Don't Ask Don't Tell: why institutionalized discrimination is STOOPID

blog response number... thing.

"Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television."

Dear Lord. What does it say about our country that we institutionalize discrimination to the point that we are willing to turn away ready, willing, enthusiastic, and amazing men and women from serving our country in uniform. And because of what? Because of who they love? Because of who they sleep with? ...that's some solid reasoning, right there.

After coming out on Rachel Maddow's cable news show on March 19, 2009 Lt. Dan Choi explained why Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bad idea, bad policy, and just generally negative. During the segment Maddow asks Lt. Choi if he could lose his job for coming on television and saying this. He admits that he could but stands firm that his position is both morally and legally correct.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As of May 5, 2009 he was notified that

"sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of Federal Recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction... Specifically, [he] admitted publicly that [he] is a homosexual, which constitutes homosexual conduct. [His] actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

How is this fair? If he refuses to resign and essentially admit that being gay is wrong then he will be given a dishonorable discharge. WTF?!?! He's an Iraq vet and a Westpoint Graduate!!!! I'm so angry that our government has discrimination as public policy. I'm so mad that they are wasting money kicking good people out of the military, people who want to serve.

How is this right?

How is it right to make hate part of government sanctioned policy and therefore validate homophobia?

If you think about it, no one would have known about this story if it hadn't been picked up on the blogs. I'm still pissed but I'm glad that we're able to spread the word so much quicker.

Teh Intarwebz, they are awesome: a reading response

If I'm numbering correctly this should be week 4 in reading responses.

I will not lie; I had to google the word "foment" to find out exactly what it meant because the image in my mind had more to do with coffee than activism.

In thinking about spaces used to generate and promote activism and participation the first thing that comes to my mind is the internet. The techniques and finer points may vary but the basis of so much social organizing and debate is based on the internet.

I could bore people with the specifics but if you look back at my post Infinity and beyond from March you will see an image which is a graphic representation of the internet as of sometime in 2005. The entire world is connected instantly and with the meteoric rise of Google the information is no longer difficult to access.

Blogs like Feministing, Racialicious, Jack and Jill Politics, and others are able to use the internet to stay on top of information and keep up with their communities. They also have the ability to use seach engines like Google and Yahoo! to draw more readers to them. The way the blog system is built with reciprocal linking, blogrolls, and instant sourcing via hyperlinks is inherently designed to grow.

I don't at all doubt the ability of bloggers and vloggers like Sarah Haskins and Smart Girls at the Party to use the frameworks of Web 2.0 to their advantage.

I will say that many of these people have the Howard Dean campaign to thank for this framework as they were the first to prove that it could be done on a national level. Despite the fact that Dean did not win the primary, his campaign manager Joe Trippi's book The Revolution Will Not be Televised explains how Dean's campaign which was based heavily on web support and participation succeeded in proving that political challenges could be brought directly to the people. Suddenly political organizing and activism was no longer people in high places talking at people it was webmasters and bloggers talking to and with people.

The same is true of activism. For so long activism was something that lobbyists did: someone set the agenda and a limited group of people were sent out to do something about it. Feedback was complicated, difficult, and extremely limited. When web 2.0 concepts were introduced the model was changed so that people are now often given direct links to contact people in places of power and let their opinions be known.

Getting something done is generally a question of knowing how to properly disseminate your information. Should you use Twitter or Facebook or a more complex tagging system for your blog?

In working on the obama campaign I watch some of the most amazing things happen using Web and communication resources. Canvassing and phonebanking organized over the internet. Peopler could print their own lists without ever having to come in to our office. Sometimes organizing can be spontaneous and other times Webmasters and bloggers such as those at Feministing can encourage their audiences to get involved thus spreading a cause far quicker and further than word of mouth or other conventional methods such as chalking a campus or flyering a neighborhood could.

I think that the claims made in the articles are valid. Everyone has a voice and deserves to have that voice heard. Attention needs to be drawn to certain issues. A huge benefit of using the web for organizing is that people are not limited in the content they choose to work with. They are not sending out a topical newsletter that will require all 15 articles to be based around the same things. Each post can be hugely different, organizing efforts can be very specific and targeted. This can, in some ways, streamline the processes surrounding organizing.

