The Word's on the Streets and it's on the News.

The Semester of Living Biblically

2009-08-11T10:18:00.003-04:00

I just finished reading The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University, an interesting look at Liberty University, the country’s largest evangelical college, located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Liberty’s the school founded by Jerry Falwell, he who famously denounced the purple Tellytubby Tinky-Winky as a raging homo and blamed the September 11 terror attacks on feminists, abortionists and, naturally, gays. Kevin Roose, a charming writer who’ll graduate this December from Brown University, decided to take a semester off from Brown and study “abroad,” enrolling at Liberty, committed to understanding how the rather large evangelical community in our country lives and works.

While there, Roose experienced a lot of what you would expect from a religious university filled with conservative students – the “fag” jokes were out of control (a point that Roose emphasized repeatedly, mentioning homophobia in nearly every chapter), a half inch of too much cleavage made a girl an immoral slut, and “I’ll pray for (insert cause or person here)” was tossed around like “good morning.” Roose also experienced some of the more startling elements of Liberty: he attended sessions of Every Man’s Battle, a self-help group for chronic masturbators; he listened to Falwell poo-poo global warming, debunking it as a myth; he took “History of Life” classes, where he learned that evolution is a media conspiracy and the Bible has the correct answer on every issue in the world; and he attended a trip where he and his peers witnessed to horny, drunk Spring Breakers, trying to show them that they too can be saved. He even survived The Liberty Way, the rulebook at the university, which bans R-rated movies, hugs that last longer than three seconds, kissing and cursing.

And despite all of these ultra-conservative aspects to Liberty, Roose reflected, in the end, that it really wasn’t all that bad. The Liberty Way provided him with structure, ensuring that he completed his studies without getting distracted by alcohol, parties or other things standard in secular higher education. He truly enjoyed daily prayer and, perhaps more so, the way it felt to know that someone was keeping him in their prayers. He even saw benefits in the lack of physical contact with girls – because he knew that hand-holding was as far as he could get with a girl on any given date, he found himself genuinely interested in her personality and life instead of figuring out a way into her pants.

Most importantly, Roose discovered that all of the stereotypes about evangelical students were not true. Sure, many were homophobic or traditionalist, and many sincerely felt bad for non-evangelicals since they had no chance at God’s eternal heaven unless they were “saved,” but Roose also encountered students who struggled with their faith, who dismissed creationism, who swore and watched 300. His exploration of Liberty’s student body is deep and layered and, ultimately, Roose comes to the conclusion that “evangelical” is not synonymous with “egotistical, Bible-thumping zealot who knows all of the answers.”

Despite the importance of this stereotype-shattering, Roose’s book is most interesting to me because of the way it suggests the religious indoctrination that schools like Liberty facilitate. By condemning hundreds of things left of center as morally wrong – and going even further by insisting that transgressing any of the Bible’s rules will send you to Hell – evangelicals are scared away from experiencing anything beyond the familiar. Students are told over and over and over again that the Lord is the way and the only way, and by hammering home this point to young, impressionable minds, people in positions of authority can abuse their power and steer the thoughts of younger generations. Young people are gradually convinced that what they are being taught is correct – gospel, if you will. The indoctrination that occurs at schools like this is dangerous. It freezes a large sect of our population in traditionalism, times when women were required to submit to their husbands, when homosexuality was a disease and when devotedly following every last Bible verse was chosen over living a life of happiness.

I’m not saying that all of the students at evangelical schools – and certainly not even a majority of the students at Liberty…The Unlikely Disciple proved that – have been transformed into thought clones, incapable of making their own decisions. I truly don’t believe that every religious student in our country solves a dilemma in their life by simply looking it up in the Bible and taking that specific course of action. But I do believe that there is an inherent risk to the psychological independence of teenagers when they attend a school that preaches to them lessons based on a single work of literature and punishes them severely for disobeying the Word. Roose demonstrated the first stages of his own indoctrination in his work – by the end of his semester, he was desensitized to homophobia, was halfway convinced that prayer solved a world of troubles and was almost willing to disregard Jerry Falwell’s history of intolerance as the mis-steps of a misunderstood man of God.

The Unlikely Disciple is a triumph in both anthropology and guerilla journalism. Roose had a brilliant idea to take his super liberal, open-minded background from Brown to the other extreme, and it paid dividends. He managed to produce a work that is funny, revealing and at times both hopeful and troubling, all while remaining non-judgmental and unbiased. If you have any interest in intra-America anthropological studies, religious explorations or journalism prowess, read this book.

Summer Lovin'. Had Me a Blast.

2009-08-07T16:24:00.007-04:00

What I Learned Over My Summer Vacation: The Season in Entertainment

1) Not All Vampire Stories are Created Equal: If you haven’t heard by now – and if this is the case, you clearly don’t go food shopping, where in the checkout aisles every magazine cover screams “Vampires Make a Comeback!” – blood-suckers have been everywhere this summer, and the trend has been curling the toes of both fanboys and housewives alike. Still, for every fantastic send-up of the supernatural staple, like True Blood, HBO’s sophomore watercooler hit (which, if people overhear said watercooler conversations about shape-shifting pigs, orgies and blood prostitutes, makes you seem batshit crazy), there’s a Twilight. And Twilight, the Stephanie Meyer book series that’s been converted into a visual “film” saga, merits no heralding. For those of you who haven’t read the series, stay away from the poor writing, unlikable characters and lack of momentum. And for those of you who have read the series and enjoyed it…why? There’s only more to come as far as vamps are concerned: The CW’s tentpole new series for the fall is The Vampire Diaries, a screen version of another “popular” book series. Let’s hope True Blood stands the test of the trend and sucks the rest of ‘em dry.

2) Esquire Can Make Literature Sexy Again: For their July issue, the staff of Esquire put a hot nude model, Bar Refaeli, on the cover, but instead of daisy pasties and strategically-placed headlines covering her girly parts, they painted on the first few lines of a new short story by horror god Stephen King. Men go crazy, read the story and get to the very end before realizing that it’s not a transcription of a porn.

3) Becoming a TLC Superstar is a Huge Ego Buster: What will happen to the kids?! Who’s cheating on who?! He’s already dating again?! What the fuck is up with her hair?! These were just a few of the questions that seemed to captivate the country this summer when the titular couple of Jon and Kate Plus Eight absolutely fell apart. Magazines spread the latest updates and “news” as fast as herpes spreads in the Big Brother house, and Average Joe Americans gossiped about the trouble in millionaire-land as if the Gosselin clan were their own neighbors. In the end, there were no winners…except, of course, for TLC, who saw the show attract 9.8 million viewers at the height of the scandal.

