Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
What Economists Think...
The American Economic Association released a new survey of attitudes of its members toward varying economic issues. The results show high agreement on some questions, and disagreement on others. The first question asks whether the US should eliminate all tariffs and barriers to trade. 83% of economists agree, while 10% disagree. Well...just a couple of weeks ago Obama approved legislation to increase punitive tariffs on Chinese exports. Looks like someone has selective listening when it comes to his economists' expert advice....
I wish, too, that that the survey would have solicited economists their views on gay marriage, i.e. does gay marriage generates more benefits than costs to society? It would be beneficial to see what the members of the AEA think about this highly relevant topic today. I mean, come on, the survey prompts the economists with a question about Wal-Mart and claims that this is an issue of topical relevance today. Seriously? Wal-Mart controversy is so dated.
I wish, too, that that the survey would have solicited economists their views on gay marriage, i.e. does gay marriage generates more benefits than costs to society? It would be beneficial to see what the members of the AEA think about this highly relevant topic today. I mean, come on, the survey prompts the economists with a question about Wal-Mart and claims that this is an issue of topical relevance today. Seriously? Wal-Mart controversy is so dated.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Gay Marriage in Vermont
Gay marriages start.....today, September 1st, 2009! It adds to the growing list of New England states that have taken the intrepid step of legalizing gay marriage....plus incontiguous pastoral Iowa. I'm curious to see how the institution of gay marriage in Vermont will affect the state socially, politically, and most interestingly, economically. Anticipate a report from the Williams Institute in about six months or so!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Another Essay...
Here is an Analysis of an Argument essay.
Prompt: "A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio. “We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”"
My Response:
The argument that the movie will be a failure without increased funding is not entirely convincing. The memo suffers from numerous fallacious assumptions that render its argument illogical and not persuasive. This essay will expose these gaps in the argument and suggest ways that the movie producer could send a more effective memo to the head of the movie studio.
The first assumption that renders the memo not complete is that the movie producer assumes a causal relationship between the funding and the movie's success. He states that without increased funding, then the movie will undoubtedly fail. In other words, he claims that there is not other cause that can make the movie fail. It is dangerous to assume a causal relationship without quantifying it and without the movie producer considering further factors that, in addition to funding, could make the movie a horrible flop. For instance there are many successful documentaries like Trembling Before God and many of Michael More's movies that are produced on a tight budget. In addition, there exists successful non-documentaries, like the Blair Witch Project, produced by film students that have gone on to win movie awards.
Simply put, a lack of funding is not the only cause of a failed movie. Other components like the quality of the acting, and the timing of the realease can have more of an impact on the film's success than it's funding. Additionally, although the movie procuder claims that funding must be increased by 10%, where does he get that number from and why must it be 10%? If he arbitrary picked a percentage, why not randomly pick a 20%, or even higher, like 50% increase in funding? None of these estimates are cited in the memo and it leaves many questions unanswered.
An additional, and striking assumption that the movie producer makes is that the new director will assuredly be wasteful. His view of the new director, is one, disparaging, and two, rather extreme. To assume that that director will no doubt spend resources wastefully and extravaangtly just because the advertising business is wasteful is spurious and makes no sense. Who is to say that the director will pay any attention to what the advertising business will do with its finances? And is it not important that the movie director not belittle his director simply because the only experience the director has had with film is shooting commercials?
Furthermore, it is left unanswered whether those commercials were successful or not, so it is unfair to judge the director based on his previous experiences without providing the head of the studio with more biographical information of the director. And while the relative scope of a commercial is clearly smaller than the scope of a movie, a director's ability to manage successfully and devotion to a shooting is usually steadfast no matter what project he undertakes.
To conclude, the memo the movie producer sent to the head of the movie studio is not convincing and not persuasive. In order to strengthen his argument that the movie needs increased funding to be successful, the producer could provide the head of the movie studio with studies that show funding is directly proportional to a film's success and that 10% is the necessary increase in funding. In addition, he could provide evidence that perhaps the movie director has in the past been prodigal, which is why he believes he will similarly act recklessly with his film. Overall, without these improvements, the memo is not cogent.
Prompt: "A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio. “We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”"
My Response:
The argument that the movie will be a failure without increased funding is not entirely convincing. The memo suffers from numerous fallacious assumptions that render its argument illogical and not persuasive. This essay will expose these gaps in the argument and suggest ways that the movie producer could send a more effective memo to the head of the movie studio.
The first assumption that renders the memo not complete is that the movie producer assumes a causal relationship between the funding and the movie's success. He states that without increased funding, then the movie will undoubtedly fail. In other words, he claims that there is not other cause that can make the movie fail. It is dangerous to assume a causal relationship without quantifying it and without the movie producer considering further factors that, in addition to funding, could make the movie a horrible flop. For instance there are many successful documentaries like Trembling Before God and many of Michael More's movies that are produced on a tight budget. In addition, there exists successful non-documentaries, like the Blair Witch Project, produced by film students that have gone on to win movie awards.
Simply put, a lack of funding is not the only cause of a failed movie. Other components like the quality of the acting, and the timing of the realease can have more of an impact on the film's success than it's funding. Additionally, although the movie procuder claims that funding must be increased by 10%, where does he get that number from and why must it be 10%? If he arbitrary picked a percentage, why not randomly pick a 20%, or even higher, like 50% increase in funding? None of these estimates are cited in the memo and it leaves many questions unanswered.
An additional, and striking assumption that the movie producer makes is that the new director will assuredly be wasteful. His view of the new director, is one, disparaging, and two, rather extreme. To assume that that director will no doubt spend resources wastefully and extravaangtly just because the advertising business is wasteful is spurious and makes no sense. Who is to say that the director will pay any attention to what the advertising business will do with its finances? And is it not important that the movie director not belittle his director simply because the only experience the director has had with film is shooting commercials?
Furthermore, it is left unanswered whether those commercials were successful or not, so it is unfair to judge the director based on his previous experiences without providing the head of the studio with more biographical information of the director. And while the relative scope of a commercial is clearly smaller than the scope of a movie, a director's ability to manage successfully and devotion to a shooting is usually steadfast no matter what project he undertakes.
To conclude, the memo the movie producer sent to the head of the movie studio is not convincing and not persuasive. In order to strengthen his argument that the movie needs increased funding to be successful, the producer could provide the head of the movie studio with studies that show funding is directly proportional to a film's success and that 10% is the necessary increase in funding. In addition, he could provide evidence that perhaps the movie director has in the past been prodigal, which is why he believes he will similarly act recklessly with his film. Overall, without these improvements, the memo is not cogent.
GRE Essays
Since the only, and I mean only, issue that the news talks about these days is Obamacare, this dearth of news leave little for me to comment on since, in all sincerity, I am not interested in the health care debate. I just look forward to the end of these irascible town hall meetings and polemical essays for and against healthcare given that it's presence has diluted the news. In light of there being little in the news worth talking about, and since I have been assiduous in my study for the GRE since early July I am going to share with you the practice essays that I have written.
The GRE includes two writing sections: an Analysis of an Issue essay and an Analysis of an Argument essay. The former requires you to give your opion on an issue and the latter requires you to critique the logic of an argument. So here's a sample issue essay I wrote, and please feel free to constructively critique my writing. But keep in mind that this is GRE writing, so it's a "first draft" and overly trite. The issue topic was "Science is meaningless without religion".
The issue of how religion affects science is a controversial one. One the one hand, it can be argued that science is meaningless without religion. On the other hand, however, others argue that the presence of religion renders science meaningless. Although our modern era is marked heavily by atheism and a healthy dose of skepticism towards religion, I believe that science needs religion in order to be meaningful. This essay will explore my reasons that support my final analysis.
First, science can only have meaning with religion when religion does not stifle scientific investigation. In the early Middle Ages in Europe, the Catholic Church stifled scientific inquiry because it believed that its theology was all the masses needed to know in order to understand the world and the universe, and God. On the opposite side of the globe, the new flourishing religion of Islam enthusiastically encouraged scientific investigation. For example, there exists in Islam the principle of itsjihad, which means to devote oneself to philosophic, artistic, and scientific improvement. Clearly, the Muslims believed that the best way to understand God was to unearth the principles of the universe, which is done through scientific investigation and study. As a result, the Muslim world in that age produced great works of science and philosophy, from illustrious names like Averroes and Maimonides while Christendom in Europe stagnated scientifically.
Moreover, scientific discoveries can make religion appear more pertinent, realistic, and less mythological. While many view the texts of Christianity, such as the story of Creation found in Genesis as a fairytale that imitates other Near Easter creation stories, scientific discoveries can, in fact, give these stories more credibility. For example, before the discovery of the Big Bang, many scientists believed that the universe had no real beginning, meaning that the Universe was ageless. However, when two scientists discovered the Big Bang, this proved that the Universe had a definite start. In fact, this theory, although still contentious is many scientific circles, illustrates the story of Creation and gives the story more credibility. Also, in the New Testament, the apostles talk about the end of the universe and now that he universe has a beginning, many scientists believe that is must have an end, and many have postulated theories that the universe will extinguish in the far future. So, it is evident that science can give meaning to religion as well.
