughts on geoengineering, Vandana Shiva?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well, three thoughts. The first is, it is the idea of being able to engineer our lives on this very fragile and complex and interrelated and interconnected planet that’s created the mess we are in. It’s an engineering paradigm that created the fossil fuel age that gave us climate change. And Einstein warned us and said you can’t solve problems with the same mindset that created them. Geo-engineering is trying to solve the problems of the same, old mindset of controlling nature. And the phrase that was used, of cheating, let’s cheat—you can’t cheat nature. That’s something people should recognize by now. There is no cheating possible. Eventually the laws of Gaia determine the final outcome. But I think the second thing about geo-engineering is, we’ve just had the volcano in Iceland, yes it was Iceland. And look at the collapse of the economy. And here are scientists thinking that’s a solution? Because they are thinking in a one dimensional way. Linear issue of global warming, anything to do with global cooling. I work on ecological agriculture. We need that sun light for photosynthesis. The geoengineers don’t realize sunshine is not a curse on the planet. The sun is not the problem, the problem is the mess of pollution we are creating. So again we can’t cheat.
And the final issue is, that these shortcuts that are attempted from places of power, and I would add places of ignorance, of the ecological web of life, are then creating the war solution because geo-engineering becomes war on a planetary scale with ignorance and blind spots, instead of taking the real path, which is helping communities adapt and become resilient. That’s the work we do in India. We save the seeds that will be able to deal with sea level rise or cyclones so that we have soil tolerant varieties; we distributed them after the tsunami. Last year we had a monsoon failure. But instead of sending armies out, we distributed seeds. And the farmers who had seeds of millets had a crop. The farmers who were waiting for the green revolution chemical cultivation had a crop failure. So building resilience and building adaptation is the human response, it’s the ecological response. And we don’t have to panic. The panic and fear is coming out of ignorance.
JUAN GONAZLEZ: I’d like to ask you about the—something you’ve talked about quite often—the global land grab that is going on around the world by countries fearing the scarcity in terms of their food products going out and grabbing other countries’ lands. Could you talk about that?
VANDANA SHIVA: You know my last book, "Soil, Not Oil" I talk about the fact that, you know, the oil culture has given us climate change. And if we continue in that same paradigm, the only next step is eco-imperialism. Grab what remains of the resources of the poor and take it to create insularity, and a false defense of security. Because the planet is interconnected, our lives are interconnected. The rich cannot isolate themselves in islands of defense against a planetary instability. The other option is earth democracy, as I talk about it. Now those who have power and money and those who are driven by greed and injustice are now seeking to grab the land of the poor. It’s happening on a very large scale in Africa, it’s happening in India. The World Bank is promoting it because this is a very false idea, that large-scale farms will help us with food security with all the details showing smaller farms produce more food. So if you have to be food secure, you’d better be small. Diversified farms can deal with climate change much better because if one crop doesn’t do well, some other crop will do fine. And the monoculture of large farms will be more vulnerable to climate collapse. And, of course the biggest issue is half the world farms, you can’t rob them of their livelihoods.
Forget the running out of water and climate wars related to water wars, you’re going to have, you’re already having in India, as a result of the land grab, in this case more for mining and industry, what we’re seeing is a war within. And Operation Green Hunt has been launched by the government in order to clean out the lands to be able to grab the lands on behalf of corporations. We talked about the Kashmir crisis and the shootouts. But those scenes are taking place in every remote tribal area today. And that issue of war for resources, that as long as you’re powerful you have the right to grab anyone’s resources and you have a right to use all kinds of illegitimate violence, that militarized mindset that I say comes from capitalist patriarchy, is really at the root of so many of our problems which is why we need to feel at home with nature and we need to recognize that the resources of the earth belong to all, have to be shared. In the land rights of the poor defenseless indigenous person is the biggest peace initiative of today and it’s the biggest climate issue of today.

