On hiatus

I'm moving into my new apartment, trying to unpack... and oh yes, I don't have internet access yet. I'll be back sometime later this week or next week.

Reuters cameraman killed by U.S. soldiers

Sigh... from the AP:

A Reuters cameraman was shot and killed Sunday while working near a U.S.-run prison on the outskirts of Baghdad, the London-based news agency said.

Reuters said that witnesses reported that Mazen Dana, 41, was filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in western Baghdad when he was shot.

A Reuters staffer told The Associated Press in Baghdad that Dana, a Palestinian, appeared to have been shot by U.S. soldiers as he was videotaping outside the Abu Ghraib prison after a mortar attack there today, in which six prisoners were killed and about 60 others were wounded.

The staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the video tape in Dana's camera showed two U.S. tanks coming toward him, two shots, apparently from the tanks, rang out and Dana fell to the ground. He was taken away by a U.S. helicopter for treatment.

Boy, the good news just keeps rolling in from Iraq! And while we're talking about Iraq, can I just say that this cartoon saying that Iraqis need to be more grateful to the U.S. occupiers is EXTREMELY, um, PROBLEMATIC on SO MANY LEVELS? Really, these hook-nosed hairy racist caricatures have got to go. NOW.

Blackout cartoons

Of course nearly every editorial cartoonist did a blackout cartoon (see Cagle's collection). And of course way too many cartoonists simultaneously came up with the idea of the Statue of Liberty holding a flashlight or candle. But so far, here are a few I liked: Dan Wasserman notes that the U.S. overdoes the energy consumption thing. Ann Telnaes imagines Bush's initial reaction. Bruce Plante asks the question that I'm sure is on many Iraqis' minds. Joel Pett tells us to relax.

A tiny taste of life elsewhere

So it's 9:30 p.m., the power came back on an hour ago, and I was finally able to check my email, and more importantly, read the news (still no subways, though). In case anyone was wondering, I'm totally fine. I was at work downtown when the power went out, and I had to walk home about 3 miles and feel my way up the stairs in the dark... but I really have nothing to complain about--unlike, say, people trapped in elevators or subway cars, or on the top floors of really tall buildings, or elderly people in tiny overheated apartments. Or people in Baghdad, where it's 120 degrees. Or a lot of other people in a lot of other places. From Reuters ("World Sympathy And Wisecracks for U.S. Blackout"):

Some people voiced admiration, others worried, and some could not help but poke fun at the world's self-confessed "superpower with a Third World grid."

"Now we understand why they (Americans) have been unable to get the electricity running in Baghdad," said 47-year-old engineer Ghassan Tombin in the Gulf Arab country of Dubai.

From Nairobi to Moscow and beyond, the world was aghast that New York and a swathe of other cities across the United States and Canada could be shut down by a blackout. Anatoly Chubais, chief executive of Russia's national power monopoly Unified Energy System (UES), called the blackout "the biggest accident in the history of world energy systems."

... . In Iraq, where the U.S. administration has been struggling to restore power since ousting Saddam Hussein in early April, residents in the capital worried how high-tech Americans would ever restore electricity with such huge power problems at home.

"They have the best equipment and technology and a power shortage can make such a big fuss in the United States. Now I am sure it will take them years to fix the electricity in Iraq," said Ali Saghbal, a worker at a Baghdad power station.

... . In Nairobi, some residents were far from sympathetic, saying Americans were receiving a taste of what it was like to live in the world's poorer countries.

"America, welcome to Kenya, see what we go through," said Alex Mwaura, a logistics officer with an aid agency in Nairobi.

My roomate Sarita said it reminded her more than anything of time spent visiting her family in India.

The two of use spent last night sitting on our balcony looking at the stars (stars! in Manhattan!) and watching the candlelight flickering in the windows across the street. We spent today trying to cook as much of the spoilable food in our freezer and fridge as possible, which led to an enormous quantity of boiled dumplings and a really large stir-fry.

The heat wasn't really that bad (we don't have air-conditioning so we didn't miss it). I think the worst part was having no radio and not really knowing what was going on or when the power would come back--we knew from walking around and asking questions that it was back in other parts of Manhattan, but that was all. We were starting to worry it'd be another few days, and then all of a sudden the kitchen light came on and people in the street started screaming with happiness and relief. We of course screamed along.