To conclude, while many fervent atheists aver that science is meaningless with religion, the arguments above illustrate that science can, alternatively, have meaning with religion. Religion can encourage scientific inquiry and, in turn, that scientific inquiry can give more credibility to religion. So, the two are not entirely irreconcilable, but share a common purpose and that is to better understand the world in which we live.
The GRE includes two writing sections: an Analysis of an Issue essay and an Analysis of an Argument essay. The former requires you to give your opion on an issue and the latter requires you to critique the logic of an argument. So here's a sample issue essay I wrote, and please feel free to constructively critique my writing. But keep in mind that this is GRE writing, so it's a "first draft" and overly trite. The issue topic was "Science is meaningless without religion".
The issue of how religion affects science is a controversial one. One the one hand, it can be argued that science is meaningless without religion. On the other hand, however, others argue that the presence of religion renders science meaningless. Although our modern era is marked heavily by atheism and a healthy dose of skepticism towards religion, I believe that science needs religion in order to be meaningful. This essay will explore my reasons that support my final analysis.
First, science can only have meaning with religion when religion does not stifle scientific investigation. In the early Middle Ages in Europe, the Catholic Church stifled scientific inquiry because it believed that its theology was all the masses needed to know in order to understand the world and the universe, and God. On the opposite side of the globe, the new flourishing religion of Islam enthusiastically encouraged scientific investigation. For example, there exists in Islam the principle of itsjihad, which means to devote oneself to philosophic, artistic, and scientific improvement. Clearly, the Muslims believed that the best way to understand God was to unearth the principles of the universe, which is done through scientific investigation and study. As a result, the Muslim world in that age produced great works of science and philosophy, from illustrious names like Averroes and Maimonides while Christendom in Europe stagnated scientifically.
Moreover, scientific discoveries can make religion appear more pertinent, realistic, and less mythological. While many view the texts of Christianity, such as the story of Creation found in Genesis as a fairytale that imitates other Near Easter creation stories, scientific discoveries can, in fact, give these stories more credibility. For example, before the discovery of the Big Bang, many scientists believed that the universe had no real beginning, meaning that the Universe was ageless. However, when two scientists discovered the Big Bang, this proved that the Universe had a definite start. In fact, this theory, although still contentious is many scientific circles, illustrates the story of Creation and gives the story more credibility. Also, in the New Testament, the apostles talk about the end of the universe and now that he universe has a beginning, many scientists believe that is must have an end, and many have postulated theories that the universe will extinguish in the far future. So, it is evident that science can give meaning to religion as well.
To conclude, while many fervent atheists aver that science is meaningless with religion, the arguments above illustrate that science can, alternatively, have meaning with religion. Religion can encourage scientific inquiry and, in turn, that scientific inquiry can give more credibility to religion. So, the two are not entirely irreconcilable, but share a common purpose and that is to better understand the world in which we live.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tel Aviv Update
Tel Aviv's astoundingly tragic massacre at one of it's gay youth centers still leaves me distressed and morose. Last Sunday I was at dinner with Jewish friends of mine, one is Israeli, and he asked me why I have been silent about Israel. I told him how I felt candidly. For one thing, I could not contemplate that a Jew would kill another Jew because of sexual orientation. For another, I was angry that the Orthodox incite hatred and malice towards gay Israelis. I could barely hold back my tears as I reticently told my feelings. I don't hold any bitterment towards the Orthodox community: I know Orthodox Jews who are accepting LGBT allies, but just a few hateful words from clergy can have dire, and as we saw, murderous consequences. In short, I'm still recovering.
Here is an article from The Advocate on the paradox of gay life in Tel Aviv. The author argues that this murder could only happen in Tel Aviv because it's the only locale where gay people can meet openly, thus the paradox. He doesn't forget that homosexuals are pursued also in Iran and homosexuality is illegal in almost every contiguous state next to Israel. For instance, gays in Iran are subject to corporal punishment if found engaging in homosexual behavior. But, truly, a poignant reason this massacre is shocking to the world, and myself, is because homosexuality is decriminalized in Israel and gays have rights. Consequently, we expect gays to live freely without fear of intimidation and murder. Let's hope that in the future this is true for all gays, just not in Israel, but everywhere.
Here is an article from The Advocate on the paradox of gay life in Tel Aviv. The author argues that this murder could only happen in Tel Aviv because it's the only locale where gay people can meet openly, thus the paradox. He doesn't forget that homosexuals are pursued also in Iran and homosexuality is illegal in almost every contiguous state next to Israel. For instance, gays in Iran are subject to corporal punishment if found engaging in homosexual behavior. But, truly, a poignant reason this massacre is shocking to the world, and myself, is because homosexuality is decriminalized in Israel and gays have rights. Consequently, we expect gays to live freely without fear of intimidation and murder. Let's hope that in the future this is true for all gays, just not in Israel, but everywhere.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Attack in Tel Aviv
2 dead and 15 wounded in attack on Tel Aviv gay center. I am in complete shock about this. This horrific news has taken my breath away and I can't begin to express the deep sadness that I am feeling. I hope that the US and the world take note of this and that Israel works harder to counter homophobia. As a Jew, I know that we (and I mean all of us from secular to ultra-religious) are better than this inhumanity. This criminal attack just seems so out of place given that it was in Israel, let alone Tel Aviv: the heart of gay life in the Middle East. As a gay, I can't really begin to express how deeply distressed, sad and hurt I am; these teenagers were murdered in cold blood and I can barely think properly. But I seriously hope, demand, that Israel severely condemns this hate crime and its perpetrator.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care Benefits Revisited
My latest post on providing health care concluded that the cost of providing them would exceed the benefits. I still reason the government will not approve this important legislation because of the costs it will incur (and because of prejudice towards gays). Of course, my prediction could be wrong.
But, however grim my analysis may be, I still believe that health care benefits should be granted to all same-sex partners of federal employees because it is an entitlement that we should enjoy just as much as heterosexual partners. Cost and benefits cannot overshadow civil rights.
In this case, civil rights trumps economics. So, to answer that post's concluding question "Are health care benefits worth the cost?", the answer is yes.
But, however grim my analysis may be, I still believe that health care benefits should be granted to all same-sex partners of federal employees because it is an entitlement that we should enjoy just as much as heterosexual partners. Cost and benefits cannot overshadow civil rights.
In this case, civil rights trumps economics. So, to answer that post's concluding question "Are health care benefits worth the cost?", the answer is yes.
Social Networking Venn Diagram
Now that CNN is on Twitter, the venn diagram helps explain why their news coverage sucks. It all makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks Despair Inc!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
On Being Gay and Jewish
Phil, at Ameriqueer, is going to be posting a dozen or so original guest posts dealing with Queer Spirituality this week, with contributors representing each of the world's major religions. He asked me to contribute to the conversation as the token Jew. I am glad to write about my experiences with being gay and Jewish, and I want to share my narrative with you.
When asked to write about what it means to be spiritual and gay, I was given the premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both. I want to make it clear at the outset that this premise is mistaken. This assumption does not fit my experience as a gay Jew. I cannot remember a time in my childhood or young adulthood where there was conflict between my sexual identity and spirituality. The closest difficulty I have faced is not being able to find that nice Jewish boy that my mom wants me to meet.
I come from a liberal, Chicago suburban Jewish family. My father's family has been here since the mid-1800s but my mom's father escaped the Holocaust, fled to Israel, and finally settled in Chicago. I grew up knowing distinctly that I was a Jew. My mother emphasized that we were unique, and that our situation, despite the tolerance we Jews have in America, was always precarious and that Israel was our only protection from persecution. So, I grew up with this sense of "otherness". At times, I rebelled, but most times, I was very proud to be a Jew. Today, I have a secure and evolving sense of my Jewish self.
Around that same time, I began to have feelings for boys as well. When I was in fourth grade, I stared at attractive boys in my class a lot and loved to be around them during recess. I knew intuitively I was gay at this time but I didn't know what to think about it in Jewish terms. Homosexuality was not discussed in my Sunday school classes. No one told me it was bad, but no teacher had told me it was good either. I never heard my rabbi preach about the sin of homosexuality ever. I did not grow up even with the sense that there was a conflict between being gay and being Jewish. There simply was not any condemnation, let alone any mention, of it in my religious upbringing.
I now know why this is now. There are two types of Judaism, loosely. There is the liberal branch, consisting of the Reform and Conservative movements in which I grew up, that is tolerant of homosexuality and then there is the Orthodox community. Unlike the liberal branch, the Orthodox has a much more austere and critical perspective of homosexuality.