Reading Response II: why I love "teh intarwebz" and Rachel Maddow

A few weeks ago I was trolling technorati for information on how PCOS influences the likelihood of self-identification as some form of transgender when I stumbled upon the S&F Online. I was excited to discover it but only book marked it as I was working on a project for my sociology class and was trying to stay focused. When I clicked on the link for our reading and saw what came up I literally laughed out loud. Never think you're the first person to discover something on the internet.

One specific article I enjoyed reading was "Blogging Was Just the Beginning: Women's Voices are Louder Online" which I found fascinating. One of the most interesting things I noticed when reading this article was how very specifically dated it was. Without knowing when this was published I can tell you it had to have been written sometime after Feburary of 2007 and sometime before August of 2008. How do I know? Feburary of 2007 is when the Edward's campaign bloggers were fired and August of 2008 is when Rachel Maddow became the first openly gay, female, primetime cable news host.

I'm a dorktastic Maddow fan and would like to believe she has had a huge impact on the media just by being out there. There's a primetime cable news host who is openly gay and plainly butch. That's slightly huge for the average babydyke watching at home. I am aware that one cable news host does not a paradigm shift make and despite being a butch lesbian Rachel has many attributes that more than qualify her for the job.

Rachel is not just a woman with a journalism degree; she is a Rhodes Scholar who recieved her Doctorate of Philosophy in political science from Oxford. She is literally Dr. Maddow. She also has a long history of working in politics, HIV/AIDS activism, and prison reform. That's an impressive if not excessive resume for someone hosting a cable news show.

One interesting thing I did notice is that Nolan never mentioned Katie Couric who took over as the anchor of CBS Evening News in 2006. I would think that the inclusion of Couric in this article would be something of a big deal. Not only is she the first solo female anchor of the weekday news but she is also the highest paid news anchor and faced tough criticism when she was awarded the position. It just seemed odd that Couric wasn't included.


Looking at women in journalism and the blending of journalism and the blogosphere was interesting for me as I'm intensely passionate about the blogosphere. I feel many bloggers like Mayhill Fowler, whom I mentioned in an earlier post, are legitimate journalists breaking big stories. I still think there's a lot of room for improvement and women like Arianna Huffington and Rachel Maddow and Katie Couric are starting to change the game bit by bit. I'm really excited to see what happens next with women in the blogosphere.

Fun Fact: Rachel Maddow beat juggernaut Larry King in the ratings and has topped Countdown with Keith Olbermann as the highest rated show on MSNBC on several occasions.

Reading Response 1: It's a long one. Get some popcorn.

Because I can't come up with a better title than that...

Reading "Blog This! An Introduction to Blogs, Blogging, and the Feminist Blogosphere" "Women in the Blogosphere" and "Blogging Busts Out" was interesting because I often only read a few lines before some random thought or response was evoked.

I'll be honest about how difficult it is for me to organize my thoughts and responses especially to "Women in the Blogosphere". It's hard for me to read the article while also thinking in terms of history. The article was written around April of 2005, almost four years ago. In web terms that's a millennium! Those four years were enough time for the Republicans to peak in power and then begin to crumble like a biscochito. Myspace followed suit and has given way to Facebook which has in turn begun fighting it out with Twitter all of this overshadowed by the rise of Campaign 2.0 and now White House/Government 2.0.

The world changed so much and I believe the blogosphere has changed in many ways as well. I understand that the majority of the top blogs aren't run or written mainly by women but every blog in the Top 5 of Technorati's Top 100 Blogs list has at least one regular contributor who is a woman. Even this is ignoring the number one spot: The Huffington Post.

I suppose my biggest argument that women have the ability to weild just as much power -if not more- than men in the blogosphere is simply Arianna Huffington. Arianna is a blogging Goddess in so many ways the first of which being that she founded The Huffington Post which may not seem like much until you look closer.