4) Depressing Kids’ Movies are Totally All the Rage: Can we be honest for a second? Up was not fun. It was not cute. It was sad and tragic and scary and not okay. (SPOILERS AHEAD) From the “You Can’t Have Kids Because You’re Barren” moment to the old man’s house – filled with all of his wife’s dead but loved possessions – catching on fire, the animated Pixar film was enveloped in sadness. Then, you know, there are kids being shot at with rifles, old men falling off of a high-flying blimp, insinuations that helmets used to belong to snooping pilots long since murdered, and a friendless boy scout with a mom who is next to useless and a dad who makes empty promises…and probably hits him. Maybe it was just because the movie featured humans as characters instead of adorable fish or monsters or cars or rats, but altogether, this film was the definition of “too real.” I wish Disney-Pixar hadn’t falsely advertised it…after witnessing the mood it put me into, it really should have been called Down.

5) Artists Can Release Five Different Versions of the Same Song and Still Enjoy Moderate Success: By now, I think I’ve heard Jason Mraz’s “I’m Yours” a solid 400 times. It’s a great song, don’t get me wrong, but it sort of perplexes me. Last year I enjoyed the song as a fun, acoustic piece showcasing Mraz’s vocals, but soon after, I heard the mainstream radio version and was surprised to hear additional bits of Mraz’s strange, kooky scat syllables. Then there was another version – with alternate scats and nonsense words thrown in – sometime after, and this summer, the ode to courtship is continuing to demonstrate longevity with a Lil’ Wayne remix. Really, Jason Mraz? Weezy? Soon, I suppose we’ll be hearing a Taylor Swift cover and an additional remix featuring Celtic folk backgrounds.

6) Moving to Mexico Can Kill Your Show: Dear Weeds, when did you stop making me laugh? Oh, right…it was when your writers made all of the characters unlikeable and shifted the perfect balance between slapstick and risk-laden sticky situations by sapping all of the fun out and just making the show a full-on tragedy. Nancy gets pregnant and avoids being executed by her random political leader lover! The family moves to Mexico when their house burns down in a town-destroying fire! 14-year-old Shane, recent victim of puberty’s sweet, sweet seduction, loses his virginity in a threesome, sells drugs to his teacher and then murders the teacher’s bird, squeaking “Gimme my money!” Nancy gets ass raped! Andy fucks Nancy’s annoying sister! Andy tries to build a legitimate relationship with Nancy, which is all but ruined when he has to suck her nipples to relieve Nancy of her milk-filled boobies! Breastfeeding…yum. If that’s not comedy, I don’t know what is.

7) The Radio Censors Are Confusing: Only in this country would a radio station bleep out the word “ho” in 3OH!3’s inane “Don’t Trust Me” but allow Lady Gaga’s “Lovegame” to go uncensored. I mean, are you serious? “This beat is sick, I wanna take a ride on your disco stick”? We’re allowed to hear that not-at-all-veiled innuendo, but we can’t hear the abbreviated form of whore? While we’re on the subject, I’m still bitter about the “If You See Amy” debacle from earlier this year, which made Britney’s instant classic absolutely irrelevant.

8) Some Sharks are Highly Trained Acrobats: Rent Megashark Versus Giant Octopus on Netflix. It will be the best decision of your life. Don’t believe me? See here: Greatest Scene Ever. Keep in mind that the rest of the movie – and I know, because I watched the whole thing – is made as a series apocalyptic thriller. No jokes, no sarcasm, no irony.

9) The MPAA Clearly Has Lowered Its Standards: Now, I’m not one for censorship, but I do think that if it’s going to be there, it should be consistent. That’s why I was pretty shocked walking out of the PG-rated Up, which I don’t think was made with kids’ best intentions in mind – it wasn’t one of those kids’ movies that worked on two levels, one for adults and one for kids. It works on one level: scary/depressing. But enough about Up…I was also taken aback by the PG rating on the exceptional Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Between the horny wizard lust manifested in innuendo-filled dialogue as close to dick jokes as possible and the scary-as-balls, super violent ending with those creepy ass Gollum-on-acid Inferi, I fully expected it to be PG-13. And Bruno? Let’s get real…some of those garbage-laden, unnecessary scenes are essentially NC-17-meriting porn. Like I said, I’m not arguing for tighter MPAA restrictions – I’m just saying that what separates a PG from a PG-13 and an R from an NC-17 needs to be more clearly defined. What made HP6 lighter than the PG-13-rated Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix?

10) Love Always Feels Like a Battlefield: So you better go and getch your armor. Just because.

My Inconvenient Truth: The Dementors Are Here.

2009-06-24T13:57:00.003-04:00

If you’ve been functioning at all in the past twenty-four days, you’ll surely have noticed that we haven’t exactly been getting the best weather. In fact, it’s been absolutely shit to the point where talking about the weather is no longer something you do exclusively with former high school sort-of acquaintances or the clerk at CVS. Now it’s the headline to any conversation, and I’m afraid that I may be in the process of being brainwashed by Nickelback, because, like their entire repoitoire of songs, all of my conversations are sounding the same: “Well…this is pretty shitty weather. I didn’t realize it was April.”

Yeah, it’s been a dark, cold and wet month. In fact, in the entire month of June, there hasn’t been a single day of unclouded sunshine, and the temperatures have been consistently 5 to 10 degrees lower than the average. Whereas the average high for Philadelphia in June is 82 degrees Fahrenheit (Source), 2009’s seen an average high of 76 (Source). But without the sun peeking through the clouds (it does so rarely that you’d think it was locked away somewhere, probably naked and too busy making sweet sweet love to its lunar mistress to come out and shine down on earth), it feels even colder, and really, that’s no fun. I mean, doesn’t it realize that I’ve been on summer vacation for five weeks now, and that I’m looking to get at least some semblance of a tan…and maybe more than 1 nice hour outside a week?

Let’s not forget about the rain. It’s wetter than…I’d be profane or obscene, but I realize that we’re now in the age of mothers being totes hooked into Facebook…y’know. So far, the Philadelphia area has been blessed with 5.03 inches of rainfall (Source). That means that in the 23 days of June that have passed this year, we’ve already exceeded the average June rainfall in Philadelphia, which is 3.24. Once these next three days rock us with thunderstorms and clouds and lightening, we’ll probably have more than doubled the average.

Thus, gentleman and ladies, I must profess that there is an inconvenient truth in these times, and we must confront it with brave faces. No, God is not angry at the United States for legalizing same-sex marriage in five states, and no, this weather is not here (exclusively) to reflect the country’s mourning over the heartbreaking, tragic, more-worthy-of-publicity-than-the-whole-Iran-crisis-thing divorce of Jon & Kate and screams of “WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE PLUS EIGHT?!”

It’s certainly not global warming. Because the Republicans told me that that’s a crock of shit.

No. People of the United States and beyond, we are in desperate times. The gloom, rain and extensive cloud covering can only mean one thing: The Dementors are here. And they’re not going away any time soon. Clearly, they are the root of the dampened personalities of my family and friends, the whole “this-can’t-possibly-be-summer-so-I’ll-just-mope-around-the-house-and-be-miserable” feelings that have recently paralyzed me, and, upon closer inspection, the economic recession.