When I did bring up the issue of homosexuality with my mom one time, she had said that we Jews understand it as a product of its place and time. The Torah actually does says that homosexuality is an abomination. In ancient times, however, the world population was very scarce; people and infants died all the time. It was imperative that the Jews survive and only through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman could that be done. Same sex love between men or between women did not help to ensure the survival of mankind and the Torah accordingly condemns and discourages homosexual practices. However, Reform Jews don't believe the ancient rabbis believed that same sex love was immoral. Reform Judaism rejects any suggestion that being gay is any kind of sin when we look at the Torah in its ancient context.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, understand homosexuality as grave a sin as Catholics, evangelical Christians, and many young Orthodox gay Jews are not as fortuitous as I to grow up in such an open-minded and liberal household. Many succumb to family pressures to marry, and some unfortunately commit suicide. I heard of one religious Jew who, in order to purge himself of his homosexuality, survived on a diet of cigarettes and water. My heart goes out to him because I do not know Judaism as a faith whose precepts would make a man go to such gruesome depth to suppress his identity.
On the contrary, my parents support me and remind me of their unconditional love all the time. They cherish me as their son, and my sexual identity does not compromise that. Despite this, though, there are times when I get so depressed because the feeling of being different overwhelms me. Knowing that I am both gay and Jewish, and knowing the hardships that both groups face within and outside each community, exhausts my soul sometimes. I become inarticulate, despondent, and withdrawn from friends and family. I can speak, but only tersely; I can think, but my thoughts are convoluted; I can live, but I barely survive.
As soup for my soul, I turn to the Torah, Judaism’s holiest book to uplift my spirits. I remember that the Torah forbids the suppression of identity and I remind myself that I wasn’t created in error. For instance, we Jews emphasize heavily that each person is made in the image of God. Since I was made in His image, God did not make me as a pile of junk. I must believe that I am valuable because I was created for a purpose and to have purpose in life. This Jewish philosophy gives life to my gay identity more than any gay bar or pride parade every can.
Torah also teaches me that self-love is self-acceptance. Because I want to better synthesize my identities, I have being helping revise the LGBT Jewish student group at the Hillel at the University of Illinois. The group is called Naches, which is the Yiddish word for Pride. The mission of Naches is to create a vibrant, welcoming Jewish LGBT community where students can explore and celebrate all aspects of their identities. I want to help gay Jewish students feel empowered to embrace and fuse both of their identities through social and educational programming. This past year we held queer-themed Shabbats, which were very popular.
The premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both gay and spiritual is far from the truth. I know many gays who, yes, do feel uncomfortable with religion, are agnostic or atheist, and for them that is entirely ok. But, my experience shows that spirituality and being gay are reconcilable and that having a spirituality can help make being gay more holy and more meaningful. I am grateful that I have been ‘twice blessed’ to be both gay and Jewish. It is such a blessing in my life.
When asked to write about what it means to be spiritual and gay, I was given the premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both. I want to make it clear at the outset that this premise is mistaken. This assumption does not fit my experience as a gay Jew. I cannot remember a time in my childhood or young adulthood where there was conflict between my sexual identity and spirituality. The closest difficulty I have faced is not being able to find that nice Jewish boy that my mom wants me to meet.
I come from a liberal, Chicago suburban Jewish family. My father's family has been here since the mid-1800s but my mom's father escaped the Holocaust, fled to Israel, and finally settled in Chicago. I grew up knowing distinctly that I was a Jew. My mother emphasized that we were unique, and that our situation, despite the tolerance we Jews have in America, was always precarious and that Israel was our only protection from persecution. So, I grew up with this sense of "otherness". At times, I rebelled, but most times, I was very proud to be a Jew. Today, I have a secure and evolving sense of my Jewish self.
Around that same time, I began to have feelings for boys as well. When I was in fourth grade, I stared at attractive boys in my class a lot and loved to be around them during recess. I knew intuitively I was gay at this time but I didn't know what to think about it in Jewish terms. Homosexuality was not discussed in my Sunday school classes. No one told me it was bad, but no teacher had told me it was good either. I never heard my rabbi preach about the sin of homosexuality ever. I did not grow up even with the sense that there was a conflict between being gay and being Jewish. There simply was not any condemnation, let alone any mention, of it in my religious upbringing.
I now know why this is now. There are two types of Judaism, loosely. There is the liberal branch, consisting of the Reform and Conservative movements in which I grew up, that is tolerant of homosexuality and then there is the Orthodox community. Unlike the liberal branch, the Orthodox has a much more austere and critical perspective of homosexuality.
When I did bring up the issue of homosexuality with my mom one time, she had said that we Jews understand it as a product of its place and time. The Torah actually does says that homosexuality is an abomination. In ancient times, however, the world population was very scarce; people and infants died all the time. It was imperative that the Jews survive and only through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman could that be done. Same sex love between men or between women did not help to ensure the survival of mankind and the Torah accordingly condemns and discourages homosexual practices. However, Reform Jews don't believe the ancient rabbis believed that same sex love was immoral. Reform Judaism rejects any suggestion that being gay is any kind of sin when we look at the Torah in its ancient context.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, understand homosexuality as grave a sin as Catholics, evangelical Christians, and many young Orthodox gay Jews are not as fortuitous as I to grow up in such an open-minded and liberal household. Many succumb to family pressures to marry, and some unfortunately commit suicide. I heard of one religious Jew who, in order to purge himself of his homosexuality, survived on a diet of cigarettes and water. My heart goes out to him because I do not know Judaism as a faith whose precepts would make a man go to such gruesome depth to suppress his identity.
On the contrary, my parents support me and remind me of their unconditional love all the time. They cherish me as their son, and my sexual identity does not compromise that. Despite this, though, there are times when I get so depressed because the feeling of being different overwhelms me. Knowing that I am both gay and Jewish, and knowing the hardships that both groups face within and outside each community, exhausts my soul sometimes. I become inarticulate, despondent, and withdrawn from friends and family. I can speak, but only tersely; I can think, but my thoughts are convoluted; I can live, but I barely survive.
As soup for my soul, I turn to the Torah, Judaism’s holiest book to uplift my spirits. I remember that the Torah forbids the suppression of identity and I remind myself that I wasn’t created in error. For instance, we Jews emphasize heavily that each person is made in the image of God. Since I was made in His image, God did not make me as a pile of junk. I must believe that I am valuable because I was created for a purpose and to have purpose in life. This Jewish philosophy gives life to my gay identity more than any gay bar or pride parade every can.
Torah also teaches me that self-love is self-acceptance. Because I want to better synthesize my identities, I have being helping revise the LGBT Jewish student group at the Hillel at the University of Illinois. The group is called Naches, which is the Yiddish word for Pride. The mission of Naches is to create a vibrant, welcoming Jewish LGBT community where students can explore and celebrate all aspects of their identities. I want to help gay Jewish students feel empowered to embrace and fuse both of their identities through social and educational programming. This past year we held queer-themed Shabbats, which were very popular.
The premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both gay and spiritual is far from the truth. I know many gays who, yes, do feel uncomfortable with religion, are agnostic or atheist, and for them that is entirely ok. But, my experience shows that spirituality and being gay are reconcilable and that having a spirituality can help make being gay more holy and more meaningful. I am grateful that I have been ‘twice blessed’ to be both gay and Jewish. It is such a blessing in my life.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Health Care Benefits to Gays...Is It Worth The Cost?
Here is the transcript that Professor MV Lee Badgett, a preeminent scholar in the economic lives of LGBT men and women, presented to Congress this month. She addresses HR2517, also known as “Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009” which is pending legislation in Congress. The bill is about extending health care benefits to government employees. If you don't get a chance to peruse her testimony, here are the main bullet-points verbatim with my own commentary in parenthesis.
Here are some more numbers that further illustrate the economics. Doing some arithmetic shows that the benefits of extending health care cover approximately 33% of the costs. Also, the net benefit (i.e., benefits minus costs) of extending health care is -$449 million. Again, the negative sign says the government does not gain from passing HR2517.
Although disheartening, from these numbers I doubt Congress will approve this legislation, definitely not with the cost of the stimulus package lingering in their conscience and with Obama pushing for the nationalization of health care adding to the deficit. MV Lee Badgett needs to adjust her accounting in order to better persuade Congress that beyond the scope of economics the amorphous psychological benefits of providing health care benefits is very real to gays. While economics says no to extending health care benefits, my moral conscience says yes.
So, are health-care benefits to gays worth the cost?
- This important legislation would put the federal government in the mainstream of modern compensation practices with respect to the equal treatment of the same-sex partners of federal employees. (As the agent of equal rights, its time the government cath up to the private and state sectors)
- A study that [she] recently co-authored found that 20% of people in same-sex couples are uninsured, a rate that is significantly higher than average in the United States and is as least partly the result of employers’ failure to offer domestic partner benefits.
