Waiting for the new Indigo Girls to be available in the UK!! Until then, here’s a new video interview/performance for cnn.com. (It makes me sad that they are on the web promoting their new CD as opposed to, say, on Letterman. But they’re still doing what they love! (And the music is still just as great as ever. They really are second to none as songwriters.)
**admission: I started this in january, but have not got around to finishing it until now. Dissertation stuff.**
Strictly speaking, this is not a review. My review of Changeling (and I have not been seeing many films, so that is why there aren’t many reviews on this blog) is this: well acted, well directed, but I could not fully get into the film. I could not because I was too distracted by what I saw as the underlying narrative of the film. Because many of the supporting characters were one dimensional, it felt like the message of the film was hammered into me. And my focus on this lead me to wonder…. why was this film made? Granted, in my limited net research about the screenwriter, he is a sci-fi writer who is an atheist. Nonetheless, this story seems like a custom-made commercial for the worldview of one particular group. See if you can spot which group…..
In it, he argues that the LGBT movement is aligned with feminism and the challenging of Patriarchy within the Church. He raises several provocative points. However, I am reposting here (along with links) my argument that I made in a post on the article’s “letters” section. I disagree that LGBT rights should be seen in the same manner as feminism (kindly read the article).
As a fellow gay Christian, I really appreciate his perspective, particularly with institutional misogyny in the Church. However, for as much insight as he offers, I have to disagree with his fundamental assertion in this interview: the alignment of the LGBT movement with feminism. His depiction of feminism is centred on a freedom of choice. Depicting LGBT issues in the same way is a misguided adoption of the characterization of what it is to be gay that the anti-gay forces give to us (NOTE: I do NOT endorse and specifically, I reject the links provided). Granted, this rhetoric has existed since the early 90s when gay marriage and unions were depicted by us as “lifestyle preference” choices by people like kd lang on television: (please note that this interview is great for many reasons, including Ms. Lang’s outfit and the reaction of the audience – and this was in 1993).
March for International Solidarity, 15 November 2008
I try not to post about personal events of the day on this blog, however the march for international solidarity that I attended today is political, so here you go.
About 18-20 of us, mostly students, marched from the Museum on Mound Place to the US Consulate in Edinburgh. This was about 15 – 20 minutes of walking through the sunny, yet windy and chilly City Centre. It was organized by 2 students (neither of whom is me) from the University of Edinburgh who managed to get us a police escort, even on such short notice.
I’m a 33 year old grad student, and I’m certain I was the oldest marcher by about 5 years. It was quite international with American students studying abroad marching, as well as N. Irish, Australian, Spanish, German, English and of course, Scottish marchers. Quite a few students who had committed to marching were no shows because they were hungover (nice, eh?). There were other non-students that were supposed to be there and didn’t show. But those who arrived were very enthusiastic and politically motivated.
It was pretty peaceful as 1) People protest a great deal more frequently here than in the US (or at least it feels like it). 2) Civil partnerships are already legal here. 3) Even conservatives over here supported Barack Obama. We did however walk by a group of 5 or 6 Mormons. (They had nametags on clearly identifying themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so that was pretty awesome). I was the only one who identified them, though, while we marched. They saw us and kind of laughed or smiled a little bit, but not mockingly. Though frankly, I don’t think we would have cared, or perhaps would have enjoyed it.
Release the Stars has taken me over. I purchased it a week ago after receiving an unexpectedly large pay check from work (over 100 pounds!) At first, I heard the title track and saw Rufus in leiderhosen and thought, “huh?” But after listening to interesting interviews of him online, I relistened and was a bit hooked. Then came the paycheck, then the album purchase. Now I listen to it an average of twice a day. It is amazing.
Here are some clips from the CD:
“Going to a Town” -
“Release the Stars” -
* – In the linked review, the author hints that the song “Do I Disappoint You” is written about some ex-boyfriend. I think it is written about Rufus’ father, based on interviews I’ve watched.
The Stooges was a record I thought I needed to buy, after the song “I Wanna Be Your Dog” got stuck in my head a while back. I thought there was something to it that just stuck with me. Now I dream of performing it live somewhere. To be honest, the album starts off well and sort of fades for me, but it is just so awesome. I’m sure I’ll warm up to the rest.
** continued from previous post (Edited for clarity: and no, I don’t know why the font changed but I can’t seem to get it back)**
“Christian Publishers” – Protests against major chains… this argument explains the freemarket system of business and in no way addresses governmental censorship. This argument deals with supply and demand and capitalism and protest. If the letter is critical of Obama for supposedly destroying a Capitalist economic system, how do the authors then critique a logical extension of the realization of the system they support?
