June 2009 Archives

People get nose jobs all the time. It's become something of a status symbol: once you've made it, you get to make totally unnecessary and costly changes to your face. Jennifer Aniston got one, as did Katie Holmes, Beyonce, Marilyn Monroe, Halle Berry, and of course, the late Michael Jackson. The list is astonishingly long. What do the celebrities named above have in common? They were all beautiful before their nose jobs. So what gives?

In January, Ezra Roth wrote a piece for this blog about the nose job "epidemic" in Iran, where thousands of women aspire to the Western (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) ideal of beauty. He wrote that Iran leads the world in rhinoplasty, with up to 70,000 operations per year.

Now I don't know about you, but I find Iranian women very beautiful -- and not in the asexual way one might describe an elderly woman as "beautiful." No, I find them sexy and gorgeous. Indeed, desirable. And I find them desirable precisely because they don't look like the women I went to college with in southeastern Minnesota. Likewise, I thought Halle Berry was a lot hotter when she looked less like a white woman.

To wit, on Sunday I called a friend with whom I often have dinner to see if she was free. She said no, because she's recovering from a nose job she got on Friday. She didn't tell anyone she was going to get one, and she asked me to keep it a secret. (I figure as long as I don't name her here, I'm not betraying that trust by writing a post about it.)

About 15 hours after official word that Michael Jackson was dead ricocheted around the world last week, I realized something about what makes the headlines -- and it had nothing to do with Farrah Fawcett or Ed McMahon getting short shrift.

I was in a public space with two large TVs tuned to CNN on Friday, and news of MJ was everywhere. He dominated the front page of the Times and every other paper that morning, too. The subway was full of people reading articles about him. And above ground, he's all anyone seemed to be talking about.

Then it occurred to me: if Michael Jackson hadn't died, we all would have instead been talking and reading about one of the country's front-runners for the Republican ticket in the 2012 presidential election, and how he used tax payers' money to visit his mistress in Argentina. We'd have been talking about how he publicly denounced such behavior in other politicians just a few years ago, revealing himself to be a hypocrite who's arrogant enough to believe he could get away with it.

Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina who went missing over Father's Day weekend, only to turn up a few days later claiming that he'd been hiking the Appalachian Trail, was the hot story on Thursday morning. He had just confessed to his affair, and a case was mounting against him for all the betrayals and hypocrisies listed above. What's more, the GOP had just lost someone it was calling one of its strongest contenders against Barack Obama just three years from now.

But by the next day, he was a sidebar, and the news -- TV, newspapers, blogs, and chit-chat around the water cooler -- was all Michael.

If I had HBO -- let alone a TV -- I'd spend my evening tonight watching Liz Garbus's acclaimed documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories From the Front Lines of Free Speech.

A hit at this year's Sundance Film Festival and praised by critics for its engaging approach to such a complex subject, the film takes a hard look at just how fragile the First Amendment really is. Garbus considers diverse cases in which Americans voicing unpopular views were kicked out of schools, lost jobs or otherwise censored to the point of undermining one of the central liberties that (we think) defines American life.

Among the film's subjects is Ward Churchill, a former University of Colorado professor who was attacked for an essay he wrote after 9/11 in which he referred to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was a member of the Nazi party and is often called the "architect of the Holocaust" -- not because he planned it, but because of his organizational prowess and reliability in executing the plans of those who did. Likewise, argued Churchill, the people who worked in the WTC were complicit in engineering the capitalist system the terrorists meant to destroy.

He defended his position, and by speaking he only made matters worse for himself. As did the rest of the film's subjects, such as Tyler Chase Harper, a San Diego high school student who was suspended for wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is Shameful" during a gay and lesbian awareness event. Subjects like Harper may provide the balance the film needs to make its point to all Americans regardless of political leanings.

Garbus, whose father, Martin Garbus, is a First Amendment attorney, also includes footage of the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, at which more than 1,800 people were arrested -- many for no apparent reason. As Gina Belafonte writes in the New York Times, these shots recall those taken much more recently in Iran, suggesting that the suppression we are witnessing in that country is just as present in our own.