- [They] estimated that providing these vital benefits for non-postal employees would cost approximately $41.0 million in the first year and $675 million over ten years. The majority of these costs are concentrated in the areas of employee health benefits and retiree health benefits.
- Health benefits for the same-sex partners of federal employees (including postal service employees) and their dependent children would cost $60.4 million in the first year – that is a 0.41% increase in health care spending for employees in 2008. (0.41% increase is minimal, at least when you consider it next to the cost of the stimulus package and the impending health care takeover)
- Over ten years the additional tax revenue associated with granting domestic partner benefits to federal employees would be approximately $118 million. Also, the retirement savings program would actually see a reduction in annuity payments over the short-term as federal employees opt for survivor benefits for their same-sex partners. This reduction amounts to $108 million over ten years (Not a huge chunk of change, in fact fairly paltry, but at least the government is earning tax revenue)
Here are some more numbers that further illustrate the economics. Doing some arithmetic shows that the benefits of extending health care cover approximately 33% of the costs. Also, the net benefit (i.e., benefits minus costs) of extending health care is -$449 million. Again, the negative sign says the government does not gain from passing HR2517.
Although disheartening, from these numbers I doubt Congress will approve this legislation, definitely not with the cost of the stimulus package lingering in their conscience and with Obama pushing for the nationalization of health care adding to the deficit. MV Lee Badgett needs to adjust her accounting in order to better persuade Congress that beyond the scope of economics the amorphous psychological benefits of providing health care benefits is very real to gays. While economics says no to extending health care benefits, my moral conscience says yes.
So, are health-care benefits to gays worth the cost?
Friday, July 17, 2009
URL Change Notice...
UPDATE! As the address bar above reads, the URL for this blog is now http://matthewkrugmiller.blogspot.com. I tried to search my blog earlier and this URL change seems to cause some search complications on blogsearch.google.com. So if you found my blog by route of an arduous and painstaking search, then welcome! This change is, for me, a bit more idiosyncratic, however I have left the title as is: iGay (cause I'm gay and I live in the i-generation).
A Right To Marry? I Say Duh...
I'm on a bit of a hiatus right now studying for the GRE for further tertiary pursuits (namely grad school). But, in the meantime, peruse this article in Dissent Magazine while I'm on recess. I admit I have only browsed the article so let me know what you think. It is about the right to marriage with allusions to classical homoeroticism, I believe. I will get to it once I master the geography of the GRE math, and hopefully verbal, section.
Ciao for now!
Ciao for now!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Why Do Gays Smoke?
Why do gay men and women smoke so much? Here are some of my observations and hypotheses.
What I have noticed:
- Gay men and women smoke much more than upper-middle class straight people.
- To be candid, self-image is very vital to gay self-esteem, and yet smoking can tarnish physical appearance with the effects of wrinkles, rancid breath, and fatal cancer.
- With costs of health-care rising, and with gay partners excluded from healthcare in many job sectors, the financial risk of smoking to gays is higher than it is for heterosexuals.
- Gay men and women have been the "target audience" of cigarette companies more than straight communities. Companies focus more heavily on them because their demand for cigarettes is higher and they are an under-tapped market that can provide high profits.
- With the prevalence of AIDS in the LGBT community, anything less fatal than AIDS is shrugged off as trivial such as smoking. This makes them less risk-averse or risk-neutral, so they behave with a higher propensity to smoke.
- Gay men and women tend to have lower incomes, which places them in lower social classes. I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I have noticed that lower-income individuals smoke disproportionately more than upper income folk.
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
On Paul Krugman's Conscience
Economics is one of my primary interests (it is my major anyway) so I like to stick my toes into econblogging intermittently too. With that said, let's talk about the stimulus package again. Paul Krugman loves to hear himself talk in his op-eds about this and that on the economy. If you ever read his NY Times column its as if you can hear his yelps of outrage and his bangs of frustration upon the keyboard as he types and types away his polemics. But it his his liberal conscience, not the nasty things he writes, that I question.
By his account, he claims that the stimulus package Obama signed into law was too small and thus ineffective. To fix this problem, he proposes the government pass yet another stimulus package. Do not forget that he is calling for a third stimulus package; we already have the monolithic waste Obama signed this year and the relatively smaller junk Bush executed in 2008. His liberal conscience seems to tell him that $787 billion does not cut it as a government rescue. Maybe he thinks that the third time is a charm.
He has forgotten that not only are individuals budget constrained, but the government is as well. And with "health-care reform" also on the table, who will finance this new stimulus sequel? Oh yeah...the taxpayers....maybe China too...
Contrary to Krugman's proposal, we do not need another stimulus package to add to the government deficit. Just look at where the national accounts are now. For example, the average deficit amount from 2005-2007 before the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the stimulus package) was roughly $800 billion already. As of today, BBC News reports that the US deficit has moved above $1 Trillion. Robert Barro is right in saying that the government's current macro policy is a version of Keynes's 1936 "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." He emphasizes strongly that this current financial crisis does not " invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936." And from the things we have learned in economics, he proposes that the optimal fiscal policy is to provide incentives for people to save, invest, and produce more instead of throwing money around superfluously.
I mean how does the government solve a financial crisis that was caused by too much leverage by issuing more and more debt? I don't mean to say debt is always bad. A college education is good debt, so is investing in a house within your means with a down payment and a fixed APR, but more spending on highway construction and bridges to no where like splurging on a new wardrobe from the GAP is not. The government needs to see the difference between good and bad debt. And surely more stimulus is just bad, as well as Krugman's conscience.
He has forgotten that not only are individuals budget constrained, but the government is as well. And with "health-care reform" also on the table, who will finance this new stimulus sequel? Oh yeah...the taxpayers....maybe China too...
Contrary to Krugman's proposal, we do not need another stimulus package to add to the government deficit. Just look at where the national accounts are now. For example, the average deficit amount from 2005-2007 before the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the stimulus package) was roughly $800 billion already. As of today, BBC News reports that the US deficit has moved above $1 Trillion. Robert Barro is right in saying that the government's current macro policy is a version of Keynes's 1936 "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." He emphasizes strongly that this current financial crisis does not " invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936." And from the things we have learned in economics, he proposes that the optimal fiscal policy is to provide incentives for people to save, invest, and produce more instead of throwing money around superfluously.
I mean how does the government solve a financial crisis that was caused by too much leverage by issuing more and more debt? I don't mean to say debt is always bad. A college education is good debt, so is investing in a house within your means with a down payment and a fixed APR, but more spending on highway construction and bridges to no where like splurging on a new wardrobe from the GAP is not. The government needs to see the difference between good and bad debt. And surely more stimulus is just bad, as well as Krugman's conscience.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Economy Not Obama's Katrina
I woke up this morning to this article. James Pinkerton's thesis is that the ailing and anemic economy is Obama's Katrina. Thinking about the states of both the economy and Katrina, I do not agree with his interpretation of Obama's response to the economy because his argument suffers from a plethora of fallacies. First, his point of view is tainted by his republican ideology and it is obvious that he is writing for a mostly anti-intellectual audience who will believe anything anyone from Fox News says. Second, the purpose of his analysis is to not actually critique the efficacy of the stimulus package, but to personally attack Obama.
With that said, I too am skeptical of Obama. Also, I am anti-stimulus package, but it is not explicit whether Pinkerton is as well because his analysis is just a smorgasbord of bad analogy and ad hominem at the stimulus and Obama respectively. Pinkerton claims that Obama has not done much to help stimulate the economy (similar to Bush's glacial response to Katrina). This is wrong. First, Obama took immediate action to try to stimulate the economy, while Bush was hesitant to respond to Katrina. Second, $787 billion is a lot of stimulus money and that counts as something, not nothing, even though unemployment continues to rise and I don't agree with his macro policy. I would have argued alternatively that while the empirical reality is that excessive government spending correlates negatively with GDP growth, I think Obama pushed for the stimulus package to strengthen public confidence in the economy more so than to foster real output.
Pinkerton also argues that the New Deal was successful in bringing America out of the Great Depression. Again, this claim is just not true; statistics from that time and economic theory conclude this. In fact, the New Deal stopped the economy from achieving a speedy recovery and elongated the depression until 1939. Everyone keeps asking when the recovery will start. The answer is the stimulus package has hampered it and on top of a lengthy recovery the economy is going to get even worse than it is now. For more information, peruse this scholarly paper.