So conjure up your Patronus (yes, Matt Groff, even your Platypus-shaped one) and prepare for an epic battle. Because unless someone does something soon to control these dreaded soul-suckers (the one creature that not even Britney will kiss), the rest of the summer will be a gloomy, stanky mess.

Photo Credit

Susan Boyle: A Lesson in Reverse "Don't Judge a Book by its Cover"

2009-06-02T16:45:00.003-04:00

Once upon a time, there lived a woman with a dream of times gone by. She was a dumpy native of Scotland with a heavy accent, a sweet smile and a mess of gray curls atop her head. Deceptively old-looking, since she appeared to be more than 10 years older than her actual age, 48, the woman with the pretty-enough voice entered a talent competition with a pretty-enough version of a Broadway classic and wowed audiences around the world. You see, until she opened her mouth to sing, the judges, who acted as her evil stepparents, and her competition, who stood as her evil stepsisters, laughed at this story’s representation of Cinderella – she was far less-than-gorgeous and old, so how could she possibly think she could be an exceptional singer? Of course, the woman impressed beyond reason and she went onto garner a legion of fans, construct a shining star in her name…and endure a mental breakdown typical of once-nobodys thrown into the limelight. And she lived happily ever after, having proven that looks don’t matter and it’s what’s on the inside that counts.

Or at least that’s the story you’ve heard time and time again in international news media outlets that have reported on the “surprise success” of Susan Boyle, this season’s star of Britain’s Got Talent. Although she ultimately was declared the runner-up of the competition, the “I Dreamed a Dream” belter by now has acquired far more fame than the actual winners, the Whats-their-name-and-why-aren’t-they-Susan-Boyle Dance Troupe. News sources from The Huffington Post to CNN to NBC’s Today Show to The Oprah Winfrey Show to even Fox News have covered Boyle’s story, weighing in on how she represents “The American Dream” (yes, she’s from Scotland. And performing on a British reality show. No America involved), dispels the notion that appearances are everything in the entertainment industry, and is a bright spot in this worldwide economic recession which has everyone down-in-the-dumps.

But, really, Susan Boyle’s story does not represent any of this, at least not for anyone really tuned into what we’ve all been enraptured by for the last few weeks.

The reaction to Susan Boyle’s initial performance was insulting – if you view the actual video, you’ll see that the judges were openly, obviously, offensively skeptical how the frumpy-looking woman from Scotland could possibly possess any musical ability at all. Simon Cowell’s reaction of unexpected pleasure perfectly epitomized the audience’s surprise at her voice.

The reaction her performance elicited, however, was totally blown out of proportion. Was Boyle good? Sure. But the only reason that people thought she was this amazingly talented, can’t-believe-she-hasn’t-been-discovered-until-now singer was the fact that she does not look like your average musical performer. If her performance was delivered by anyone else – an attractive brunette with a thin waist, long legs and fair-sized boobs, perhaps – the song would have been deemed average and okay, maybe not even good enough to advance to the next round.

We’ve all heard the adage that we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but what we don’t always think about is the should-be corollary to this rule: don’t over-hype a book just because its mediocre contents are surprisingly better than its tattered and dusty cover.

Do I understand the fascination with Susan Boyle and her story? Of course. That’s why I’m writing about it now – I find the overwhelming public response to her story incredibly fascinating. Her journey on this British reality show is a demonstration of patronizing condescension, where her talent is soooo impressive because “who would ever think that someone soooo ugly could produce anything of value or worth paying attention to?”

I truly wish Boyle the best of luck in her professional endeavors, which I believe to be, for Boyle personally, sincere and honest dreams to simply make a living doing what she loves. I would, however, have more respect for her story if she had been a woman praised for her voice who just happened to look different from other famous singers instead of a woman praised for her voice exclusively because she looked different from other famous singers. She does not prove that image no longer matters in the entertainment industry; by over-publicizing the fact that she is not traditionally beautiful but is still successful, the media that covers her demonstrates that image still matters just as much as ever.

The Eleventh Commandment: Crafting Sexual Orientation-Inclusive Hate Crimes Legislation

2009-05-29T23:03:00.003-04:00

Discrimination is nothing new to Nathan Runkle. Growing up in a rural, insular farming town near Dayton, Ohio, Runkle, as a gay high school student, frequently encountered homophobia from his peers and other members of the community. Manifested in vitriolic nicknames, derogatory terms and religious condemnation of the “homosexual lifestyle,” these anti-gay sentiments were promulgated throughout most of the socially conservative Dayton area.

But four months ago, Runkle, who now lives in Chicago and works as an animal rights activist, experienced a new extreme in discrimination. He walked away from it with two facial fractures, a nose broken in eight different places, a deviated septum, an eye swollen shut and severe bruising as souvenirs.

On December 27, 2008, while visiting family at home, Runkle went out with his sister Lana and his close friend Dan to Club Masque, a gay nightclub in downtown Dayton. He had been to the club before, and he understood that there was a history of tension between the gay and straight patrons of the club. Masque is well known in the area for playing the best dance music, and many locals, regardless of sexual orientation, frequent the club. In recent months, Runkle describes, “There had been a growing sense of tension” in the club, where “homophobic people had come and caused problems, throwing hateful terms around.” Masque’s management did little to dispel the issue, even, according to Runkle, asking the gay targets of the comments to either leave the establishment or deal with the comments.

As Saturday night became Sunday morning at Masque, Dan dropped his glasses, prompting Runkle to assist his friend in a search on the floor. After an unsuccessful ferret around the crowded dance floor, Runkle stood up and was met with a large, white male accompanied by a number of other men. Almost immediately, the man threw his fist at Runkle, connecting with his face. He continued swinging, and after getting in four or five hard punches, he and his companions fled the scene. Security cameras did not capture images of the man, although several witnesses were able to attest to police basic details of Runkle’s story.

“I had never seen him before, never talked to him before in my life,” Runkle says of the man, adding, “There was no reason why this person would have had any sort of animosity toward me.” Citing the history of homophobic tension at Masque, the fact that he had no previous interaction with the assailant and “the amount of viciousness” of the attack, Runkle feels the incident was a hate-related crime. “It wasn’t, like, one punch,” he says. “It was severe brutality. When you grow up gay and you’re on the receiving end of a lot of homophobia, I think you’re able to identify rather quickly someone who is unfriendly toward you for who you are.”

The lack of suspects left the police with little evidence to pursue Runkle’s case, but even if authorities had identified and apprehended the attacker, the beating would not be classified as a hate crime or even considered in hate crime statistics collection. In Ohio, as well as 12 other states in America, there is no legal protection for people victimized based on their sexual orientation.