As I said, I'll have to wait for Shouting Fire to come out on Netflix, but if you have HBO, take a look -- and drop a comment to let people like me (TVaphobes) know how it is.

The film's HBO schedule can be found here.

[Image: Still from Shouting Fire]

President Obama announced this weekend that the House has passed the so-called "climate change bill" -- a sweeping piece of legislation that aims to curb global warming, radically reduce pollution, and generally move the United States -- and by extension, the planet -- toward a greener future.

The bill passed narrowly, with a vote of 219 over 212, and eight Republicans voted in its favor. This didn't prevent Minority Leader John Boehner from reading large portions of it aloud on the House floor, not because he supports the bill, but because "people deserve to know what's in this pile of shit."

Fortunately, Boehner's opinion is the minority one (pun intended). Though the majority may be small in this case, it was large enough to squeak the legislation through. President Obama spoke optimistically about the changes we can expect to see as a result of this Congressional move in his weekly address:

My longtime friend Jason and I were walking through the very affluent Nob Hill neighborhood here in San Francisco. Jason is the extreme opposite of affluent. I love Jason to pieces and have always been struck by his absolute and complete satisfaction with living as simply as he can. Jason is incredibly intelligent, good looking and charming and could have almost anything he wanted in life but scoffs at most everything people want. We photographed each other throughout Nob Hill but the picture that says the most is his proud declaration of what he is happiest with, his minority status.

The Friday before last, I stopped into the Virgin Megastore at Union Square for its final day of business. The shelves were mostly bare, but there were still scads of people combing their contents for great deals on music and movies. I was too depressed to stick around, having already witnessed the closures of my two favorite music stores this year: Kim's Video, on St. Mark's, and Etherea, on Avenue A.

Of course, Kim's didn't close completely -- it reopened a few blocks away -- but in a fraction of the space it had on St. Mark's, and with a fraction of the selection. I suspect it won't be long before it shutters its new doors, too.

With the digitization of music, movies and now books, I fear the worst: a Fahrenheit 451-type scenario, in which future generations may not live without those things, per se, but will never develop a sense of context.

In Ray Bradbury's novel, all books have been destroyed, so a group of elders have each memorized a specific book, and they pass that book on to the next generation in the oral tradition. Thus each person is a repository of one text, but nothing more.

The author himself, now 87 years old, is speaking out to save the public library in Ventura, California, which is in a massive deficit and is likely to follow its for-profit counterparts if something isn't done to save it. But what is the likelihood of that happening? The problems faced by the Ventura library are not unique to that city. Will libraries become the sole province of private universities? And if so, how long will that sustain itself, if the entire book publishing industry falls apart?

There can't be anything to shelve if no one's printing the books.

I began thinking about this months ago, when it became obvious that music and movie collections were fast becoming obsolete. With innovations like the Amazon Kindle, will collections of books -- personal, academic, public -- be next?

[Image: The Bookworm, by Carl Spitzweg]

This month marks the fifth anniversary of Save Darfur's founding. The organization's goal has been to pressure the U.S. Government to work to end the conflict in Darfur. And while the present administration is much better on policy regarding Africa's longest running civil war, things could always be better. As rain reason approaches and malarial mosquitoes breed in stagnant water, more than a million refugees are in a dire predicament.

Want to do something? Hunger strikes aren't the only way to get involved. You can sign this petition to keep the pressure on President Obama to stay on top of the situation in Darfur.

You can also send an e-postcard to the President here.

At tonight's Kenneth Cole Summer Charity Shopping Night event, which takes place from 6:00pm to 9:00pm EST at Grand Central Station in New York City, Kenneth Cole will be helping to raise money and awareness for the S.A.F.E. (Shelter, Arts, Families and Education) program of Making Books Sing.

In the Q&A below, Debra Sue Lorenzen, the co-founder and executive director of Making Books Sing, discusses the organization's successes over the past 13 years and shares a preview of tonight's event. Founded in 1996, Making Books Sing has as its primary mission to empower children to experience theater as a vehicle for artistic expression and learning. To date, Making Books Sing's theater productions and educational programs have reached more than 70,000 children and adults and have been implemented in more than 55 New York City public schools.

AWEARNESS: For readers who may not be familiar with Making Books Sing, would you be able to describe your core programs and offerings?