Let's not judge Obama on the economy. Yes, he could have focused on incentives to save, work, and produce more, but doing nothing "big" would have destroyed his popularity almost instantly. And Pinkerton could have realized too that Obama, with probably little more than an introductory economics education, surrounds himself accordingly with a team of populist, Keynesian economists who favor deficit government spending. Let's blame them for their disregard for sound macroeconomic policy and for whispering sweet nothings into Obama's ear. Instead let's judge him on his inertia to advance gay rights, his lackluster responses to the Iran uprising and getting it wrong again with the latest Honduras coup.
This is NOT Obama's Katrina. You heard it here first.
With that said, I too am skeptical of Obama. Also, I am anti-stimulus package, but it is not explicit whether Pinkerton is as well because his analysis is just a smorgasbord of bad analogy and ad hominem at the stimulus and Obama respectively. Pinkerton claims that Obama has not done much to help stimulate the economy (similar to Bush's glacial response to Katrina). This is wrong. First, Obama took immediate action to try to stimulate the economy, while Bush was hesitant to respond to Katrina. Second, $787 billion is a lot of stimulus money and that counts as something, not nothing, even though unemployment continues to rise and I don't agree with his macro policy. I would have argued alternatively that while the empirical reality is that excessive government spending correlates negatively with GDP growth, I think Obama pushed for the stimulus package to strengthen public confidence in the economy more so than to foster real output.
Pinkerton also argues that the New Deal was successful in bringing America out of the Great Depression. Again, this claim is just not true; statistics from that time and economic theory conclude this. In fact, the New Deal stopped the economy from achieving a speedy recovery and elongated the depression until 1939. Everyone keeps asking when the recovery will start. The answer is the stimulus package has hampered it and on top of a lengthy recovery the economy is going to get even worse than it is now. For more information, peruse this scholarly paper.
Let's not judge Obama on the economy. Yes, he could have focused on incentives to save, work, and produce more, but doing nothing "big" would have destroyed his popularity almost instantly. And Pinkerton could have realized too that Obama, with probably little more than an introductory economics education, surrounds himself accordingly with a team of populist, Keynesian economists who favor deficit government spending. Let's blame them for their disregard for sound macroeconomic policy and for whispering sweet nothings into Obama's ear. Instead let's judge him on his inertia to advance gay rights, his lackluster responses to the Iran uprising and getting it wrong again with the latest Honduras coup.
This is NOT Obama's Katrina. You heard it here first.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Queer Liturgy
As my 'About Me' states I am Jewish. I'm also gay. This past year I have tried to synthesize my two identities. To accomplish this I have helped bring more queer Jewish programming to my campus. I've started a group called Naches, which in Yiddish means Pride, and events that we have had include LGBT Shabbats and a gay Tel Aviv beach party. For this upcoming school year, I have ambitions to incorporate the group more into the Jewish community here with social and educational events, like late-night challah baking, bring in gay Jewish speakers among many more.
Naturally I like to stay abreast of Jewish news. So intermittently I browse Jewcy.com, a hip 21st century website for the 20 something Jew. Someone posted an article called "Queer Liturgy" about a new LGBT Siddur (siddur is a Jewish prayer book). I am excited to get a taste of this siddur. Here is the article.
Do you know of any other religions that have "Queer Liturgies"?
Naturally I like to stay abreast of Jewish news. So intermittently I browse Jewcy.com, a hip 21st century website for the 20 something Jew. Someone posted an article called "Queer Liturgy" about a new LGBT Siddur (siddur is a Jewish prayer book). I am excited to get a taste of this siddur. Here is the article.
Do you know of any other religions that have "Queer Liturgies"?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
When is the right time to "Come Out"?
I have to admit that I am fierce advocate of coming out. I view the 'coming out' process as a powerful instrument for social and political change. However, 'coming out' cannot be done irrationally or with haste. To have an ideal coming out process a gay agent must act in his own self-interest and have a rational basis for coming out. This means that the benefits of coming out must equal the costs of coming out.
Parenthetically, if the benefits exceed the costs, you can only benefit not lose from coming out. then by all means be as flamboyant as you can and maybe wear some drag to work. Have fun!
However, if the costs exceed the benefits of coming out, then it would be irrational to come out. MV Lee Badgett, professor of economics at UMASS, posits the costs of coming out are income losses resulting from workplace discrimination and subsequently termination. Additional costs that she does not consider are alienation from the family, which can have adverse financial implications. For example, parents that do not accept their son's homosexuality might divest from or refuse him his endowment (ie. 'trust fund', college allowances, etc). This can lead to lower aggregate consumption and less leisure time to enjoy over the gay son's lifetime.
And think of the 'benefits' of coming out, although amorphous, as better self-confidence and its psychological ilk.
So, while I encourage you to come out, you can not let any other person decide for you when it is the proper time to do so. Only you can do it when it fits bests with your self-interest and you think rationally about the consequences of doing it.
Parenthetically, if the benefits exceed the costs, you can only benefit not lose from coming out. then by all means be as flamboyant as you can and maybe wear some drag to work. Have fun!
However, if the costs exceed the benefits of coming out, then it would be irrational to come out. MV Lee Badgett, professor of economics at UMASS, posits the costs of coming out are income losses resulting from workplace discrimination and subsequently termination. Additional costs that she does not consider are alienation from the family, which can have adverse financial implications. For example, parents that do not accept their son's homosexuality might divest from or refuse him his endowment (ie. 'trust fund', college allowances, etc). This can lead to lower aggregate consumption and less leisure time to enjoy over the gay son's lifetime.
And think of the 'benefits' of coming out, although amorphous, as better self-confidence and its psychological ilk.
So, while I encourage you to come out, you can not let any other person decide for you when it is the proper time to do so. Only you can do it when it fits bests with your self-interest and you think rationally about the consequences of doing it.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Insurance Premium...A Question.
I wonder how much household income gays and lesbians would be willing to give up today to obtain full civil rights tomorrow?
i.e., What's the insurance premium on gay rights?
Just a thought....I'll need to find an answer.
i.e., What's the insurance premium on gay rights?
Just a thought....I'll need to find an answer.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Here, Queer, and 40 years Later
June 28th marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riot in Greenwich Village and incidentally the Chicago Gay Pride Parade too. These two events lead me to wonder a few questions about the state of the gay civil rights movement: Where have we come from in the last 40 years? On the other hand, what have we lost during our struggles? And where might we be in 40 years?
The Chicago Pride Parade this year was an outward symbol of the movement that started at the Stonewall Inn, but also for me of the inertia that our movement has suffered in the past forty years. Underneath the floats of minibar's speedo-wearing gogo boys, of the motorcycle-riding bears club, and of gay-loving politicians lies the second-class status that we gay Americans still experience today.
Since Stonewall, we have made some considerable gains. Despite Illinois' eclectic mix of boring flat terrain, Midwestern mentality and impeached governors, it somehow managed to be the first state in the union to decriminalize gay sex. Way to go Illinois! Since then all sodomy laws have been repealed since 2003. As for gay marriage rights, currently Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa (snaps for the Midwest again!) permit gay marriage, with same-sex marriage beginning later in 2009 in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. We have gained Rep. Barney Frank, songwriter Stephen Sondheim, fashion designer Marc Jacobs amid other high-profile power gays. Gays also enjoy gay-themed cruises like the ones advertised in Out magazine, two gay television networks here! and Logo and fabulous pride parades in almost every major city across the county (well not in Champaign-Urbana yet, but maybe someday!).
Despite triumphs in the past forty years, we have been hit with disappointments as well. While the human cost of the AIDS epidemic can't be calculated easily, many have lost friends, partners, and family to the disease. We have lost gay marriage in California. First in San Francisco, then a deep blow across the state this past May. Pending legislation to legalize same-sex unions in Illinois is now on hold thanks to the anemic economy, although the House still finds time to vote on campaign-finance reform and health-insurance reform. Also, 2008 saw an increase in LGBT hate crimes, including a raid on a Texas gay bar on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. It is Texas, their PD can get a bit rowdy.
And gays are miffed with Obama's glacial pace on moving gay rights forward. An offensive brief from his Justice Department, followed by a cop-out memorandum and then throwing a LGBT cocktail party in the While house does not live up to his campaign promises.
It is difficult to say where we will be in forty years from now. Unlike the civil rights movement, the gay community is not just a single racial group, but a mix of all types of people. Diversity in our community is a benefit, but it also can divide us and slow us down. For instance, the African-American Civil Rights Movement took 18 years to accomplish its goals, while it has taken us 40 to achieve about half. We as a gay community need to push our movement forward from the grassroots, and not always depend on the work of the HRC. I mean where are our sit-ins? Where are our freedom rides? Where is and who will be our Martin Luther King Jr.?
We still have 44 states to go to legalize gay marriage, DOMA needs to be repealed, workplaces need to include anti-LGBT discrimination in their policies, and adoptions rights need to be defined and secure. Pride is a fun event, but a lack of civil rights isn't a laughing matter if our emancipation should take another 40 years.