AMY GOODMAN: Gwynne Dyer, defined and defend geoengineering and tell us which governments are engaging in it.
GWYNNE DYER: First of all, Vandana and I agree on about 95%.
VANDANA SHIVA:—We agree about the problem, that there is a problem.
GWYNNE DYER: Yes, we agree about the problem, and I don’t disagree with any of her solutions. But I do not think they’re going to happen in time if we do not intervene directly as well to avoid a massive human dieback in population. We are heading for the brink very fast.
VANDANA SHIVA: But your solutions commit the planet to a massive dieback.
GWYNNE DYER: I don’t agree with you.—Holding the temperature down is an intervention. It is an intervention that’s intended to be temporary, it wins you time to get your emissions down. The goal is still to get it emissions down. Many of the other goals you and I agree upon are attainable, but only with time, and we don’t have the time. We’re going to be—the last report out of Hadley Center suggested on the current track, we are four degrees Celsius hotter, average global temperature by 2016, that’s only 50 years.
VANDANA SHIVA: But Gwynne, everyone of your solutions is further disrupting the web of lifee, which is the problem. The problem is not warming and cooling, we can survive, the planet can survive.
GWYNNE DYER: Of course the it can-–not all of us.
VANDANA SHIVA:—Not all of us, but the problem is that geoengineering is an experiment. It is not a solution. And you cannot experiment in such a violent way without full assessment of the impact. And as I said, just a simple thing a blocking the sun’s rays is a problem for the planet. Its a problem for humanity...
GWYNNE DYER:—You’re talking 1% I mean you are talking one percent-–
VANDANA SHIVA: But iron filings—
GWYNNE DYER:—I don’t like iron filings-–...that is ridiculous.
VANDANA SHIVA: But iron filings in the ocean-–
GWYNNE DYER:—that is ridiculous.
VANDANA SHIVA:—Reflectors in the sky? Or Artificial Volcanoes.. But thats [inaduble]. Everyone of them, if the solution is looked at, all its spinoffs, in a full ecological way, and a full social impact, what does it mean? And the most important thing is its undemocratic. I think the crisis of the climate is so serious that people need to be involved. The problem of geoengineering or genetic engineering is a bunch of experts sitting with a bunch of corporations saying we’ll decide on behalf of the people. That is part of the problem. That is why I really respect Evo Morales, he called the people of the world after the collapse of Copenhagen, and said the people will decide the solution.
GWYNNE DYER: The people of the world will not decide you know that and I know that. This is not..
VANDANA SHIVA:—But they are deciding.
GWYNNE DYER: I havn’t noticed yet—–.
VANDANA SHIVA: Well there’s a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth that came out of that amazing gathering that we need to shift to an earth centered paradigm—rathter than an arrogant, narrow, reductionist, mechanistic science, expert-based paradigm.—
GWYNNE DYER:—You know what will happen, you know what will happen—
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to interrupt for a second, to say Gwynne Dyer if you can explain—I don’t most people understand what geoengineering is.
GWYNNE DYER: Geoengineering is short-term interventions to avoid a climate runaway disaster, in order to give us more time to get our emissions down, which in themselves, will cause a runaway, climate disaster if we simply allow them to go ahead. Without geoengineering, you hit that disaster in less than 50 years. You probably need more than 50 years to get your emissions down. Now first of all, obiously, you got to do the experiments. You got to figure out are there horrendous side effects you don’t want to do. But if you don’t do this, you know who dies first? Its the people in the tropics and subtropics. Not up here. We watch you die on television.
JUAN GONAZLEZ: Can I ask you in terms of geoengineering, what companies or are what governments are promoting this as a potential solution?
GWYNNE DYER: We still don’t have any official government commitment to it anywhere.
JUAN GONAZLEZ: What companies are investing in it and developing it?
GWYNNE DYER: Companies are investing in a couple of marginal things, frankly I don’t believe have any credibility. Vandana mentioned iron filings chucked into the sea. Well, I don’t think thats—
AMY GOODMAN: What does that do?
GWYNNE DYER: Well the idea is that you cause blooms of algae which will then die, and as their bodies drop to the seabed, imbed carbon—in the seabed and take it out of the oxygen.