Debra Sue Lorenzen: Making Books Sing is an organization dedicated to using the performing arts to engage children in literature. As an entry point to becoming more engaged with literature, we enable children to create full-scale musical productions or site-specific works that are adaptations of books that deal with important social and historical issues. Children can then participate in in-depth professional programming, with trained artists guiding them through the writing and interpretation process.

AWEARNESS: You've had tremendous success working with at-risk children. Can you talk about the motivation and inspiration behind S.A.F.E. (Shelter, Arts, Families and Education)?

Debra Sue Lorenzen: S.A.F.E. serves transient children in the school system, children who are essentially living in poverty. The homeless population is very distinctive in its needs - so we create a highly-tailored program that provides them a daily respite from their daily lives, due to the self-expressive, therapeutic nature of the arts. These are people living in extreme crisis. The shelter system provides them safety from domestic violence and access to social services, such as access to food stamps. Families need creative time together, as well as a new way into the educational process. Their daily lives are highly interrupted. The vast majority of these children could wind up in the foster care system, or even drop out of the educational system entirely.

One shelter director described the reason for this very succinctly, "When people are running for their lives, they don't think to grab their libraries." The children from these backgrounds have limited literary skills. Our role, then, is to re-introduce children to books, and the theater as an avenue to acquire knowledge and allow their imagination to run free. S.A.F.E. is an ongoing series of workshops in the Bronx, giving children access to week-in, week-out exposure to literature and the arts. It's hard for them to integrate this into their daily lives. It's even hard for them to come down for the first workshop -- they need to have the right incentives to come whenever they can.

I still remember looking forward to Officer Friendly days at school. Knowing that some tall police man would come to our classroom to give us some time off from whatever was on the agenda. We'd all sit there and learn about how the police were here to protect us. Later we would learn about the court system and how judges brought us justice.

Were we sold a fairy tale?

In the last two days two sentencings have made me revisit what I feel is justice. The first is the sentencing of Chris Brown for his beating of Rhianna.

Part of me thinks he should have gotten some jail time. Another part looked at the video of him in the court and saw a scared lil boy who saw his own mama beat too many times. Does he need jail time or help? Does his "light sentence" of probation and community service serve as the proper message to his young fans? Especially the young women who thought that Rhianna was at fault?

The other story is Chicago Police Officer Anthony Abbate's sentencing:

An off-duty Chicago police officer convicted of pummeling a female bartender half his size was sentenced Tuesday to two years probation and anger management classes for the videotaped attack that appeared worldwide on the Internet and cable news channels.

This isn't the first time Chicago has had a high-profile case against a police officer, but the video plus the sentencing has touched a nerve to many Chicagoans. CBS 2 Chicago talked to law experts who thought that the sentence fit within the law.

So what defines justice?

Is it justice that Chris Brown completed the circle of violence begun with his step-father?

Is it justice that Abbate will most likely be fired from his job?

What is it that we want? And why do we feel judges aren't doing their job?

[Image: KPA/Zuma/Rex Features via The Guardian]

Here's what happens when you put Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, in a room with Ronald McDonald, Grimace (a closeted intellectual, apparently), and the Hamburglar (who's got a chip on his shoulder about Twitter):

The American Empire is at an introspective moment, rethinking past policies that have led us to this moment of national exigency as it tries to get its bearings in a multipolar world where it -- and we -- are no longer at the center. If ever there was a time for the forces against criminalizing marijuana to push for it legalization, that would be now. Eroding state budgets as the Great Recession progresses are making an eloquent case for decriminalizing and taxing the sweet leaf to fill depleted state tax coffers. Prisons, costly in this deleveraged perfect storm scenario, are filled to the brim with non-violent drug offenders costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Mexican drug gangs on our border are now in the marijuana business, profiting off its illegality. And lawmakers from both sides of the aisle from Senator Jim Webb to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are asking for an open debate on the question of legalization.

Last week The Massachusetts Bar Association issued a fascinating report titled "The Failure of the War on Drugs: Charting a New Course for the Commonwealth," [PDF] arguing for the overhaul and reexamination of legal efforts to fight drug use and the penalties for nonviolent drug offenders. The report's recommendations would result in tens of millions of dollars in savings by diverting non-violent drug possession offenders to treatment instead of jail ($8 million saved annually), and mandatory minimum sentencing reform ($17 million in savings, hello?).