Hate crimes, or bias-motivated crimes, are acts of violence that specifically target a victim because of his membership in a particular social group. Thirteen states in America have anti-hate crime laws that include race, religion and ethnicity but do not cover sexual orientation in the legislation, while five states have no legal hate crimes protections at all.

In the spring of 2007, Congress nearly passed a federal hate crimes bill that would have provided federal assistance to state governments to help fund the prosecution of bias-motivated crimes. The bill passed in the House of Representatives and was referred to committee in the Senate, but after President George W. Bush threatened to veto the bill if it passed, the Senate took no further action.

A nearly identical bill faces renewed life in a government where Democrats now wield power. In April of this year, the bill was reintroduced in the House, and gay rights advocates and policy analysts are positing that President Barack Obama and the newly Democratic Congress will sign the bill into law.

Meanwhile, some state legislatures are developing their own anti-hate crime laws that make considerations for sexual orientation, most widely defined legislatively as heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Advocates argue that these laws are necessary because hate crimes are “message crimes” designed to threaten an entire sect of people. But pro-inclusion groups face strong resistance from conservatives, who argue for a variety of reasons that adding sexual orientation to the list of protected categories is unnecessary and would provoke more problems than it would solve.

This opposition, visible largely in southern or mid-western states with a history of strict conservatism and rapt religious devotion, reveals the troubling reality of widespread homophobic beliefs in these regions.

The Push for Sexual Orientation-Inclusive Law

Since 1999, gay rights activists have made consistent attempts to enact federal measures that would include sexual orientation as a protected category in hate crime laws. In fact, sexual orientation-inclusive hate crimes legislation has been proposed five previous times.

The struggle to pass a sexual orientation-inclusive federal bill may end soon, as a new bill of this sort, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (LLEHCPA), popularly known as the Matthew Shepard Act, was introduced into the House on April 2. The bill, introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-MI, and backed by 56 other sponsors, amends current hate crimes-related language to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories. On April 29, the bill, H.R. 1913, was passed in the House by a vote of 249 to 175.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA, introduced a companion bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909, in the Senate on April 28. Both the House and the Senate bill titles make reference to Matthew Shepard, who became the poster child for sexual orientation-inclusive hate crimes legislation after his murder in Laramie, Wyo. in 1998. Shepard was brutally attacked solely for being gay, and his heavily-publicized story remains one of the most widely-known hate crimes in American history. Major media sources, including The New York Times, foresee the swift approval of the bill named after Shepard in the Senate, which would then be reviewed by the House and subsequently officially signed into law.

The last time legislators made a move to institute a federal hate crimes bill was in 2007, when a nearly identical bill with the same name was disputed. Although the bill failed, it demonstrated more success than any of its predecessors, passing in the House but ultimately stalling in the Senate.

The LLEHCPA revises the federal hate crimes statute so that it encompasses violent and attempted violent crimes based on the victim’s perceived or actual gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. It also allows federal authorities greater flexibility in aiding local and state governments in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. In order for the Department of Justice to intervene and legally assume jurisdiction over a hate crime case, the attorney general must confirm that one of three conditions is met: the state or local government requests the aid, the state or local government is unwilling or unable to investigate the case or the outcome of the case does not satisfy federal interest in eradicating hate crimes. Additionally, the LLEHCPA provides funding through grants to cover costs of the prosecution and investigation of hate crimes and to implement educational programs to reduce the number of hate crimes committed by juveniles. The 2009 bill appropriates 10 million dollars to be made available for authorization and distribution over the next two years.

Conyers, along with co-sponsor Rep. Mark Kirk, R-IL, and 171 other supporters from both parties, introduced the bill, H.R. 1592, in the House in March of 2007. The stand-alone bill was passed by a vote of 237 to 180, leaving further action to the Senate.

In April of 2007, Kennedy and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-OR, backed by 40 bi-partisan co-sponsors, introduced a version of the LLEHCPA in the Senate, S. 1105. However, they filed the bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which dealt with increasing pay for members of the armed services and other Iraq War spending-related issues. Although the amendment was adopted that September and added to the defense bill after a cloture vote, the hate crimes proposal was not included in the final version of the bill.

A large reason for the amendment’s failure was a threat from President Bush, who in May indicated in a statement of administration policy that he would veto a federal hate crimes bill, calling it “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable.” Many senators who supported the hate crimes provision did not want to risk the entire defense bill being vetoed, as this would hold up a pay raise for military personnel. Buckling under the pressures of the White House and the Republican leadership, Democratic leaders stripped the amendment from the bill in mid-December.

With Obama in the White House and a democratic majority ruling Congress, the hate crimes bill faces new life. On his website during his election campaign, Obama pledged to address the issue specifically, saying he would “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.”

Oppositional Views

Despite Obama’s promise to institute a federal law concerning hate crimes, many officials in the country do not support the movement, taking issue with the concept altogether and dismissing it as an unnecessary dispute.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization that aims to further its views on socially conservative public policy, believes that the legislation is pointless. He says, “They’re already criminalized, but they have the motive as a second factor, adding another offense. It does little more than add a second prosecution and is essentially unnecessary.” Hausknecht and like-minded people also say that crime victims should not receive special treatment simply because they identify with a particular social group.

Patricia Todd, representative from the Alabama State Legislature, says, “What I hear from opponents, mostly Republicans, is that a crime is a crime, and it shouldn’t matter who the victim is.”

Providing these additional protections, opponents say, favors small groups of people. According to literature from Focus on the Family, “Hate crimes provide one class of victims more protection than another.” That is, for example, no single murder should be declared worse than another murder just because of certain aspects of the victim. Hausknecht says, “It’s un-American. It elevates certain classes of people for more protections…it violates all of the principles of equal protection that we’re used to being governed under in this country.”

Proponents of hate crime laws counter this logic, saying that intent has traditionally been considered in judgment of crimes in America – pre-meditated, first-degree manslaughter is distinguished from accidental vehicular homicide. They say that hate crimes do not only affect the actual victim, but rather, the effects of the crime, including fear of persecution, extend to the entire community of people in that social group. Hate crimes have dangerous psychological consequences for not only the victims, but also anyone like the victims.

Opponents of hate crime laws are also troubled by the vagueness surrounding what qualifies a crime as a hate crime. It is difficult to prove the motives of a perpetrator and attribute them to a bias against the victim unless discriminatory slurs are exchanged or symbols of hatred are present.

Including sexual orientation in these laws causes further issues for groups who do not support the legislation. They argue that sexual orientation is not a visible, definite characteristic of a person because, according to Focus on the Family, “It is based on actions, not appearance or place of birth.” They feel race and ethnicity have more legitimate arguments for inclusion than sexual orientation, and religion merits protection because of the First Amendment, which provides freedom of religion rights.