AMY GOODMAN: And volcanoes what are they?
GWYNNE DYER: Well the volcanoe, the idea is that It all came as when they explode put sulfur dioxide-when volcanoes explode, put sulfur dioxide, large amounts of it, into the stratosphere, where it stays for a couple of years because it doesn’t rain up there. The particles stay and they reflect enough sunlight to lower the temperature of the earth.
AMY GOODMAN: And seeding the clouds?
GWYNNE DYER: Seeding the clouds is make them more reflective, spray up some sea water on low-lying clouds and they’ll reflect a little bit more incoming sunlight than they did before-–
AMY GOODMAN: And what else?
GWYNNE DYER:—And lower the temprature. The other proposals I mention, you know paint the outer reefs green or white, but I think thats probably a one-time solution.
VANDANA SHIVA:—I wouldn’t object to that.
CROSS TALK:
VANDANA SHIVA: What color you paint it doesn’t really matter—I wouldn’t object to that.
GWYNNE DYER: There’s a new one thats come up recently, a fellow at Harvard suggested that you could actually begin with rivers and resevoirs but put rather microscopic scale bubbbles into the water, which would whiten it. In other words it would reflect more sunlight than normal dark water does, without actually changing the quality of the water.
AMY GOODMAN: And as Juan asked, the corporations involved?
GWYNNE DYER: In none of these cases, so far, are there corporations involved. This is coming out of the scientific community. There-–
AMY GOODMAN: Is it also coming out of the Pentagon?
GWYNNE DYER: They are looking for links with both the Pentagon I think, and the scientific community, with corporate funding. But the initiatives are coming out of the scientific community. The scientific community is scared and desperate. There’s an undercurrent of panic in most of the interviews that I held with the scientists—.
AMY GOODMAN: Vandana, Gwynne’s argument there is just not enough time to talk about the people-oriented solutions are you are talking about?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well the first thing is, there is never enough time, but you have to find a solutions. To use the excuse of immediacy and urgency to take the wrong action is not a solution. In terms of time, wheat orgaic farming, again in my book "Soil Not Oil" we have shown localized ecological biodiverse system of farming could solve 40% of the climate problem because 40% of the emissions are coming from food mills, oxide emissions, cutting down the Amazon forests, all it to globalized and industrialized food system. Tomorrow we can do that. In three years’ time, all of the world’s farming could be ecological absorbing the carbon dioxide and putting fertility back in the soil. It is not a 50-year experiment, it is an assured, guaranteed path that it’s been shown to work. And it does three things for you. It reduces emissions while increasing food security and productivity and increasing water security, because soils rich in carbon and organic matter, are the best resevoirs of water. But I want to just mention-–just as there’re a group of scientists panicking because of the reductionist approach,—I’m a scientist. The reason I do ecology today is because I realize science was a shrinking in terms of the knowledge an individual gets in a particular stream. And so many of the narrow expertise is where you are getting this panic because they don’t know there’re other solutions. I’d love to take some of your geoengineering friends from the scientific community to our farm, to show here is a solution that works in the short run, in the an immediate run. There is an organized movement now—
GWYNNE DYER: I don’t think—
VANDANA SHIVA: I want to mention this, there is a movement against geoengineering called HOME: Hands of Mother Earth. Citizens telling irresponsible scientists, arrogant in their path, hands off mother earth.
GWYNNE DYER: Look your solutions are good. They will work. If you were the dictator of the world and could impose...
VANDANA SHIVA:—Which I would never be.
GWYNNE DYER:—But let me finish, if you were the dictator of the world and could change land ownership patterns in the U.S. like that, you could have it all done in three years-–
VANDANA SHIVA: It will happen.
GWYNNE DYER: You can’t do that.
VANDANA SHIVA: It will happen.
GWYNNE DYER: Not in three years, in thirty.
VANDANA SHIVA: The young people will they are ready to make change.
AMY GOODMAN: We will leave it there, Vandana Shiva, her books, well among them "Soil Not Oil" and Gwynne Dyer, "Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats."