“Prosecution of Former Bush Administration Officials” – The assumption is that President Bush (W.) does not deserve such scrutiny. And that somehow this review would counter Christian principles.
I am in the middle of dissertation work and trying to sort my life out for when I finish my degree. I have missed out on posting several items on this blog because of it. HOWEVER, this letter is so odious, I must give my humble response. Doubtless, many other bloggers are reacting to this. I have not read those responses. But based on my study and my following of the news, these are my reactions.
I had intended to address each point line by line, but the arguments become repetitive after a while and become so off-topic from the original goal of the letter, it becomes mindboggling. It comes to encapsulate almost every political issue that the Christian right claims to care about. The beginning of my reaction here deals with the beginning of the letter, which is the foundation for the rest.
****UPDATE**** I have rewritten this slightly to make it a bit clearer. Because this letter draws from so many different strands of logic, it is hard to come up with one coherent critique that follows throughout, so I think I sound a bit repetitious. Hopefully, it’s a slightly clearer read now.
HERE is the Focus on the Family 2012 letter. I am not reposting it here as I am unsure of the legal issues of doing that.
The letter assumes that Obama will appoint “far-left, American Civil Liberties Union-oriented judges.” These would be justices who take cues from international law rather than the US Constitution (translation: we would become more like “liberal, secular” Europe rather than “Christian” America.) However, the implication and true concern of Focus on the Family is that “liberals” will “add” laws to the Constitution rather than interpret what is already there. Specifically, this concerns the “right to privacy.” This ”right” does not strictly exist in the Constitution, but is a concept drawn from other aspects of the Constitution (much like the doctrine of the Trinity and the Bible) regarding the rights against self-incrimination and the limitations placed on the government in cases of search and seizure. This concern is most important for the Christian Right because it is the basis for the Roe V. Wade decision. It was supposedly concoted by “liberals” and has led to the legalization of abortion and sodomy.
However, an examination of the “re-interpretation” of laws by appointees of Democrats and “activist” judges that led to the Roe v. Wade decision doesn’t support this fear. Justice Byron White, an appointee of Democrat John F. Kennedy, and Justice William Rehnquist, an appointee of Nixon, were the dissenters in this 7-2 decision while 5 Republican appointees to the court, including 3 Nixon appointees and 2 Eisenhower appointees, voted in favour. This would seem to challenge the assumption that an Obama court will necessarily produce rampant “new” laws and that Republican justices (who are supposed to be impartial, as judges, to begin with) will create interpretations of laws that conservative Christians would be happy with.
Of course, the Constitution itself is amendable by Congress, and is not meant to be changed by the Supreme Court. And certainly in the cases of corporate fraud and the concealment of information about the lethality of tobacco, it would seem that privacy is an overrated virtue in the US, whether as a “right” or a “privilege” of executive office or as “trade secrets.” But the “acts” of the court and its appointees, and what they may lead to, from the outset of this letter, seem to be predicted prematurely, if not completely misunderstood.
This all, of course, assumes it is even fair to consider Obama as “far-left,” since as I have blogged about in the past, his economic policy supports the free market (and prior to this current economic crisis, his endorsement of the free market was on the front page on his website as the explanation for his economic policy, though now he has different agendas listed for the economy). And he has said before that he supports civil unions but NOT gay marriage.
Which brings us to section two of the Focus on the Family letter.
I haven’t posted anything new since late June. I will try to rectify this very soon. I have work commitments which draw my attention however. But I’ll try to post again in the next few days.
Highlight from the Huffingtonpost entry that you can link to from the opening sentence of this blog entry:
Obama also cited Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”
“Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” Obama said in the speech.
My friends in various places still really like Dobson and listen to his radio show, but I just cannot do it. And the website mentioned in the end of this article, which was set up as a response to Dobson, does not seem totally lame, either. Lest we not forget, Dobson knows Dubya. This is a photo of them at the National Day of Prayer.
Just for fun, here’s Dobson stating he would never vote for MCain (or Guilani).
(blog note: i’m not showing stories or images directly on my own page because I don’t know the legal issues implicated in such an action).
So there are now too many songs to update continually. However, I have just bought music on ITunes from Bob Mould, the Dropkick Murphys, Martha Wainwright and Black Flag. Quite a combo, right?
But they’re still doing what they love! (And the music is still just as great as ever. They really are second to none as songwriters.) 