Furthermore, they also cite anti-gay hate crimes as a small, localized problem, with Focus on the Family referring to it as “a phantom ‘epidemic’ hyped by special interest groups,” and say that it does not require valuable federal resources to fix. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Uniform Crime Report, of the 9,535 hate crimes reported in 2007, 1,512 of these were instances where the victim was targeted for his or her sexual orientation. These cases constituted 15.9 percent of the total number of reported hate-related incidences and were third in frequency only to crimes based on race (52 percent of those reported) and religion (17.2 percent of those reported). Despite this, many conservatives feel that these numbers, which include very few murders, hardly indicate a nation-wide epidemic of bigoted violence toward gays and lesbians.

However, gay rights groups assert that these statistics cannot fully communicate the scope of the problem. Many violent, bias-motivated crimes go unreported because of the poor statistics collection system in place, and many believe that a disproportionate amount of those that go unreported are based on the victim’s sexual orientation. According to the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that works for legal equality for LGBT people, “It is widely recognized that violent crimes on the basis of sexual orientation often go unreported due to fear and stigmatization.

Questions of Constitutionality

One of the most common criticisms of hate crime laws is that enacting them has the potential to stifle free speech. Hauskenecht comments, “It punishes thought, which in America is always dangerous. Once you start punishing ‘thought crimes,’ you’re really on a slippery slope to prosecuting speech and hate speech.”

Opponents point to Title 18 of U.S. Code, which says, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” This, they interpret, could mean that if a preacher condemns homosexuality as immoral in a sermon, and a member of the congregation murders someone for being gay and then blames it on the preacher’s sermon, the preacher could be held as legally responsible as the congregation member for inciting or inducing the hate crime.

Although they recognize that this is the extreme of what could happen if the LLEHCPA was passed, critics assert that even the possibility of religious leaders being punished for speaking against homosexuality is a significant challenge against the First Amendment. This “chilling effect,” they say, could lead to a national denunciation of religious beliefs.

Those who support the new, inclusive law counter these statements, saying that the LLEHCPA exclusively punishes violent actions, not thoughts, opinions or speech – even hate speech. Religious fundamentalists are still free to picket gay pride rallies, preach about the “sinful” ways of homosexuals and otherwise discredit the LGBT community. Only when these expressions become violent actions are they criminalized.

The federal bill makes considerations that target these concerns of constitutionality and specifically address any issues with freedom of speech.

The House version of the bill details, “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses, of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.” The Senate version states these rights even more explicitly: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities…including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration.”

The House version further discusses, “In prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.” That is, lawyers may not use a defendant’s past history of prejudice in order to prove bias in a crime. For example, if a defendant who has written books condemning homosexual behavior attacks a gay man, the defendant’s history of speech against homosexuality cannot be used against him in court.

These considerations do little to appease some opponents of the bill, who maintain that prosecuting hate crimes, especially those motivated by the victim’s sexuality, will eventually lead to legal prosecution of anti-gay public statements. Hauskenecht even calls the clauses in the LLEHCPA that address free speech concerns “a fig leaf to cover up all of the flaws in the bill.”

Pushing for State Legislation in Alabama

Even if the LLEHCPA passes federally, it is still important for advocates to push for state-level legislation. The state-level laws would reinforce the federal law and ensure that there are no questions of whether an attack motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation should be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Thirty-two states in the country already include sexual orientation as a protected category in their hate crime laws, but the other 13 states with similar legislation do not include crimes based on sexual orientation (five states – Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming – do not have hate crime laws at all).

Alabama is one of these 13 states with legislation concerning hate crimes but no protections for sexual orientation. Despite this, recent developments in the state’s legislature indicate that sexual orientation may soon be included as a category in the preexisting laws.

Rep. Alvin Holmes, a Democrat in the Alabama state legislature, has continually introduced bills to incorporate sexual orientation for several years. In Alabama’s present hate crime legislation, people receive harsher penalties if their actions are deemed motivated by the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity or disability. His amendment attempt last year, Alabama House Bill 829, passed out of the House by a vote of 46 to 44 and was subsequently referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee approved it in early May, but when the legislature adjourned on May 19, the bill died.

In February of 2009, Holmes introduced a similar bill, Alabama House Bill 533, which was approved by the Alabama House on April 23. It was subsequently introduced in the Senate and referred to committee, which approved it on May 6. Movement on the bill in the Senate is forthcoming, but as the number of meeting days in the legislative session dwindle, the hate crimes bill looks less and less likely to be voted on at all. Dr. Bob Palmatier, Chairman of the Board of Equality Alabama, a gay rights organization in the state, predicts, “It’s too late for the Senate to actually act on it.” He notes the Alabama State Legislature’s repeated unwillingness to act, commenting, “The easiest thing to do without having to vote against it is to say that they don’t have time.” That is, Palmatier insinuates, the legislature is not yet willing to officially make sexual orientation a legally protected category.

Homophobia and the Culture of Silence

Despite the probable failure of the inclusive bill in Alabama, it is irrefutable that over the past few years, the state has experienced a shift in its attitudes toward gays and lesbians, mirroring a trend of increased acceptance across the U.S. As recently as three years ago, fiercely anti-gay legislation and public condemnation of homosexuality by elected officials was rather commonplace in Alabama. In April of 2005, some lawmakers proposed to ban books by gay authors or featuring gay characters from public school libraries, and 2002, Roy Moore, the then-chief justice of Alabama’s supreme court, deemed homosexuality “abhorrent, immoral, detestable,” and “an inherent evil” that “should never be tolerated.”

One of the first signs in a shift to a less condemning culture in the state was the election of Patricia Todd to the Alabama House of Representatives in November 2006. She is the first openly gay elected official in the state’s history. Since her election, state lawmakers have not introduced any anti-gay legislation.

This is not to say that the residents of Alabama and other states with similar ideologies have overcome homophobia. Homophobia, or an extremely negative attitude toward homosexuals that often manifests itself in physical violence, social discrimination or general hostility, is still very much an issue in the state. The fact that hate crime laws exist in most of these states but do not include considerations for sexual orientation symbolizes a history of homophobia throughout the traditionally conservative south.

With respect to homosexuality, Alabama is very much enshrouded in a culture of silence, where any sexual orientation other than straight is not discussed. Dr. Moira Amado-McGittigan, the executive director of Bay Area Inclusion, a community action group in southern Alabama, says, “The most common form of discrimination you see is silence…it’s very much a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. The biggest threat that I see is that people don’t talk about it.” Gays are barely visible in the state, often because they feel like coming out will threaten their pride, their job and, in extreme cases, their safety. With so few gays and lesbians discussing the realities of homosexuality, and even fewer heterosexuals mentioning it in anything but a negative way, gay rights issues vanish from the cultural radar, and any attempts to normalize homosexuality are quashed.

Twenty-five-year-old Alabamian Zach Childree’s coming-out story demonstrates the state’s culture of silence. “A lot of people from Alabama think that homosexuality is something that happens outside of the south, and it is not talked about,” he affirms, reflecting, “Realizing I was gay was almost heartbreaking for me because I was always told that it was something you should never be.” In high school Childree told his deeply religious parents that he was gay several times, but each time he did so, they pointed to damning Bible verses and passed off his feelings as a temporary phase.