Why are U.S. male serial rapist-killers of women and girls of all colors, in and out of the military--both soldiers and civilians, called superheros, not terrorists?

[image of photos of women raped and murdered 
by Lonnie David Franklin, Jr., over decades, is from here]

Pictured above:
Debra Jackson, 29
Henrietta Wright, 35
Barbara Ware, 23
Bernita Sparks, age unknown
Mary Lowe, 26
Lachrica Jefferson, 22
Alicia Alexander, 18
Princess Berthomieux, 15
Valerie McCorvey, 35
and Janecia Peters, 25 
 (Also pictured, Thomas Steele, from 1987.)

Answer to this blog post's title question:
Because the U.S. government and dominant society values and requires the serial rape and mass murder of women, so these men will be regarded with a perverse kind of awe and respect. These men's acts, always described as done by sick individuals, or "bad apples", cannot be any more sick or rotten than the institutions and systems of abuse, violation, degradation, subordination, and slaughter that support their actions by reinforcing and protecting the values, attitudes, behaviors, and structural power that allows men to rape and kill women, serially or not, but always politically, and always terroristically. Why aren't rapist-murderers called terrorists? Because the U.S. media prefers to identify the population from which terrorists come as non-U.S.-born people of color who are not Christian. And according to the U.S. government and media, the term "terrorist" simply and absurdly cannot apply to a person who is militarily fighting for the protection of freedom and democracy  maintenance of genocidal/gynocidal U.S. government and its dominant society.

What we know is that the rape and murder of one "good" white woman with class privilege will garner national, and international, media attention-rapt attention, obsessive and exploitive, attention. But the victim will be named as a person, an individual, a human being, if white and not poor or a prostitute. Not so when Black women are killed even when they are not poor, are not prostitutes, and don't have, as the press calls it, "troubled lifestyles", as if all they needed was a lifestyle makeover, not a radical societal transformation. If anyone, female, trans, intersex, or male, is trapped in systems and cycles of drug abuse and prostitution, the P.I.M.P.s, W.I.M.P.s, dealers of illegal drugs will not be seen as complicit in the demise of their lives, even though they are. Patriarchal and white supremacist institutions--all dominant social institutions, including media, will not be seen as complicit, because our society isn't set up to hold "a system of gross exploitation, rape, and murder" accountable, not an institution that fosters and enforces the invisibilisation of Black women as people in the minds of dominant U.S. Americans.

Only one man will now be charged with their murder, which means the physical, emotional, and sexual abusers and drug dealers in these women's "troubled" lives, if abused and addicted; the capitalists who ensure their impoverishment, if poor; the pimps and procurers, the rulers and profiteers of the systems of racist-misogynistic exploitation and degradation, such as the pornography industry; and the institutions and businesses--legal and illegal, will be free to do more harm, making human rights, civil rights, and simple recognition by a dominant society that a person is a person, impossible for a global, national, or local group of people who are both Black and women.

When can we expect the value of a poor Black woman, anywhere in the world, be equal to the value of any white person or any man? I don't know. But I know that telling the media that they are complicit, telling the pimps and procurers, the profiteers and the politicians, the media and press moguls that they are complicit, would be like screaming in a sound-proof booth. What is especially horrible and terrifying is that whenever a Black woman in her teens, twenties, or thirties screams for help, there is less dominant social support and assistance for her than for anyone else, except, perhaps, the children and the elderly who are poor, Black, and female. How little white wealthy men know about what it is to be seen and treated, daily, by society, as worth nothing at all, unless it is to be used and abused as a thing for men's sometimes murderous pleasure.

I don't want Lonnie David Franklin, Jr. to have a superhero comic book's name like "The Grim Sleeper". I want him to be remembered as the killer of many women whose lives will likely not be regarded as worth much whether they remained alive or were raped and killed, except by their loved ones. And I don't want U.S. soldiers in any of the armed services, to be welcomed home as heroes if they've raped and murdered any women of color. Will the President and other military leaders agree to not give a hero's welcome to such men? Will media agree to stop giving serial killers "cool" names?

One woman who has been putting a lot of effort, using media resources, including her radio program, to promote awareness of the racism, sexism, and classism of how murder is reported in this country, is Margaret Prescod. A bit more information about her in relation to this murder case is from *here* at democraticunderground.com.

Margaret Prescod, who founded the Black Coalition Fighting Black Serial Murders and worked heavily with the families of the victims in the case, told CNN she spoke with the Grim Sleeper Task Force who informed her of the arrest Wednesday. Prescod said Det. Dennis Kilcoyne, head of the task force, told her that unlike a previous arrest in the case that turned out to be wrong, he was sure they had gotten their man this time.

"He told me that what they have is very solid," Prescod said.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/07/grim.sleeper.arrest...