So, don't let the pride parade fool you because it can. The throngs of people and show of support from the community does not disguise the fact that gays are still a vulnerable minority 40 years later.
The Chicago Pride Parade this year was an outward symbol of the movement that started at the Stonewall Inn, but also for me of the inertia that our movement has suffered in the past forty years. Underneath the floats of minibar's speedo-wearing gogo boys, of the motorcycle-riding bears club, and of gay-loving politicians lies the second-class status that we gay Americans still experience today.
Since Stonewall, we have made some considerable gains. Despite Illinois' eclectic mix of boring flat terrain, Midwestern mentality and impeached governors, it somehow managed to be the first state in the union to decriminalize gay sex. Way to go Illinois! Since then all sodomy laws have been repealed since 2003. As for gay marriage rights, currently Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa (snaps for the Midwest again!) permit gay marriage, with same-sex marriage beginning later in 2009 in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. We have gained Rep. Barney Frank, songwriter Stephen Sondheim, fashion designer Marc Jacobs amid other high-profile power gays. Gays also enjoy gay-themed cruises like the ones advertised in Out magazine, two gay television networks here! and Logo and fabulous pride parades in almost every major city across the county (well not in Champaign-Urbana yet, but maybe someday!).
Despite triumphs in the past forty years, we have been hit with disappointments as well. While the human cost of the AIDS epidemic can't be calculated easily, many have lost friends, partners, and family to the disease. We have lost gay marriage in California. First in San Francisco, then a deep blow across the state this past May. Pending legislation to legalize same-sex unions in Illinois is now on hold thanks to the anemic economy, although the House still finds time to vote on campaign-finance reform and health-insurance reform. Also, 2008 saw an increase in LGBT hate crimes, including a raid on a Texas gay bar on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. It is Texas, their PD can get a bit rowdy.
And gays are miffed with Obama's glacial pace on moving gay rights forward. An offensive brief from his Justice Department, followed by a cop-out memorandum and then throwing a LGBT cocktail party in the While house does not live up to his campaign promises.
It is difficult to say where we will be in forty years from now. Unlike the civil rights movement, the gay community is not just a single racial group, but a mix of all types of people. Diversity in our community is a benefit, but it also can divide us and slow us down. For instance, the African-American Civil Rights Movement took 18 years to accomplish its goals, while it has taken us 40 to achieve about half. We as a gay community need to push our movement forward from the grassroots, and not always depend on the work of the HRC. I mean where are our sit-ins? Where are our freedom rides? Where is and who will be our Martin Luther King Jr.?
We still have 44 states to go to legalize gay marriage, DOMA needs to be repealed, workplaces need to include anti-LGBT discrimination in their policies, and adoptions rights need to be defined and secure. Pride is a fun event, but a lack of civil rights isn't a laughing matter if our emancipation should take another 40 years.
So, don't let the pride parade fool you because it can. The throngs of people and show of support from the community does not disguise the fact that gays are still a vulnerable minority 40 years later.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On Strauss vs. Horton
Earlier this week I was talking to a friend of mine, a Ph.D student in comparative literature, about our views on the California Supreme Court's ruling on upholding Prop 8. I had written a letter to the editor of The Chicago Tribune, but they did not publish it. Nevertheless, I want to share with you all my letter.
I am going to be controversial and say that while the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss vs. Horton on May 26th was disheartening for me as a gay American, it was not shamefully despicable. On the contrary, it shows that the justices applied current California law even-handedly, admittedly putting aside their own personal convictions or political preferences.
The Court's objectivism is a triumph for our democracy that was weakened by Bush-era identity politics, but which is recovering with the recent inauguration of the new administration, and now with this lamentable, yet democratic, court opinion.
The people of California spoke and same-sex marriage was unfortunately not sanctioned by a vote of 52% in November 2008. As a result, the justices were asked to rule on the validity of Proposition 8, under the provisions of the California Constitution, as a permissible change to the state constitution. Given the provisions, the court ruled in favor of protecting the peoples’ right to amend the state constitution through the initiative process, which unfortunately and consequently, upheld Proposition 8.
The justices’ ruling is not deplorable, but it is to the current California constitution to which they are bound that is a shame. Commendably, they remained faithful to enforce all provisions of the California Constitution, which now includes the amendment added by Prop 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Critics of the court system most definitely cannot say that this court legislated from the bench because they justly perceived the state constitution for what the majority of Californians vote for it to become: a document that deliberately marginalizes a harmless minority based on weak intellectualism and misguided religious convictions; all characteristics of modern conservatism.
However, proposition 8 can be repealed in order to once again favor same-sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court is not opposed to, as is evident in their ruling in the Marriage Cases ruled in May 2008, which permitted same sex couples to wed. Given the amended California constitution, marriage equality can come now from the state legislature or, even better, from the people, and not from the bench. LGBT advocacy groups and its ilk would benefit by increasing educational outreach so that the next time Californians exercise their power of initiative to amend their constitution they embrace LGBT Americans into the fold of marriage.
As a gay, my views might sound like I am an advocate of Prop 8 but this is not true. I am an advocate of fair and just judicial review, and that is how I believe the California Supreme Court handled this case. I found in the Windy City Times, a newspaper for the LGBT community in Chicago, that John D'Emilio, University of Illinois at Chicago professor of women's and gender studies, echoes my sentiment. To paraphrase briefly, he says that "Yes, I know about the many benefits marriage brings....But marriage won't get at the roots of homophobia. It would make a much bigger difference to campaign in school districts around the country". I think Dr. D'Emilio and my letter speaks for itself.
I am going to be controversial and say that while the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss vs. Horton on May 26th was disheartening for me as a gay American, it was not shamefully despicable. On the contrary, it shows that the justices applied current California law even-handedly, admittedly putting aside their own personal convictions or political preferences.
The Court's objectivism is a triumph for our democracy that was weakened by Bush-era identity politics, but which is recovering with the recent inauguration of the new administration, and now with this lamentable, yet democratic, court opinion.
The people of California spoke and same-sex marriage was unfortunately not sanctioned by a vote of 52% in November 2008. As a result, the justices were asked to rule on the validity of Proposition 8, under the provisions of the California Constitution, as a permissible change to the state constitution. Given the provisions, the court ruled in favor of protecting the peoples’ right to amend the state constitution through the initiative process, which unfortunately and consequently, upheld Proposition 8.
The justices’ ruling is not deplorable, but it is to the current California constitution to which they are bound that is a shame. Commendably, they remained faithful to enforce all provisions of the California Constitution, which now includes the amendment added by Prop 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Critics of the court system most definitely cannot say that this court legislated from the bench because they justly perceived the state constitution for what the majority of Californians vote for it to become: a document that deliberately marginalizes a harmless minority based on weak intellectualism and misguided religious convictions; all characteristics of modern conservatism.
However, proposition 8 can be repealed in order to once again favor same-sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court is not opposed to, as is evident in their ruling in the Marriage Cases ruled in May 2008, which permitted same sex couples to wed. Given the amended California constitution, marriage equality can come now from the state legislature or, even better, from the people, and not from the bench. LGBT advocacy groups and its ilk would benefit by increasing educational outreach so that the next time Californians exercise their power of initiative to amend their constitution they embrace LGBT Americans into the fold of marriage.
As a gay, my views might sound like I am an advocate of Prop 8 but this is not true. I am an advocate of fair and just judicial review, and that is how I believe the California Supreme Court handled this case. I found in the Windy City Times, a newspaper for the LGBT community in Chicago, that John D'Emilio, University of Illinois at Chicago professor of women's and gender studies, echoes my sentiment. To paraphrase briefly, he says that "Yes, I know about the many benefits marriage brings....But marriage won't get at the roots of homophobia. It would make a much bigger difference to campaign in school districts around the country". I think Dr. D'Emilio and my letter speaks for itself.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Iran and her Gays
By now the current uprising swiftly unfolding in Iran is all over the media. For me, I have been glued to CNN because what we are witnessing are the birth pangs of a potential revolution to overthrow a theocratic system that has suppressed its people for 30 years. It is possible, as the pundits have put it, that this uprising could move in two ways: it can become a success like the fall of the Berlin Wall or it can be crushed horribly like Tiananmen Square. I am hoping fervently for the former outcome to triumph.
Ayatollah Khamenei's theocratic regime is repressive toward women and, since the fraudulent elections two weeks ago and subsequent uprising, the issue of gender inequality in Iran has gained the media's ardent attention. However, they have ignored another marginalized group, whose narrative has only lately surfaced. I am saddened that no one in the media has mentioned Iran's harassed gay community during this time of unrest. Like Iran's women, the LGBT community there too are subject to the despotism that Iranian women suffer, if not in more peril. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone even as far as to say that no homosexuals live in Iran. This is absurd, of course, because I have documentary evidence that homosexuals do live in Iran. And it is biologically sound that every society has its handful of gays and lesbians.