Marijuana-related legalization bills are popping up in state houses and ballot initiatives across the country. Momentum for marijuana legalization is at the highest in my lifetime. How curious that the War on Drugs, which began with haughty rhetoric may turn on financial insolvency .

[Image: AP]

Despicable, heinous, heart-wrenching, and horrible -- these are the words that come to mind when I painfully read about the 19 or more cats who were kidnapped and brutally killed, mutilated, gutted, and disposed of on the lawns of their owners over the past two months in south Florida. Since Mother's Day, residents in the Miami area communities of Palmetto Bay and Cutler Bay have had their beloved companion animals murdered, apparently by an 18-year-old boy, Tyler Hayes Weinman, whose divorced parents each live in one of the terrorized communities. Following his arrest on June 14, Weinman was deemed "competent" after his psychological evaluation and has been released on bail; he is currently under house arrest, awaiting his next hearing on July 6. Weinman was charged with "19 counts of felony animal cruelty, 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal body, and four counts of burglary."

Miami-Dade County Commissioner Katy Sorenson said, "I understand that pet owners feel very strongly about their little family members. Animals bring happiness and comfort to our lives. So to see them so violated and mutilated just defies all common sense and it's painful for everyone involved. Thankfully, for this community, the terror has come to an end."

As a lover of all animals, particularly cats whom I utterly adore, I can't help but be filled with both rage and despair over the monstrous cruelty so easily inflicted on these beautiful and innocent living beings. Truly, what is wrong with these people! When asked a similar question during a CNN interview about the Weinman case, former FBI profiler Candice DeLong replied:

This behavior is a very serious indicator of a troubled person... possibly they're a sadistic killer in training and they're acting out a fantasy, working up to and practicing what they want to do humans. Cats actually are the most frequently abused/mutilated animals by potential serial killers. Why? Well, one killer told me, "I hate them... they are just like women! They sneak around, they are quiet and conniving, they act like they don't need you, and they need to be dead!" If I was looking for a suspect, I'd be looking for a male. This is a crime about power; control, rage, and possibly sadism (sexual control). Another possibility is that it was some kind of sick joke or game to someone, but if you think it's funny, that says something is horribly wrong with the person as well. The person who did this is dangerous to society. Whatever the motivation driving the behavior, the ability to stalk and kill 18 pet cats shows a complete lack of empathy, judgment and regard for the consequences of their actions. Whether or not you like cats, even if you detest them, healthy people are still able to understand the pain they would be inflicting on the family to which they belong.

At first I thought this was just another trite, Republican-bashing, liberal diatribe without any real basis. Then I started to laugh, and then I started to think, Gee, conservatives really are spinning a lot of misleading rhetoric about the health care reforms being proposed by the Obama Administration.

Something to think about. Go to Americans United For Change for more information or to get involved.

I took out the trash, and what did I see? Two discarded TVs, lookin' back up at me.

Increased disposal of cathode-ray tube TVs is just the thing that some were concerned would happen after the switch to digital television.

About 20 million televisions were already being disposed of each year because of age or breakdown, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Even with increasing state and municipal regulation of electronics waste disposal, only 15-20 percent of those televisions were processed by recycling facilities. The rest either went into landfills or, even worse, open dumps in Asia and Africa.

A typical CRT set contains four to eight pounds of lead, which is known to disrupt nervous system and organ function. The fact that millions of TVs end up in the garbage heap means that millions of pounds of lead, as well as smaller but no less harmful amounts of mercury, hexavalent chromium and other toxic materials, are liable to leach into the soil and groundwater where the sets are buried.

Government and commercial entities have created many programs to safely handle, recycle and salvage televisions, computer equipment, and other electronic components. To find local facilities, consumers can refer to Earth 911's recycling database.

To be sure that electronic waste is properly disposed of, not simply dumped on another country's soil, the Basel Action Network advises only doing business with companies that are e-Steward certified.