I like the way CNN fails to tell there listeners / readers that Margret Prescod has a radio show on KPFK!


Sojourner Truth with Margaret Prescod



Tues - Fri 7:00-8:00 AM
HOST: Margaret Prescod
PRODUCER: Margaret Prescod
http://kpfk.org/programs/142-sojournertruth.html

From the Black Coalition Fighting Black Serial Murders website:

Did you know that the serial murders of Black women* have been going on unresolved in South L.A. since the 1980s? Law enforcement has divided the murders into three sets, but the time periods overlap and it isn’t even clear how many women have actually lost their lives in this brutal and vicious way.
Because the killings were not connected as serial murders, the tragic enormity of the situation has been hidden and downplayed, and vital evidence, connections and patterns may have been missed. Public and media attention which would have been greater if the total numbers of deaths had been known, would have spurred the police into a more vigorous investigation. Lives might have been saved and the community better protected from further attacks.

Families of several of the victims were never notified by law enforcement that their loved ones were killed by a serial murderer—and neither was the lone survivor of the attacks. Each was made to believe that it had been a random killer. Many families had to learn from press articles or from television! Crucial patterns of evidence have been missed.

Why was so little done in 20 years to solve these murders? If the murders had not happened in South L.A. against working-class Black women but in Beverly Hills or some other affluent neighborhood would they have been handled with the same lack of care and seriousness, would they be so under-reported by the media? What do you think?
 
What follows next is from *here* at the Los Angeles Times

DNA leads to arrest in Grim Sleeper killings


LAPD task force traces evidence from a slice of pizza to Lonnie David Franklin Jr., 57, whom neighbors call 'a very good man.'

By Maura Dolan, Joel Rubin and Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

For well over two decades, the killer had eluded police. His victims, most of them prostitutes in South Los Angeles, had lived on the margins of society, and their deaths left few useful clues aside from the DNA of the man who had sexually assaulted them in the moments before their deaths.

A sweep of state prisons in 2008 failed to come up with the killer or anyone related to him. Then, last Wednesday, startling news came to the LAPD: A second "familial search" of prisons had come up with a convict whose DNA indicated that he was a close relative of the serial killer suspected of killing at least 10 women.

Working through the Fourth of July weekend, LAPD detectives drew up a family tree of the prisoner, then began analyzing all the men on it. Were they the right age? Did they live near the murder scenes? Was there anything in their background to explain why the serial killer had apparently stopped killing for 13 years, then resumed in 2003?

From that painstaking process, according to LAPD officials who requested anonymity, the prisoner's father emerged as a likely suspect. An undercover team was sent to follow him; they retrieved a discarded slice of pizza to analyze his DNA. On Tuesday, they confirmed that it matched the DNA of the suspect in the killings.

On Wednesday, police went to the South L.A. home of Lonnie David Franklin Jr., 57, and arrested him without incident, authorities said.

Franklin is charged with 10 counts of murder in the deaths of Debra Jackson, 29, Henrietta Wright, 35, Barbara Ware, 23, Bernita Sparks, age unknown, Mary Lowe, 26, Lachrica Jefferson, 22, Alicia Alexander, 18, Princess Berthomieux, 15, Valerie McCorvey, 35, and Janecia Peters, 25. He is also charged with one count of attempted murder, apparently stemming from the assault on the only victim who is known to have survived.

The killer was dubbed the "Grim Sleeper" by the L.A. Weekly.

As word of the arrest spread across South Los Angeles, neighbors and relatives of the victims began to gather near Franklin's home, and a contradictory picture of the suspect emerged.

Franklin was a garage attendant at the LAPD's 77th Street Division station in the early 1980s, according to city and police sources. He worked as a garbage collector for the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation during the years that the first eight killings occurred, beginning with the death of Jackson on Aug. 10, 1985, and ending with the death of Alexander on Sept. 11, 1988.

Franklin has at least four prior convictions, two for felony possession of stolen property in 1993 and 2003, one for misdemeanor battery in 1997, and one for misdemeanor assault in 1999, according to court records. He was sentenced to a year in jail for the first stolen property charge and 270 days for the second one.