Then Childree departed his small hometown of Hatchechubbee when he went to college, enrolling in Auburn University at Montgomery. There, he wrote a column called “Gay Like Me” for the college’s student newspaper. Word about his journalistic endeavor traveled back to his parents, and Childree spent the winter break of his freshman year in a tense household. “For that entire holiday,” he says, “we didn’t talk about it. It was there – it was the elephant in the room – but it was something you didn’t talk about. It was something we didn’t talk about.”

When classes resumed and Childree returned to school, he received a package from his parents. The package contained the title to his car, his birth certificate, his student loan information, his Social Security card and a letter from his mom: Childree was no longer welcome in his parents’ house because of his sexuality.

“I would love to say that my story is special and unique and that it doesn’t happen to other kids,” Childree says about his situation. “But it does. Kids get kicked out of their houses very often in Alabama when they come out.”

Now Childree is preparing for graduation from Jacksonville State University in Jacksonville, Ala., where he will earn a degree in print journalism. He continues to write about gay rights issues and equality disputes for his personal blog and college newspaper. His relationship with his parents remains strained, and, he says, “I still haven’t been back to their house. We’ll have passive-aggressive conversations…there’s still this sense that there’s something we need to talk about, and we’re not talking about it.”

Religious Indoctrination

Much of Childree’s parents’ hesitancy to accept their son’s sexual orientation stems from their rapt religious devotion, a common theme throughout the “Bible Belt” southern states, which includes Alabama. Religion plays a dominant role in the lives of many denizens of the south, and churches command a huge presence. The most popular religions are Christian denominations and evangelical faiths, and in the past few years, Southern Baptist and Pentacostal religions, specifically the radically conservative Assemblies of God, have seen increases in membership and visibility. According to Amado-McGittigan, “Before you’re asked what kind of work you do, you’re asked what church you go to…spiritual identity is very much a part of personal identity in the deep South.”

This fact underscores much of the homophobia in Alabama. In this Church-dominated state, homosexuality is considered a sin. If community members discuss sexual orientation at all, it is usually to quote certain verses in the Bible that some have interpreted to criminalize homosexuality, equating gays and lesbians with murderers, thieves and liars. The anti-gay stances generally stem from the belief that sex is to be used solely for reproductive purposes, so since two men or two women cannot conceive children, they should never engage in sexual behavior; if they do, they have transgressed God’s moral laws.

This overwhelmingly universal perception that homosexuality is sinful in religious communities results in cripplingly poor self-image and confidence for those who do identify as gay or lesbian. These people often attempt to reconcile their homosexuality with their religious beliefs, but because of the rigid, unwavering positions of many religious institutions, they feel that they are forced to either accept their sexuality and reject their faith or adhere to their faith and stifle their sexuality.

Those who choose the latter typically struggle with internalized homophobia, or disgust for one’s own homosexuality. Amado-McGittigan reasons, “If you’re told that you’re an abomination before God in a place that holds up spiritual connections very highly, you don’t have much self-esteem. Gays often feel that they deserve less, and their relationships are compromised. There’s a lot of self-destructive behavior.”

Corey Harvard, who has lived in Mobile, Ala. his whole life, perfectly epitomizes the effect that the indoctrination of the Church can have on gay teenagers. Growing up, Harvard was deeply religious, more so even than the members of his immediate family, who raised him in the Pentacostal faith. Harvard’s devotion to his faith, shown in his participation in his church’s worship band and steadfast knowledge of the Christian scriptures, indicated to many of his peers and family members that he would go on to become a pastor.

In his early teenage years, however, Harvard began noticing a same-sex attraction, which horrified him because he had always been told that homosexual attraction was punishment for wrongdoing. Harvard reflects, “I remember the preacher referring a lot of times to homosexuality like it was the eleventh commandment: ‘thou shalt not be gay.’ It’s not treated as one of the sins…it’s treated as the ultimate sin, the trump card of things that are bad.”

To cope with these unwanted emotional and sexual feelings about other males, Harvard turned to his religion. He says, “I would pray about it because I thought it was part of a sinful lifestyle.” Over time, he grew to accept that his homosexuality did not stem from the internal presence of an evil spirit or demon; rather, he discovered that it was a natural, intrinsic part of his life that he could not pray away.

But for Harvard, self-acceptance was not synonymous with a carefree psychological state. Discovering that he was gay while feeling betrayed by the anti-gay sentiments of the Church, Harvard grappled with heavy introspective questions. “I had a genuine spiritual battle,” he says. “My life went from entirely believing in everything I was fed by my pastor and the other spiritual leaders of my church to not believing in anything; they got it wrong about my sexuality, so what else did they get wrong? My whole belief system was crumbling to pieces.”

In the months prior to “coming out” of the proverbial closet, when he was a sophomore at University of South Alabama, Harvard was paralyzed with fear about how his loved ones would react. “I went through a semi-suicidal phase where I would have rather not dealt with life at all than deal with the torment of coming out to my family,” Harvard says. In the spring of his sophomore year, he had no motivation to work or study, rarely attended classes and generally detached himself from his usual world.

Harvard did eventually overcome his fears and come out to his parents, when he was 19, and they reacted better than he had anticipated, but homosexuality is still difficult to discuss with his father. In some ways, Harvard says that his father has accepted his son’s sexuality, so long as references to boyfriends or other gay friends are limited. This, it turns out, is difficult, since Harvard has been steadily, exclusively dating a boyfriend, 21-year-old Cory Samz from South Alabama University, for over a year. Harvard’s father remains unaware of Samz’s intimate relationship with his son.

Today the 21-year-old Harvard still has intense qualms about coming out to his extended family, who follow the Pentacostal faith quite diligently. “If my father’s family knew about me,” Harvard says, “They would say that I need to be exorcised, that there was a spirit in me…their solution would probably be to gather around me and put their hands on me for several days” in order to expel the demon and affirm Harvard as a heterosexual. Despite these fears, in early April Harvard listed himself as “interested in men” and “in a relationship” on his Facebook profile, which for him is a symbolic step of coming out.

Harvard’s coming-out experience, aside from the ultimately positive ending, is the norm in states like Alabama, where religion weaves its way into almost every facet of residents’ lives. The fact is that many people of faith misunderstand homosexuality, and few are capable of moving beyond their disapproval of gays and lesbians in order to accept the person as a member of their religious community.

Harvard explains, “Most people still think it’s a lifestyle choice…a willful act of deviance, not a struggle. They don’t think of their intolerance as ostracizing a person, they think of it as ostracizing a nasty lifestyle. It forces of a lot of gays into the mindset that you’re either gay and you’re actively gay, or you’re a Christian – one or the other.”