But before I try to write/think about the broader meaning of this event (what it means for U.S. energy policy, conservation, and so on), I think I need to go catch up on all the news I missed.

Mine, mine, all mine!
U.S. wants no interference in its occupation of Iraq

From an article in today's NYTimes ("U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation"), this quote just really struck me:

Mr. Rumsfeld, according to administration officials, vehemently opposes any dilution of military authority over Iraq by involving the United Nations, either through United Nations peacekeepers or indirectly in any United Nations authorization of forces from other countries.

American military officials say they fear that involving the United Nations, even indirectly, will hamper the latitude the United States must have in overseeing Iraqi security and pursuing anti-American guerrilla forces or terrorist actions.

Excuse me? So the American military is occupying Iraq for the purpose of... going after people who don't want it there? I thought Bush & co. were claiming that they wanted to "bring democracy" to Iraq, but now they're semi-admitting they're all about hunting down "anti-American" forces and turning Iraq into an American military state? OK, sorry for all the question marks, this all just makes me ill. Meanwhile, the cost of war and occupation goes up (just think of what we could have spent those billions on!), and Afghanistan is a disaster.

Response to "The Uniter Speaks" cartoon
From reader who feels I'm intolerant of Bush's personal views

Like most people, I love getting mail (except for hate mail, but I try not to take people who swear at me and call me names too seriously). Most of the responses I got to the cartoon were positive (not surprising, as it ran in the Boston Phoenix, whose readers tend to be younger and more liberal than the average newspaper audience). But I also got an email from a Mr. Donald Bassman, who respectfully disagreed with the cartoon. Here's his letter, and my response:

It strikes me as odd that your cartoon would have George Bush saying that someone was welcome to "rot in hell". I don't recall ever hearing him say anything so hateful as that, or hateful at all, for that matter.

Of course Mr. Bush has never OPENLY said any such thing. That's the whole point of the cartoon--that Bush gets away with DOING very anti-gay things by coating them in the language of tolerance. Cartoons are not supposed to be literal depictions of what politicians actually say. Cartoons use exaggeration to make points. And my point is that Bush talks all this talk about being "a uniter, not a divider", and being a "compassionate conservative," but he doesn't walk the walk. When he wants to make it easy for federally-funded charities to discriminate in hiring against gay people, he talks about how it will help the poor (except, I suppose, the GLBT poor). When he wants to further strengthen laws that bar loving same-sex couples from having the same rights and respect as heterosexual couples, FIRST he talks about being a "welcoming country," and THEN he says he's working with lawyers to "codify" heterosexual-only marriage.

Mr. Bassman continues:

If the mere fact that a person may not agree with your lifestyle, which a person has every right to, causes you to think that they want you to "rot in hell", then I REALLY have to wonder who has the problem.

Mr. Bush is NOT a private individual who in the privacy of his thoughts doesn't think gay couples should have the right to marry but who is publicly accepting/tolerant of them. He is the President of the United States, a public political figure with worldwide influence who helps to make LAWS and POLICIES that hold back and restrict the rights of millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. By this and other anti-gay positions he has taken, and by his close political ties to virulently anti-gay men such as Ralph Reed and Antonin Scalia, Bush is in essence telling gay people that he will happily hurt them to please his right-wing supporters--in other words, that they can go to hell.

And to allow Mr. Bassman to finish his letter:

People can accept each other and not have to totally agree on every aspect of each others lives. But, obviously, for many this just isn't enough. Oh well.

Saying to someone "I like you a lot but you have awful taste in movies so let's not watch movies together" is acceptance. But saying "You're OK but I think your homosexuality is sinful and/or disgusting and you don't deserve the same rights as I do to not be discriminated against in hiring and housing" is NOT acceptance. Saying "homosexuals are OK as long as they don't kiss or hold hands in public, don't engage in long-term publicly acknowledged relationships and don't have/adopt children" is NOT acceptance.