On a tidy street of single-family homes in South Los Angeles where Franklin lived for decades, residents described him as a kind and compassionate neighbor who volunteered in the community, helped elderly residents of the block and fixed their cars for free.

"A very good man. His daughter just graduated from college, I believe," said Eric Robinson, 47. "He's a good mechanic, worked out of his garage. I've been here since 1976 — that's how long I've known him. I'm not pretty shocked, I'm all the way shocked."

Dante Combs, 27, said he visited Franklin last week to ask him to install a timing belt on his car.

"You needed your car fixed, he'd do it dirt cheap. He'd help you out however he could, cut your grass, put up your Christmas lights," Combs said as he stood behind the yellow crime tape that sealed off Franklin's block. "He helped all the elderly on the block."

In the afternoon, families of Grim Sleeper victims began arriving on the block. Many of the killings occurred not far from Franklin's home, and the family members said they needed to come to his home to bear witness.

"She was found on Western and 92nd, in a dumpster," Diane McQueen, 55, said as she stood behind the crime tape, clutching a funeral program for her niece Peters, the last victim attributed to the serial killer. "It hit my family real hard. I had lost hope this day would come. I feel a lot of joy it did at last."

"I wanted to see what his house looked like, what his neighborhood looked like, the place where he grew up," Donnell Alexander, 47, brother of victim Alicia "Monique" Alexander. " It was curiosity. What I found was that it wasn't far from where I grew up. His neighbors looked like the people I see every day. They weren't aliens. And he wasn't hiding in the community."

In announcing the arrests, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley praised the LAPD and the California Department of Justice, which carried out the DNA "familial search" after Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown approved the use of the relatively new tool.

Only California and Colorado have formal policies that permit the use of software to look for DNA profiles of possible relatives of a suspect.

After years of futility, the LAPD stepped up its investigation of the serial killing case in 2007 when Police Chief Charlie Beck's predecessor, William J. Bratton, formed a task force to work exclusively on the case.

With so many years having passed since the killer first struck and the police only belatedly linking the long string of victims to a single killer, the team of detectives was left at a severe disadvantage. Investigators pored over old case files in search of important clues that might have been overlooked. They tried to re-create the seedy, violent world of South Los Angeles in the 1980s that the early victims and killer had inhabited.

One after another, leads that at first seemed to hold promise dissolved frustratingly into dead ends. But with public pressure mounting, the detectives tried whatever approaches they could, however seemingly farfetched.

They asked undercover vice officers to collect DNA samples from middle-aged African Americans arrested for soliciting prostitutes, hoping to identify a suspect.

The entire department was put on notice that members of the task force were to be summoned to homicide scenes that resembled the work of the serial killer in any way.

Most tantalizing was a 911 phone call an LAPD operator received in 1987. The caller said he had seen a man dump Ware's body out of the back of a van into an alley and gave the vehicle's license plate before hanging up. On the night of the call, the van was traced back to a now-defunct church in the area, but detectives at the time failed to pursue the lead aggressively, much to the dismay of Det. Dennis Kilcoyne, who headed the task force.

Kilcoyne and his team tried, 20 years later, to breathe life back into the investigation of the van. Detectives tracked down about 10 men associated with the church and took DNA samples to test against the suspected killers.

A visit to the retired deacon at his home outside of Macon, Ga., turned up nothing, as did a visit to a Florida prison.

The hunt epitomized the agonizing slog the detectives faced day in and day out.

"We never gave up on this investigation, not for one minute," Beck said in a statement issued by his office. "Our detectives worked relentlessly, following up on every lead they received. Their hard work has resulted in today's apprehension of this vicious killer. I am hopeful that the hard work of these men and women will bring some closure to the families who tragically lost loved ones during the last 23 years."

Times staff writers Hector Becerra, Andrew Blankstein, Robert Faturechi , Jack Leonard, Ann M. Simmons and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Happy 70th Birthday to Ringo Starr, and thanks for not giving a sh*t about the P.O.P.E.'s message

[photograph of Ringo Starr is from here]

Seventy years ago Richard Starkey was born, had a childhood plagued with illness, and found his way to a drum set. Almost fifty years ago Ringo Starr became a Beatle, replacing Pete Best. (Well, officially in the summer of 1962, although he'd filled in a bit here and there prior to that, and he knew the other lads as they were all in bands prior to being the final line-up of the best pop-rock band ever.)