Homosexuality is outlawed in Iran because of the government's conservative interpretation of sharia, Islamic law, and it is punishable by death. For example, according to Amnesty International three men and two women were convicted of "homosexual tendencies" were executed in 1990. Also, in 2005 16 year old Mahmoud Asgari and 18 year old Ayaz Marhoni were hung in public to death in 2005 on charges that they had engaged in homosexual acts with each other.
I found these two videos below on youtube.com which give a heartfelt account of the secret lives of gay men in Iran. It is a two-part documentary series about gay and lesbian Iranians. Surprisingly many of the men interviewed are not in silhouette, nor are their faces pixelized, but most of the interviewees are in plain sight and for anonymity some do wear sunglasses. For these men and women to do that is extremely risky and can put their very lifes in jeopardy. They want to be out, and they have a human right to be open about their sexuality.
I hope that at this juncture of political and social uncertainty in Iran, that the gays and lesbians of that country share in the protests with the women, and students, and defiant clerics and are able to contribute to the uprising. I want to know their story in this historic moment. I want to know what will become of them if the theocracy is to fall. I want to know and hope that they can pursue rights like the ones that we gays are being afforded in the West. This uprising is not just about women's liberation, but the implications of a potentially successful uprising (or shift towards political reformism at least) in Iran can bring about the beginnings of Iran's gay liberation movement.
I don't know how to post videos yet, but here is the link for the part 1 of the series. You can find part 2 on that page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_tiFZjNQY
Ayatollah Khamenei's theocratic regime is repressive toward women and, since the fraudulent elections two weeks ago and subsequent uprising, the issue of gender inequality in Iran has gained the media's ardent attention. However, they have ignored another marginalized group, whose narrative has only lately surfaced. I am saddened that no one in the media has mentioned Iran's harassed gay community during this time of unrest. Like Iran's women, the LGBT community there too are subject to the despotism that Iranian women suffer, if not in more peril. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone even as far as to say that no homosexuals live in Iran. This is absurd, of course, because I have documentary evidence that homosexuals do live in Iran. And it is biologically sound that every society has its handful of gays and lesbians.
Homosexuality is outlawed in Iran because of the government's conservative interpretation of sharia, Islamic law, and it is punishable by death. For example, according to Amnesty International three men and two women were convicted of "homosexual tendencies" were executed in 1990. Also, in 2005 16 year old Mahmoud Asgari and 18 year old Ayaz Marhoni were hung in public to death in 2005 on charges that they had engaged in homosexual acts with each other.
I found these two videos below on youtube.com which give a heartfelt account of the secret lives of gay men in Iran. It is a two-part documentary series about gay and lesbian Iranians. Surprisingly many of the men interviewed are not in silhouette, nor are their faces pixelized, but most of the interviewees are in plain sight and for anonymity some do wear sunglasses. For these men and women to do that is extremely risky and can put their very lifes in jeopardy. They want to be out, and they have a human right to be open about their sexuality.
I hope that at this juncture of political and social uncertainty in Iran, that the gays and lesbians of that country share in the protests with the women, and students, and defiant clerics and are able to contribute to the uprising. I want to know their story in this historic moment. I want to know what will become of them if the theocracy is to fall. I want to know and hope that they can pursue rights like the ones that we gays are being afforded in the West. This uprising is not just about women's liberation, but the implications of a potentially successful uprising (or shift towards political reformism at least) in Iran can bring about the beginnings of Iran's gay liberation movement.
I don't know how to post videos yet, but here is the link for the part 1 of the series. You can find part 2 on that page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_tiFZjNQY
Monday, June 22, 2009
Obama's Memorandum Revisited
I need to revisit my post on Obama's memorandum for a brief moment or two. I found this column in The Huffington Post written by Emma Ruby-Sachs. Like Leibnitz and Newton's independent contributions in the development of differential and integral calculus, she and I came independently to approximately the same conclusion about Obama's ulterior motive for signing the memorandum.
Essentially, her argument is similar to mine because she writes that he offered the extended benefits in order to "silence the gay revolution" and that this memorandum was a consolation prize to appease the gay community. She goes on to say that "Granting one [right] does not absolve trespass over the other rights." This is an excellent and resonant point because Obama posits that one right is sufficient enough to compensate for the past decades that gay partners have been denied government entitlements.
Similarly, I reasoned that the timing of this memorandum suggested that he did so out of guilt, 1) for acting too slowly on gay rights despite his campaign promises and 2) as an apology, although I like Ruby-Sach's wording "consolation prize" better, for the homophobic brief released by his Justice Department.
This is just another reminder that "Great Minds Think Alike".
Essentially, her argument is similar to mine because she writes that he offered the extended benefits in order to "silence the gay revolution" and that this memorandum was a consolation prize to appease the gay community. She goes on to say that "Granting one [right] does not absolve trespass over the other rights." This is an excellent and resonant point because Obama posits that one right is sufficient enough to compensate for the past decades that gay partners have been denied government entitlements.
Similarly, I reasoned that the timing of this memorandum suggested that he did so out of guilt, 1) for acting too slowly on gay rights despite his campaign promises and 2) as an apology, although I like Ruby-Sach's wording "consolation prize" better, for the homophobic brief released by his Justice Department.
This is just another reminder that "Great Minds Think Alike".
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Gay Senior Citizens
Marvin Levin: gay, Jewish, 61 years old. Sounds a lot like me in 40 years. Except one thing: he just came out! Here is what he said in the The Chicago Tribune:
"It was the first time I'd ever put words to that," Levin said. "It was like an epiphany. And then I looked back on my life and said, 'You dummy, of course you are [gay].'
I hope that more seniors who felt scared to come out in the 50s and 60s and felt compelled to marry and live a heterosexual life now take the opportunity to embrace their newfound gay identity. Seniors are a part of the gay community that we cannot dismiss, even if gay culture puts too much emphasis (and it does) on youth and beauty, and their coming out process is just as hard, emotional, and pleasing for them as it is for any 20 year old coming out.
As Marvin says, ""I'm just glad that I figured it out."
Congrats Marvin!
---------------------
For more information: The Center on Halsted has a senior program called SAGE - Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders - that offers free lunch, yoga classes, counseling, and discussion groups.
"It was the first time I'd ever put words to that," Levin said. "It was like an epiphany. And then I looked back on my life and said, 'You dummy, of course you are [gay].'
I hope that more seniors who felt scared to come out in the 50s and 60s and felt compelled to marry and live a heterosexual life now take the opportunity to embrace their newfound gay identity. Seniors are a part of the gay community that we cannot dismiss, even if gay culture puts too much emphasis (and it does) on youth and beauty, and their coming out process is just as hard, emotional, and pleasing for them as it is for any 20 year old coming out.
As Marvin says, ""I'm just glad that I figured it out."
Congrats Marvin!
---------------------
For more information: The Center on Halsted has a senior program called SAGE - Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders - that offers free lunch, yoga classes, counseling, and discussion groups.
Friday, June 19, 2009
On Socialism and Gay Liberation
"Revolutionary politics, debate and entertainment" is the slogan for this years socialist conference, titled Socialism 2009, held in San Francisco and currently in my hometown of Chicago. There is going to be a discussion on "Women's and LGBT Liberation". The topics include the following:
- Stonewall: Birth of Gay Power
- Sexuality and Socialism
- Why Does Capitalism Need the Family?
- How Can Women be Liberated?
First, capitalism is founded on personal decision making and requires people to be skeptical of government actions, while socialism favors collective thinking and advocates government ownership of the means of production and a society characterized by egalitarianism and more equal rights. These principles of socialism sound very attractive. However, in the long run a more prosperous economy, driven by capitalism's emphasis on economic efficiency, lends itself very well to granting equal rights. For example, women in all capitalist states have equal rights and gay rights is headed towards full liberation in due time.
Moreover, history shows that socialism might be popular in the short-term, but with time the populace becomes miffed and disillusioned with the state's control. Read: the collapse of communist Russia, the current shift to the right of the European Union and the steady decline of the kibbutiz movement in Israel. So, capitalism is the correct conduit for the continued liberation of the gay community since long-term and permanent liberation is what we aim to achieve. If you attend the conference I would like to hear how the conversations unfold.
Do you think capitalism favors gay rights?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Obama's Memorandum: Sincere or Out of Guilt?
I read this morning in the Chicago Tribune that President Obama is going to extend health care and miscellaneous federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. This is a positive step forward for Obama's delivery of his campaign promises to the LGBT community. I applaud him on the timing of this memorandum because it is obviously his apology for the nasty brief released last week by his Justice Department. If more of his cabinet should screw up maybe in less than a year or so he will feel contrite enough to legalize gay marriage by executive order (readers: is that legally possible?) because despite quietly declaring June "Gay Pride Month" this memorandum is his first act towards securing gay rights. This brings me to my question: Did Obama sign this memorandum because of genuine feelings for the gay community or out of guilt?