The Landslide Effect?

It appears that the largest hesitation from people who oppose including sexual orientation in protections against hate crimes stems from the fear that ceding on the hate crimes and discrimination issue will pave the way for the expansion of other “special rights” for the LGBT community. Conservative organizations often assert that making sexual orientation a protected category could lead to legislative acknowledgement of gays in other areas.

According to literature from Focus on the Family, “Laws develop incrementally with each one preparing the way for subsequent statutes or activist court decisions. We must look at each proposed law not only for its immediate effect but also for its long-term implications. The problem with hate crime legislation is that it will inevitably result in ‘sexual orientation’ becoming a protected category against which no one can offer an alternative view.”

This “landslide” or “snowball” effect is nearly always at the root of the debate where gay rights legislation is concerned. Lucas explains the stance of opponents further: “If we say that we can apply a protected minority status to gender identity and sexual orientation, then it’s saying that it’s something benign that has no political and moral underpinnings.” Conservative and religious groups, therefore, are unwilling to surrender their opinions of morality on behalf of the American LGBT population.

Thus, the key problem is that opponents of gay rights simply do not believe that non-straight sexual orientations are natural and biological. Even after documentation from the American Psychological Association that have suggested the normality of homosexuality, many people still consider being gay a choice, and a sinful one at that. Tragically, it seems that until these groups accept that gays cannot deny their homosexuality just as straight people cannot deny their heterosexuality, they will argue that sexual orientation-based prejudice is justified.

Regardless of this debate, there is a documented, irrefutable history of people being violently attacked or personally discriminated against for their actual or perceived identification as a member of the LGBT community. Advocates say that this history of hate crimes directed toward sexual minorities coupled with the fact that other historically persecuted social minorities – racial, ethnic and religious – are legally protected asserts the need for sexual orientation to be included as a protected category in legislation.

Childree says of the current federal laws, “It’s a way of saying that these social groups are worthy of protection against hate crimes, but not you – it is a way of keeping gay and lesbian people in a position of second class citizenry.”

Harvard echoes these sentiments, explaining his feelings about living in a state where hate crime laws do not cover sexual orientation, “You don’t feel like your government cares enough about you to enforce your safety. Even if the authorities believe that homosexuality is a sin, the fact that it’s enough to make some people act physically should be enough.”

If President Obama follows through on his promise to ensure passage of the Matthew Shepard Act, a possibility that looks increasingly likely as the legislative process continues, the LGBT community will experience its first official success in federal recognition.

Of course, including sexual orientation in hate crimes protections would in no way serve as a panacea for anti-gay discrimination. This prejudice is something that may always be a presence in America, which is marked by a long history of homophobia; laws will not automatically change long-standing social opinions. However, unanimous protection of sexual orientation in these laws would be a gigantic step forward in the process of achieving equality for LGBT Americans. It could serve as an important landmark in the gay rights struggle; a signal of a potential future for a country where people are not persecuted for being different, where the government does not allow for the prolongation of bigotry, and where the eleventh commandment is finally repealed.

Thrown Out at Home

2009-05-29T22:49:00.000-04:00

In late February, before beginning a long day of classes, University of Vermont freshman Dave Soltis received a text message at 10am from the athletic department announcing a mandatory meeting at noon that day. Soltis, the starting third baseman on UVM's well-respected and rather successful baseball team, quickly received a call by one of his fellow team members, discussing what the meeting could be about. For weeks rumors had been buzzing around UVM's campus that several of the college's athletic programs would be discontinued. By the time of the meeting, when nearly 30 baseball players huddled into a conference room, they had all figured out the reason for the meeting: their program was being dropped.

This year budget problems have plagued UVM’s athletic department, forcing the athletic director, Dr. Robert Corran, to make cuts, including the complete elimination of both the baseball and softball teams. These teams in particular spend significant amounts of money without generating much revenue for the school. The current season will mark the final season for both varsity sports at the institution. The athletic department at UVM has reported that the elimination of these programs will result in savings of $839,000 for the 2009-2010 year.

These steep costs most commonly stem from travel costs, including bus rides, hotel rooms and food stipends from team trips. The budgets also included expenses for equipment, uniforms, student scholarships and the salary of the coaches, including that of Coach Bill Currier, a UVM ’84 alum who has coached the team for 22 years.

A similar team-slashing meeting occurred at Wagner College on Staten Island, NY, where the athletic department decided to stop funding the women's volleyball and men's wrestling teams. Wagner freshman Micaela McDonald, who plays on the volleyball team, explained that her team was dropped because the program doesn't turn a profit. "We don't charge people to come to our games," she says. "And we're spending more money than we bring in, because of all of the travel costs and uniforms and equipment."

The situations at UVM and Wagner College parallel recent developments at many other schools, which have been forced to drop programs as a result of the worldwide economic recession.

From Western Washington University phasing out its football team to Quinnipiac University eliminating its women's volleyball, men's golf and outdoor track programs to Northern Iowa University cutting baseball, the epidemic of sports teams' deaths has spread throughout the country.

At nearly all of these schools, the athletic departments have asserted that they chose to eliminate entire programs instead of making small cuts to every team in order to maintain the stabilities of their university-level athletics. In some ways, the offed teams are sacrificial lambs for the schools' other athletic programs.

The recent trend marks a new extreme in college sports dealing with budget crises because it demonstrates that not even the typical strategy - upping ticket prices - is enough, although some schools certainly are still implementing this method.

For the 2009-2010 season, according to nj.com, Rutgers University will raise its football ticket prices to $10. This is one of the largest increases, although University of Georgia's $5 increase, Michigan State University's $4 raise and Ohio State University's $1 addition also seek to account for budget problems by bringing in greater revenue.

For the students affected by the cuts, most of which occurred only a few weeks ago, the spring semester has been filled with tough decisions and stressful worries. At UVM, Soltis says that nearly all of the freshman and sophomore baseball players are exploring their transfer options so that they do not have to give up baseball. McDonald reports that from her volleyball team, two freshman, as well as two students who had this year transferred to the college, are talking to coaches from other schools, although McDonald plans to stay at Wagner and try out for the school’s basketball team. At practically all of the universities who have terminated athletic programs, student-athletes on the cut teams may retain their athletic scholarships for the duration of their education at the school, under the scholarships’ original terms.

For now, the UVM baseball players are doing their best to finish out their final season strong, but the recent news of termination has seemed to be put a damper on the team’s spirit. Soltis says, “In some ways, it’s motivation for the season – we want to show everyone that we don’t deserve to be cut, that this is happening to a good team, but it’s also kind of a distraction now. Kids are looking for other schools to go to, and everyone really feels betrayed by the university. I think that everyone has been hurt by the decision.”

This piece originally appeared in 360 Degrees Magazine, a publication of the Park School of Communications at Ithaca College.

Would You Like to Try Some Rye Dip?