Not being the generation who watched Beatlemania spread across the Atlantic, I got into their music as a teenager approximately thirty years ago. I fell in love with the Fab Four as soon as I'd heard a few albums and the honeymoon isn't over yet.

For all you have given and continue to give of yourself, I love you, Ringo! Rock on.

What follows is from *here*.

Ringo Starr to celebrate 70th birthday, isn't moved by Vatican praise

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Posted by Corinne Heller at 12:17:59 PM PDT

Ringo Starr to celebrate 70th birthday, isn't moved by Vatican praise Ringo Starr turns 70 on Wednesday but says that he feels like a 24-year-old and that he doesn't care about the Catholic Church's praise of the Beatles' music, an apparent "peace offering" following John Lennon's controversial 1966 remark, in which he said the group was more popular than Jesus.

"It didn’t affect me in any way, but I do believe that the Vatican have better things to deal with than forgiving the Beatles," Starr told The New York Times. "I don’t remember what it actually said — it had some weird piece in it, too," he said. "That they’ve forgiven us for being, what, satanic? Whoever wrote it was thinking about the Stones."

Speaking of the Beatles, the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said earlier this year. "It’s true, they took drugs; swept up by their success, they lived dissolute and uninhibited lives. Listening to their songs, all of this seems distant and meaningless. Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels."

The newspaper had praised the British rock group in 2008 as well and had said then that Lennon had been showing off by making his remarks.

Starr, who is on his 11th All Starr Band tour of the United States, echoed a previous request for fans to put their fingers up and say "peace and love" on his birthday.

If you're on a bus, if you're on a boat, at noon, where ever you are, just go, 'Peace and love, peace and love.' That's your birthday gift to me. How great is that?" Starr said in a video message on his website.

He told The New York Times that "as far as I’m concerned, in my head, I’m 24. That’s just how it is. The number, yeah, it’s high. But I just felt I’ve got to celebrate it. I’m on my feet and I’m doing what I love to do, and I’m in a profession, as a musician, where we can go on for as long as we can go on."

Starr received a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame in February. He was also recently honored by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is displaying his gold-plated snare drum that he used while still performing with the Beatles until the end of 2010.

After the Beatles broke up in 1970, Starr launched several music and television projects of his own, as did his former band-mates.

In the 1980s, Starr voiced the role of beloved British children's television character "Thomas the Tank Engine". He released his 16th solo album, Y NOT, which features guest vocals from McCartney, 68, and other famous musicians earlier this year.

Former Beatle George Harrison died from cancer at age 58 in 2001. Lennon was shot dead outside his New York home in 1980.

The Dalai Lama (who turned 75 yesterday) on U.S. Wars and Tibet

All that follows is from Democracy Now, *here*.

As Dalai Lama Marks 75th Birthday, A Look at His Views on the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Tibet

Dalai-lama
The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama turned 75 years old yesterday. The Nobel Peace Prize winner addressed a crowd of thousands gathered to celebrate the occasion at a temple in the Indian Himalayas where he as lived since fleeing Chinese rule in Tibet in 1959. At a recent event in New York, Amy Goodman asked him his thoughts on the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the status of Tibet. We also speak with Dr. Robert Thurman, professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia University and president of Tibet House US.

Guess Who's Making Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, a Much Wealthier Man? Yup, the U.S. Government's Defence Department

Quantcast Quantcast
 All that follows if from The Washington Post *here*.

BP has steady sales at Defense Department despite U.S. scrutiny

BP, the government and an army of volunteers are fighting to contain and clean the millions of gallons of oil spewing from the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.



Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 5, 2010 
 
The Defense Department has kept up its immense purchases of aviation fuel and other petroleum products from BP even as the oil company comes under scrutiny for potential violations of federal and state laws related to Gulf of Mexico well explosion, according to U.S. and company officials.

President Obama said last month that the company's "recklessness" in the gulf contributed to the disaster, and he promised that BP will "pay for the damage." Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on June 2 that Justice Department lawyers were looking into possible violations of civil and criminal statutes. "If we find evidence of illegal behavior, we will be forceful in our response," he said.