And no, it ISN'T enough. And I wish politicians like Bush who think gay, bisexual and transgendered people don't deserve equal rights would just say so--and not hide behind words like "accept" or "tolerate."

Thank the deity of your choice for Keith Knight
And Ruben Bolling, too

I don't have cable (or television at all for that matter) at the moment, so I have yet to see the much-discussed Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. But I have had to suffer through plenty of cartoons wondering how Saddam Hussein would look with a Queer Eye makeover. To my knowledge, Keith Knight is the first person to produce an intelligent cartoon based on the show, "Black Eye for the White Guy." Thank you, Keef.

And Ruben Bolling has the best cartoon about Bush and "traditional marriage" I've seen so far.

Update: The award for most homophobic take on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy goes to Glen McCoy, who depicts newly-elected Bishop Robinson giving style advice to a cruficified Jesus Christ.

New Cartoon! The Uniter Speaks

Anyone who still thinks Bush is a moderate or has no position on gay issues needs to wake up. Seriously. Scalia is his favorite justice. Ralph Reed is involved in his reelection campaign. Throwing a few tidbits out about "inclusion" and "welcoming" doesn't change a thing. And grasping at the fact that Dick Cheney doesn't hate his lesbian daughter doesn't change the fact that the Bush Administration as a whole is antigay. I doubt this will make gay Republicans vote Democratic in 2004, though--they wouldn't want to risk their tax cuts.

P.S. There's a good piece in this week's Village Voice about the current anti-gay backlash, and why anyone who thinks gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are safe and accepted in the U.S. because lots of people watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has their head in the sand.

Too focused on same-sex marriage?
Michael Bronski wonders how the BGLT movement became so centered on the issue

I recommend reading Bronski's whole essay ("Over the Rainbow"), but if you don't have the time, here's one of the more important pieces.

Marriage has become such a fixation in gay politics that I fear we may lose touch with other equally, if not more, important issues. Yes, queer legal groups like Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who are litigating the Goodridge case and who litigated the Vermont case that resulted in civil unions, are doing incredibly important work. But that nearly every other queer legal and advocacy group has made marriage its priority strikes me as intellectually lazy. It’s the I’ll-have-what-they’re-having fight rather than the this-is-how-to-make-the-world-better-for-everyone fight. Fighting for marriage is like fighting over yesterday’s leftovers rather than coming up with something new and better. Even as we fight for the right to marry, there is still so much to do. We can’t even pass a federal nondiscrimination bill, much less make the streets safe for transgender kids who are being murdered in their own neighborhoods. So much energy is being expended on marriage that we might not have the resources to fight for other issues in the future, both near and far.

I mean, from the way it's been covered in the press lately, you'd think same-sex marriage was the ONLY gay issue... which makes sense to a degree, considering how obsessed the right wing is with preventing loving couples from getting married. And it is a huge issue for many gay, lesbian and bisexual people... But still, it's good to have some perspective on it.

Same-sex marriage cartoon roundup (updated)
And a few other cartoons

Now that Bush has made his brilliant declaration about sinners and the "need" for further defining marriage as between a man and a woman, blah blah blah, cartoonists everywhere are drawing on the issue. (Updated to include a few cartoons on the new gay bishop)

Cartoons about hypocrisy: Cartoons that point out that heterosexual marriage is hardly the pristine institution that so many right-wingers extol it as from Stuart Carlson, Jimmy Margulies, Mike Smith, Signe Wilkinson, Ward Sutton, and Tom Toles. And cartoons about the Vatican's pronouncements on same-sex marriage from Ann Telnaes and Rob Rogers.

Cartoons disgusted by Bush's anti-gay comments: Tony Auth, Dan Wasserman, and Lalo Alcaraz. Signe Wilkinson doesn't comment specifically on his comments, but she puts two and two together about Bush's marriage promotion initiative...

Cartoons that simply celebrate gay marriage: These aren't as common. I found one from Kirk Anderson.

Cartoons about Bush's secret gay marriage: From who else but Ted Rall?