2009-05-29T22:41:00.000-04:00

With a cordial smile of expectation, Penny the Samples Lady holds up in her gloved right hand a piece of bread smothered in a creamy, white sauce. As people walk by her in the chaotic aisles of the bakery section at Wegmans, she searches for their attention, longing for eye contact, and says, “Would you like to try some rye dip?”

The gentle yet unwaveringly firm tenor of her voice does not betray her grandmotherly appearance. Her highly wrinkled face is one of age, and her hair is white-blond in an unnatural way, suggesting the typical dye job of a woman in her sixties. She is dressed all in sterile white with the exception of her black shoes. Her feet are rooted to the floor, her back is hunched over, and her left hand clutches the edge of her little wooden table, supporting her considerably plump figure. Her tired eyes indicate an unsuccessfully hidden boredom.

Penny understands that this is her role. She is a faithful sentry to her post, her table, on which sits a bag of bread, the bowl of dip and a sign that screams an allergen warning for the Wegmans patrons. Penny realizes that she is a performer at a Saturday matinee, and that the shoppers are her audience. She must only deviate from her performance when addressing her colleagues, who at times break her concentration with a “where do I put this?” or a “where does that go?”

“Would you like to try some rye dip?,” she continues asking in an oddly rhythmic manner, placing particular emphasis on “like” and “try” and “rye.” Her question, always masterfully repeated exactly the same way, a product of many hours of practice, cuts through the cacophony of metal shopping carts and bustling customers: “Would you like to try some rye dip? Would you like to try some rye dip?”

Even when people ask for clarification – “ragget, you say? what kind of dip? what’s this called?” – Penny responds simply with “rye dip?,” dictated in the same tone. She must never be unfaithful to her script.

She is methodical in her preparation of the samples. When someone takes the bread from her hand, she immediately arranges the next. She removes a chunk of bread from a bag of little bits. Slowly dunks it twice. Wipes the excess off on the brim of the container. Raises her arm, elbow bent, as if administering the Christian Eucharist.

Penny elicits mixed responses from those who pass her. To some, she is The Samples Lady, Deliverer of Joy and Light…or at least bits of whole grain bread caked with dip, which serve as symbols of joy and light. These people see her and start grinning, anticipating their stop at The Samples Lady to see what she has for them today. They love The Samples Lady and what she stands for: the best little things in life truly are free!

To others, Penny is a bother, skilled with making them uncomfortable. They don’t like being asked “Would you like to try some rye dip?” while they’re trying to shop. They dread the awkward moment that follows a refusal of Penny’s rye dip. Her face falls. She is stung by the rejection, the lack of appreciation for her service of administering the samples. She doesn’t ask for much, just that people acknowledge her presence and give her rye dip a chance.

Despite the refusals, which are more frequent than those who laud The Sample Lady can believe, Penny recovers quickly. She must realize that not everyone understands the effort and precision that her job requires. She must focus on the customers who anticipate her samples and fulfill her obligation to her employer.

“Would you like to try some rye dip? Would you like to try some rye dip?”

Why Save Lives When You Can Perpetuate Stereotypes?

2009-05-29T22:08:00.000-04:00

No wonder Stephanie Meyer’s indelibly bad vampire book series Twilight doesn’t feature any gay characters! Naturally, if the vampires were to sip on the blood of any homosexual, they’d contract – dun dun dunnnnn – the HIV! And let’s face it…we wouldn’t want the pukiest couple in all of literary history to get AIDS and die. It’d be kind of a buzzkill to the series. It would be almost as bad as ending the four-part journey with a massive, five hundred page build-up to a totally anticlimactic un-battle where like, one minor character dies and nothing of any real consequence occurs.

But I digress.

You see, I guess my real intention is to warn to all readers the dangers of homosexuals. And their blood. Which more likely than not is riddled with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Or at least that’s the message that the American Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is promulgating with the American Red Cross’ long-standing eligibility rules (like, since 1984) of who can and cannot donate blood.

Eligibility guidelines from the Red Cross state: “You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test…” Duh. It continues: “…or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.” Here’s where it gets sticky. “You are at risk for getting infected if you: have ever used needles to take drugs or steroids; are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977; have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977; have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above.”

It goes on to advise against people with hemophilia or people who have symptoms of HIV/AIDS (“blue or purple spots in your mouth,” “lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin,” or “diarrhea that won’t go away,” all of which would fall under the “This Really Blows” category). Which makes sense, because there is actually something wrong with your health if you exhibit these symptoms or have hemophilia.

The Red Cross defines “sexual contact” as vaginal, oral or anal sex. The latter two of which are not exclusive to gay men, ps. The first one…my understanding is that they’re not interested. While the Red Cross has opposed the ban on gay men donating blood, the FDA has upheld it, even in recent reviews.

Besides the offense that comes along with “Men Who Have Sex with Men” (which my good friend Wikipedia cleverly acronym-izes as MSM) being grouped with illegal drug users and prostitutes in the guidelines, some people say (doesn’t everyone appreciate my adoption of Fox News’ favorite strategy?) that other aspects of this rule are offensive and counter-productive to the Red Cross’ mission: to acquire blood in order to save lives and promote the health of others.

Now, of course, it’s a well-known fact that only homosexual men can get AIDS. Naturally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s statistics that 49% of all AIDS diagnoses in 2006 were black people and 19% were Hispanics are bullshit. And the statistic that 11,584 HIV diagnoses in 2006 (approximately 33% of all diagnoses that year) were products of “high-risk heterosexual contact” should certainly be discarded. It’s simply irrelevant.

Females, of course, are not susceptible to HIV or AIDS, nor are straight men. However, if that straight man has had “sexual contact with another male, even once,” there’s a really good chance he’s in the process of developing AIDS. Isn’t that just logical?

But gays – or even curious, now-50-year-old men who were experimenting back in 1977 – please stay away from the blood drive. Even though you can save people by donating, the FDA would just really prefer it if you stay. The hell. Away.

This ban of MSM from blood donation is not discriminatory – it’s necessary. I mean, even gays who have been tested for HIV/AIDS and other diseases and have come back with perfectly clean, disease-free blood just have no place near donation centers. You’re just asking for an epidemic of hiv-blood.

However, hetero dudes who have crazy amounts of unprotected sex and knock up several girls a year, as well as women who fallatio their way through life, don’t require any monitoring. There is no ban on hetero sexual promiscuity, which, in essence, almost subtly suggests that all MSMs are sexually promiscuous themselves. What a fine stereotype! Completely accurate and progressive!

So hip-hip-hooray for American equality!

And thank Jesus, Mary, Joseph, God, Buddah and Allah that gay blood won’t be spread around this fine planet thanks to policies like this. Dying, desperate-for-blood patients can definitely do without blood from those damn MSMs. After all, a homosexual pandemic would be worse than an AIDS one. Isn’t that right, FDA?

Photo Credit