BP, meanwhile, remains a heavy supplier of military fuel under contracts worth at least $980 million in the current fiscal year, according to the Defense Logistics Agency. In fiscal 2009, BP was the Pentagon's largest single supplier of fuel, providing 11.7 percent of the total purchased, and in 2010, its contracts amount to roughly the same percentage, according to DLA spokeswoman Mimi Schirmacher.

"BP is an active participant in multiple ongoing Defense Logistics Agency acquisition programs," Schirmacher said, without providing details. BP spokesman Robert Wine said he was aware of at least one "big contract" signed by the U.S. military after the oil rig explosion on April 20, involving the supply of multiple fuels for its operations in Europe.

So far, members of Congress have discussed barring BP from any new oil and gas drilling leases, not from fuel sales to the government. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said last week that he would introduce legislation to shut BP out of such leases for the next seven years, as punishment for what he described as "serial" legal violations. But Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in a statement that "the U.S. government needs to look at all possible options when it comes to showing BP, or any corporate bad actor, that a continued culture of cost cutting and increased risk taking will absolutely not be tolerated."

Even before the gulf debacle, the Environmental Protection Agency had begun to explore cutting off BP from all federal contracts -- including those with the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which buys all fuel for the military services. The EPA plays the lead role in debarment proceedings related to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and its probe was sparked by BP's 2006 oil spill in Alaska and a 2005 explosion at a refinery in Texas.

The EPA's deliberations, however, are suspended until the gulf spill investigations conclude, according to an EPA spokeswoman. The agency may decide to shut off federal contracts with specific divisions within BP, or with the whole company "if it is in the public interest to do so," it said in May. Any such action would be meant to punish "environmental noncompliance or other misconduct," it said.

Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA lawyer who until recently oversaw the review of BP's possible debarment, has said she initially supported taking such action but held off after an official at the Defense Department warned her that the Pentagon depended heavily on BP fuel for its operations in the Middle East. "My contact at DESC, another attorney, told me that BP was supplying approximately 80 percent of the fuel being used to move U.S. forces" in the region, Pascal said. She added that "BP was very fortunate in that there is an exception when the U.S. is involved in a military action or a war."

Pascal then sought a settlement to allow contracting with BP while forcing the company to elevate an internal office dealing with health, safety and environmental issues within its corporate structure. She also demanded that the company keep an ombudsman, retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin, whom BP first hired after the Alaska spill but had sought to let go. BP resisted both demands, and the talks were stalemated when the Deepwater Horizon rig sank, Pascal said.

"At some point, debarment attorneys throughout the government need to look at BP's record," she said. "This is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. . . . Do we want to do business with this foreign corporation, which has a horrendous record of chronically violating U.S. law? You have to look at the overall behavior pattern."

A spokeswoman for the Defense Department, Wendy L. Snyder, gave a different account of the internal debarment discussions. She said the Defense Logistics Agency "informed the EPA that there are adequate procedures and processes to protect the U.S. military missions should EPA determine that BP should be debarred." That claim was reinforced by Schirmacher, who said that "none of BP's current energy contracts are in direct support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that the department could meet its requirements without BP fuel. But she indicated that the Pentagon had no intention of taking such action in the absence of an EPA decision.

Wine, the BP spokesman, said that although he is not familiar with details of the company's negotiations with EPA, Sporkin's tenure was extended earlier this year until the middle of 2011. He did not challenge Pascal's claim that BP's health, safety and environmental unit had been moved lower on the corporate structure before the gulf spill, reporting to the head of a business unit instead of directly to the top executive. But, Wine said, "what difference does that make?"

"Safety comes through the organization through every root," he said, and remains "paramount in every part of the business."

Several federal agencies have continuing contracts with BP, although none worth as much as the Pentagon's. Since 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration has contracted to spend at least $2.26 million to station weather, communications and aerial surveillance devices on several BP platforms in the gulf, including the Atlantis oil production platform roughly 100 miles from Deepwater Horizon's former location. Critics, including a former BP contractor, have alleged that the Atlantis was built without proper safety controls, which BP denies.

FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said that BP's environmental and legal record was not a consideration in her agency's contracts. The Atlantis platform was selected "based purely on how it would support air traffic," she said.