Cartoons that are pleased by Bush's "firm" anti-same-sex-marriage stance: Yes, here's one from Chuck Asay. Mr. Asay also makes that cute "save the children from those evil gays" argument, which at best makes the ridiculous argument that gay and bisexual people are inherently bad parents, and at worst calls up the homophobic lie that gay men are child molesters.

Other anti-gay cartoons: Dick Wright makes that stupid "gays are trying to divide the church" argument.

Cartoons that don't seem to take a stance or whose stance I can't puzzle out:
I'm not sure what to say about this Oliphant cartoon, except to wonder if Mr. Oliphant really thinks most gay men look/act like that. I have the nagging feeling that the man on the far left in this Chip Bok cartoon is supposed to be someone specific (why else the Yale shirt?) but I don't know who. Dick Locher notes that many people are speaking out against same-sex marriage, but I don't know if he's one of them or not. Same goes for Joe Heller.

Cartoons that use the visual idea of same-sex marriage to talk about something else entirely: From Mike Luckovich and KAL.

Cartoons not about same-sex marriage: Ted Rall has a different take than most (and one which I agree with) on the terror futures market. Joel Pett also has a great cartoon. Ruben Bolling presents a new board game. Keith Knight wonders how long it'll be before America doesn't need affirmative action any more. And here's a random cartoon about Ann Coulter from Doug Marlette, and a great cartoon from Lloyd Dangle (it's not brand-new, but it rocks anyway).

Good news, for once!

California just became the fourth state to protect transgendered people from housing and employment discrimination.

Argh, I hate cartoons like...

... this one. Can we say HOMOPHOBIC STEREOTYPING?

Update I've already received some emails disagreeing with me, so perhaps I should clarify what it is I don't like about the cartoon. What I disagree with is the way the patient is drawn: he's a limp-wristed stereotype, with his hands in his lap and a sweater tied around his shoulders. I'm also not a fan of the overdone labels and metaphors (I mean, a giant pill labeled "personal responsibility or death"?)

So I disagree with the execution of the cartoon, and likely the viewpoint behind it (since it comes from a very conservative cartoonist whose previous cartoon was another bad "chew on this" metaphor and whom hardly seems gay-friendly). I don't think the cartoon is meant to be a positive message about the need for safer sex, or even a cautionary message about the (dangerous) perception among many (whether gay, straight or bisexual) that AIDS isn't as bad any more because there are some treatments available, or that AIDS is somehow "over". I could be wrong, but I think it is more of a "those hedonistic gays have no sense of personal responsibility" message.

But whatever the cartoonist's intent, the cartoon does bring up a serious crisis. There has been a resurgence in new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men, especially younger men who weren't around to see the first wave of the epidemic. From the Boston Globe (Thanks to reader Scott for some of these links):

Effective drug cocktails that attacked the virus became widely available in the mid-1990s, giving many people with HIV years of healthy life. But some long-term users have begun to see the effectiveness wear off as the virus adapts. In addition, others find that the side effects, which can include disfiguring fat deposits, are so troubling that they choose not to continue treatment.

Both Kessler and Koh said state budget cuts for AIDS prevention were particularly short-sighted in light of the new trends. The state has cut deeply into money for prevention, testing and counseling in the last few years.

Health officials are also concerned about a broader shift away from safer sex practices.

There has been an increase nationally in syphilis and other illnesses that show a resurgence in risky sexual behaviors, particularly among young gay men, officials said. Lack of direct contact with others who have suffered from AIDS is one of the factors.

''There is continued reason for concern,'' Bina said. ''These are young men who have never really seen the face of AIDS.''

And although personal responsibility is important, simple calls for "personal responsibility" are not going to save many lives or end the crisis. Fighting AIDS requires comprehensive and well-funded prevention, testing and counselling programs carefully geared to speak to a wide variety of populations. For more information and links, please see organizations such as AIDS Action or the Gay Men's Health Crisis of NYC.

Sadly, the federal government has been going the other way by funding abstinence-only education (such as lesson plans asking students to sign celibacy-until-marriage pledges--now THAT'S gonna speak to gay teens!), feeding young people medically-inaccurate right-wing religious propaganda and denying them access to life-saving information about safer sex and contraception. As far as I'm concerned, these abstinence-only programs have blood on their hands.