Sir Paul McCartney, who is a vegetarian, is exercising his celebrity soft power, asking fans to go meatless on Mondays to help curb the advance of global warming. He launched the Meat Free Monday campaign in London's St James's Park with Yoko Ono, Kate Bosworth, Kelly Osbourne and Moby. The former Beatle argues that going meat free for one day a week helps the environment, global hunger, contributes to the ethical treatment of animals and leads to better health. "It's kind of easy to do. You've had too much over the weekend anyway and you're all running down to the gym to try and work it off so just have a meat-free Monday," he said.

You can support "Meat Free Mondays" here.

I was shooting photos for Megaphone, a local street magazine that provides opportunities and a voice for socially excluded people while bringing light to issues that affect our communities, in particular, Vancouver's downtown eastside. Every Saturday, Food not Bombs, feeds the people of the Eastside, often referred to as "Canada's poorest postal code." Megaphone was featuring Food not Bombs in their latest issue and they asked me to shoot photos to accompany the story. I was happy to be able to work with them as they are a great paper and a much needed resource in our city. 

This weekend is the National NOW Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana. Normally the conference doesn't rate too high on the national media landscape, but this year is an election year. Not only that, but it's almost a rehashing of the Barack versus Hillary drama we had last year:

Delegates will be choosing between Latifa Lyles, a 33-year-old African-American who has been one of Gandy's three vice presidents, and Terry O'Neill, 56, a white activist who taught law at Tulane University, who was NOW's vice president for membership from 2001-05, and who most recently has been chief of staff for a county council member in Maryland's Montgomery County.

A young, black candidate who promises diversity and change faces off against an older, white candidate who, for many, represents preservation of the status quo. Sound familiar? Well, despite the obvious referent, it also describes the current campaign to replace Kim Gandy as president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). The group will elect a new leader at its national conference in Indianapolis, which begins Friday.

Despite the media's play on the young versus old (not that Terry's old mind ya!) or Black versus White, these are two formidable women who have different ideas on how to make NOW relevant to a new generation of women and ensure that the Obama administration follows through on his promises to women and the LGBT community. Once the conference starts, hopefully the rhetoric will be all about their campaign promises and not their age or ethnicity.

What does the future hold for feminism? I guess we'll find out this weekend.

The bigger question is, will anyone notice?

I'll be there with my trusty laptop and Twitterfeed a-tweeting, pop on over to my other hangout to see how feminists do their politics. I know it's gonna be popcorn worthy.

According to a recent edition of the International Herald Tribune, world leaders gathered at the Copenhagen Climate Summit and collectively vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They say they were inspired by the massive protests around the world, and especially thanked the people who were arrested at those protests for their dedication to the environmental cause.

Yes, the issue was recently printed, but according to its date of publication, the news it reports hasn't happened yet. Dated December 19th, 2009, the special edition of the IHT, a product of the New York Times Company, is a hoax. There's even an extensive -- and utterly convincing -- online version.

Produced by the Yes Men, who brought us a special edition of the Times last fall declaring the end of the war in Iraq, this latest piece of good news represents not reality, but the pranksters' hope for what could be reality if certain people in power chose to make it so.

Of course, it's not so easy as uniting French president Nicolas Sarkozy, German chancellor Angela Merkel and European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, pictured above, in a sing-along for the planet, but it's also not so far-fetched as to be unfeasible.

The Yes Men, dedicated as much affecting actual change as they are to pulling pranks, are directing people to BeyondTalk a site where visitors can learn how to really make a difference about climate change.

[Image: AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg]

We all know about the controversial joke that David Letterman told a few weeks ago about Sarah Palin's daughter. We also know that Sarah took the airwaves demanding an apology and David gave her one ...eventually. So here's why they both need to apologize to us:

David told a joke that was not offensive just because he targeted an underage girl (Willow Palin) -- it was offensive because his excuse that he was targeting Bristol Palin was an act in slut-shaming. Apparently since Bristol has already been knocked up, it's funny if she were again. Either way, it was a bad joke that hinged on the sexualization of women.

Sarah owes us an apology for not defending Bristol from the slut-shaming aspect of the joke. She got all hot and bothered about little Willow, but no mama bear claws came out on behalf of Bristol.