This is a difficult question to answer firmly because of the dynamics of his presidency and of his own personal sympathies. First, Obama's luster has waned since his November inauguration. For example, his monolithic government-provided healthcare reform package is highly contentious and he was booed by the AMA not too long ago. On top of this, his job approval ratings show that the amount of people who disapprove of his presidency is increasing, while the percentage of people who approve has remained stagnant. He wants to be the president everyone likes but he has to achieve Israel/Palestine peace, reform healthcare, save banks and main street, clean up the auto industry mess, close Guantanamo Bay and try to uphold a modicum of harmony among the Democrats and the GOP.
One the one hand, despite the abundance of contentious issues he is determined to tackle, he ran the risk of being denounced by conservatives and took a moment to think of the LGBT community. On the other hand, to help push down his rising disapproval rating he decided that a few federal benefits here and there would be sufficient enough appease the gay community.
Did I mention that memorandums expire with the end of the president's term? That is to say gay spouses of federal employees are only guaranteed four years of healthcare and misc. benefits.
I think that the current picture of his presidency suggests that he signed this memorandum out of guilt. But, I want to believe that Obama will make good on his campaign promises, unlike his predecessor Bush who did not even acknowledge the plight of the gay community. He needs the support from the LGBT community, and it doesn't help when the LGBT pundits criticize this memorandum as not doing enough for gay Americans. I just hope it isn't another department's screw-up that makes Obama suddenly concerned about the state of LGBT rights.
Do you think Obama deserves our praise and thanks?
This is a difficult question to answer firmly because of the dynamics of his presidency and of his own personal sympathies. First, Obama's luster has waned since his November inauguration. For example, his monolithic government-provided healthcare reform package is highly contentious and he was booed by the AMA not too long ago. On top of this, his job approval ratings show that the amount of people who disapprove of his presidency is increasing, while the percentage of people who approve has remained stagnant. He wants to be the president everyone likes but he has to achieve Israel/Palestine peace, reform healthcare, save banks and main street, clean up the auto industry mess, close Guantanamo Bay and try to uphold a modicum of harmony among the Democrats and the GOP.
One the one hand, despite the abundance of contentious issues he is determined to tackle, he ran the risk of being denounced by conservatives and took a moment to think of the LGBT community. On the other hand, to help push down his rising disapproval rating he decided that a few federal benefits here and there would be sufficient enough appease the gay community.
Did I mention that memorandums expire with the end of the president's term? That is to say gay spouses of federal employees are only guaranteed four years of healthcare and misc. benefits.
I think that the current picture of his presidency suggests that he signed this memorandum out of guilt. But, I want to believe that Obama will make good on his campaign promises, unlike his predecessor Bush who did not even acknowledge the plight of the gay community. He needs the support from the LGBT community, and it doesn't help when the LGBT pundits criticize this memorandum as not doing enough for gay Americans. I just hope it isn't another department's screw-up that makes Obama suddenly concerned about the state of LGBT rights.
Do you think Obama deserves our praise and thanks?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Gay Marriage Makes $$
I have to write this quickly since I am on my lunch break, so I'll try to be succinct. I cannot tell you how many times economists have concluded that gay marriage would be beneficial for the economic well-being of LGBT Americans and for aggregate GDP expansion. However, the Justice Department of the Obama Administration would like you to think otherwise. Their June 6th brief said that DOMA saves the government money by not having to pay marriage benefits under federal law, which in turn, “preserves scarce government resources.” This allegation that gay marriage somehow misallocates government resources is false, and that their assessment of DOMA evokes images of incest and child marriage to describe gay marriage makes the Justice Department look grossly homophobic.
M.V. Lee Badgett, one of the few leading experts on the economics of LGBT life, along with a few research cohorts released a new report from the Williams Institute in April 2009 that refutes the Justice Department's allegation. Their analysis concludes that if Maine were to legalize same-sex marriage the state's budge would increase by $7.9 million per year and this is a conservative estimate. Maine is scheduled to permit same-sex marriages beginning around Septemeber 2009, contingent upon a pending possible people's veto. At the same time, M.V. Lee Badgett again estimates that gay marriage in the past five years since its inception in Massachussets has pumped $111 million dollars into the state's GDP.
Let me try to illustrate the aggregate fiscal effect of legalizing gay marriage. I am going to give you a crude estimate of how much money could have been pumped into the federal economy if all 50 states had tapped into the gay wedding market in 2004. By multiplying $111 million times 50 (for each state in the union) I suspect, as a conservative estimate, that $5.55 billion would have been pumped into the economy over the past five years. Again, this estimate is crude, underestimated and ignores the idiosyncrasies of each state, annual inflation and discounting. Nevertheless, you can see that the US economy has lost a healthy source of income over the past five years.
And, to the Justice Department, do yourself some justice and get your facts straight.
Do you think gay marriage makes cents now?
M.V. Lee Badgett, one of the few leading experts on the economics of LGBT life, along with a few research cohorts released a new report from the Williams Institute in April 2009 that refutes the Justice Department's allegation. Their analysis concludes that if Maine were to legalize same-sex marriage the state's budge would increase by $7.9 million per year and this is a conservative estimate. Maine is scheduled to permit same-sex marriages beginning around Septemeber 2009, contingent upon a pending possible people's veto. At the same time, M.V. Lee Badgett again estimates that gay marriage in the past five years since its inception in Massachussets has pumped $111 million dollars into the state's GDP.
Let me try to illustrate the aggregate fiscal effect of legalizing gay marriage. I am going to give you a crude estimate of how much money could have been pumped into the federal economy if all 50 states had tapped into the gay wedding market in 2004. By multiplying $111 million times 50 (for each state in the union) I suspect, as a conservative estimate, that $5.55 billion would have been pumped into the economy over the past five years. Again, this estimate is crude, underestimated and ignores the idiosyncrasies of each state, annual inflation and discounting. Nevertheless, you can see that the US economy has lost a healthy source of income over the past five years.
And, to the Justice Department, do yourself some justice and get your facts straight.
Do you think gay marriage makes cents now?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Studies on Gaydar
To honor the name of my blog I want to give you a better understanding of what 'gaydar' is, if there is some confusion. Gaydar is a portmanteau of 'gay' and 'radar'; put the two together as the word portmanteau suggests and out pops gaydar. As a gay, I need to admit that my gaydar is pretty much on point, maybe with a margin of error of plus and minus 1 (read: out of a sample of 10 guys I suspect are gay, 1 is not although that -1 guy is probably a metrosexual...ugh I'm fooled every time!). Thus, gaydar is the intuitive ability to detect that a person might just be same-sex oriented.
But, it is not uncommon for gay men and women to have gaydar. In fact, a study published by The Monell Chemical Senses Center concluded that "gay men were found to be particularly good at detecting the musk of other gay men". Gaydar, too, has found its way into popular culture, with references to it as a popular buzzword in the media, and in The Office Jim sends Dwight a gaydar device that he says is sold by the Sharper Image. I checked the Sharper Image's website and no such gaydar metal detector exists. But who knows what their R&D will come up with next!
Additionally, in The Science of Gaydar from New York Magazine, researchers shed new light on the verbal and non verbals signals that make you appear gay (note: appearing gay is not synonymous with being gay, even though popular culture likes to make you believe that, although there's a high correlation between the two). This shortlist is what supposedly makes my gaydar go off. If you find that any examples apply to you...then scientifically you appear gay. This is verbatim from the article:
What sets your gaydar off?
But, it is not uncommon for gay men and women to have gaydar. In fact, a study published by The Monell Chemical Senses Center concluded that "gay men were found to be particularly good at detecting the musk of other gay men". Gaydar, too, has found its way into popular culture, with references to it as a popular buzzword in the media, and in The Office Jim sends Dwight a gaydar device that he says is sold by the Sharper Image. I checked the Sharper Image's website and no such gaydar metal detector exists. But who knows what their R&D will come up with next!
Additionally, in The Science of Gaydar from New York Magazine, researchers shed new light on the verbal and non verbals signals that make you appear gay (note: appearing gay is not synonymous with being gay, even though popular culture likes to make you believe that, although there's a high correlation between the two). This shortlist is what supposedly makes my gaydar go off. If you find that any examples apply to you...then scientifically you appear gay. This is verbatim from the article:
- Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl.
- Gay men and women are more likely to have an increased density of fingerprint ridges on the thumb and pinkie of the left hand.
- The index fingers of most straight men are shorter than their ring fingers, and for most women they are the same length or longer. Gay men and lesbians tend to have reversed ratios.
- Gay men and lesbians are 50% more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous.
What sets your gaydar off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