Not only is The Huffington Post a blog for Arianna, it also hosts blogs for hundreds of other people including big names like Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Barney Frank, and (before she moved to MSNBC) Rachel Maddow. During the campaign season The Huffington Post became a huge go-to resource for political news and information as it had real time front page updates the instant something new happened. Even after the election The Huffington Post has remained a big name in news, big enough that Sam Stein of The Huffington Post was called on to ask a question at President Obama's first press conference.


Another personal blogger-of-note is Ana Marie Cox, founding editor of Wonkette. When most people think of snark and satire they think of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert but in the blogosphere political snark and satire are very much the territory of Ana Marie Cox. During her time as Editor, Wonkette was THE blog for DC news and gossip. When Cox left many people continued to follow her and still follow her after she has moved from Wonkette to Swampland to Radar and is currently at Air America.

My point about Arianna and HuffPost as it's informally known is that a blog founded by a woman is one of the most powerful blogs in the world. If there is ever doubt cast on Arianna or her abilities it is almost always based on political ideology rather than any sort of chops. Similarly, Wonkette's having been headed up by a woman had little effect on its credibility.

It's not just the prominent figures either. Having worked behind the scenes on the computer end of the Obama campaign I can vouch that many of the "new media" people I encountered were women.

So much has changed about the internet and the blogosphere since 2005 that it's kind of hard to compare the web as it exists now to the web as it existed before. In 2005 cyber-activism was in its infancy. In 2008 cyber-activism helped win the presidency. Now it's 2009 and we have proven that effective organizing and support systems can be created over the web. My biggest question is what will we do with them?

Fun Fact: The person who broke the "bittergate" story was a citizen blogger (someone who is not a memeber of the traditional press corps) and woman named Mayhill Fowler. She was blogging on HuffPost and her story rocked the traditional media elite to the core, not because of what it said about Obama but because it was broken by a woman in the crowd with a tape recorder, not a press badge.

Is it wrong that I think "rationale" is a boring word?

I don't for a moment blame people who use it; I understand that there aren't really any other options as far as nouns encompassing an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, belief, practice, or phenomena but I always feel slightly cheated when I see it, like someone needed a word for this and just said "I know! I'll just take 'rational' and put an 'e' on it! Brilliant! No one will ever know." We have a big language can't someone come up with a better word?

I will put my qualms with the word "rationale" aside to now explain, well, the rationale of my blog.

I suppose I can't claim that this blog will be strictly topical as I know myself and my inability to focus on anything that is not directly in front of me or shiny. I will say that my blog won't be limited to women's rights because I find it to be cissexist to argue for the equal rights of one particular gender without including those people who are alternative, trans, or non gendered. Equality should apply across the board.

As a "woman" who feels more gender queer than femme my blog will most likely focus on what it's like to be in a female body unsure of what it means to be a woman or a man and where I fall in respect to the dominant gender dichotomy. There is also the question of how the feminist movement feels about transgender individuals at the movement.

There are big questions I want to ask like:
Do women's rights include individuals who are MTF?
What about FTM?
What about individuals identifying as Gender Queer?
Is it feminist for a woman to actively seek to be submissve to a male a-la "Secretary"?

As a woman with multiple health problems I would also like to look at the way women's health is handled including the way treatment of PCOS is handled in relation to gender and feminism, the way mental health issues are handled, Doctor/Patient relationship dynamics, and other aspects of healthcare in relation to gender and feminism.

I also desperately want to look at women in politics (or lack thereof) and how some of them, like Senator Claire McCaskill of Missourri are using technology to reach their constituencies more readily.

Fun fact: Out of the 99 people serving in the US Senate (Minnesota is still being indecisive) only 17 are women. Think about that for a second 17 of 99 and the 100th will be male.

Fun fact part II: In the more than 200 years The United States of America, and subsequently the Senate has existed we have had a total of 38 women serve as Senators. One of them served for only 24hours.

Those two facts are stunning in the jaw-dropping-WTF?! sense.

Anything you think I might want to consider adding?
I *heart* feedback. (If I try to use the less-than-three version of "heart" the XML/HTML get's really wonky.)