Sarah also told an equally poor joke on the "Today Show": "it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman." Eewww!! I think that goes right up there with Jessica Simpson's dad on the list of "inappropriate things said by parents about their children."

But really, I think they owe us both an apology for having this thing drag on so darn long. David, why didn't you just come out and apologize right away? Now Sarah's supporters are waging a campaign against the show's sponsors and David is being rewarded with an uptick in ratings. Perhaps both of them are laughing behind all of our backs as they reap the rewards of their behavior.

Oh this is rich. The GOP is now making a big fuss about Sonia Sotomayor being a member of a women's networking group and calling it a discriminatory club:

"You state that you are a member of an organization, the Belizean Grove, that discriminates on the basis of sex," Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to the White House last week.

Noting that the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits membership in organizations that "invidiously discriminate" on the basis of sex, race and national origin, the lawmakers wrote, "Please explain the basis for your belief that membership in an organization that discriminates on the basis of sex nonetheless conforms to the Code of Conduct."

A Republican member of the group came to Sotomayor's defense, but until the hearings start, Sotomayor can't really respond to this new allegation.

Is this really the best the GOP can do?

As noted in the Washington Times piece cited above, groups like Belizean Grove were set up in response to the old boys club as a place where women could network together and support each other. If men didn't exclude women from networking arenas, we wouldn't need to create our own.

Ms. Stautberg said women looking to succeed have often been shut out of the networks of power and have had to seek nontraditional networks for support. She pointed to a Harvard study that said women on Wall Street developed networks outside their firms because they had trouble cracking the fraternal networks inside their companies.

Since news of the club hit the press, two men have applied to join. Chances are that they will be welcomed with open arms, but I doubt that they will actually attend. I've met men like that far too many times in my life. They do things in a failed attempt to prove that the group is discriminating against men. It's a far cry from the Brady Bunch episode where Peter & Marcia join each other's scouting troops. Although I'd pay money to see Rush Limbaugh on a women's retreat and watch him have to sit through discussions of family-life balance AND adhere to the "safe space" rule many groups have.

When news broke over the weekend that since 2004, 22 adult film stars have been diagnosed with HIV, my first thought was: why did it take five years for this to become a headline?

The number in the headline -- 22 -- was what grabbed my attention, and at first, I assumed that these cases were all fresh, indicating an HIV epidemic in the San Fernando Valley, where the porn industry is primarily based. But a few sentences into the article, I realized that, in fact, this number has been growing since 2004, and I didn't understand why it's now suddenly news.

Of course, so many adult film stars contracting HIV is a serious matter, and the fact that many of them are carrying the virus without knowing it, thus spreading it to their sex partners both on-screen and off, is cause for worry both within the porn industry and outside of it. But couldn't this number have been reduced if there were more frequent headlines, and a more regular tally being kept about instances of HIV/AIDS among adult film actors?

The good news is that since this number hit the presses, the debate over condom legislation has been revived, and the so-called "Condoms in Porn" law is gaining a lot of support.

Perhaps all it took was a large enough number for the media to take notice, but little good that does the 22 people -- and counting -- who've already contracted the virus.

[Image: Wen-Yan King from Wikimedia Commons]

Rape is often cited as a clear reason that abortion should be legal, and I don't disagree with that argument. To bear the child of a rapist must be a conflicting experience, one defined as much by trauma as by the maternal instinct to care for your young. But putting the abortion debate aside for a moment, let's consider the terrible, still recent case of Rwanda.

In Rwanda, whose citizens suffered genocide, torture and rape on a massive scale 15 years ago this spring, thousands of children were conceived under harrowing circumstances. Women and girls were taken hostage, abused, and left for dead by their captors, but some of those women bore the children they found themselves carrying in the months that followed.

An estimated 20,000 children were born of rape victims during the Rwandan genocide, in which hundreds of thousands of Tutsi women were brutalized by extremist Hutu militia groups. But under Rwandan law, they could not get abortions and were left to either abort the fetuses themselves or have the children.

In 2006, the photographer Jonathan Torgovnik was in Africa on assignment for Newsweek, documenting the 25th anniversary of the AIDS outbreak, when he met a young woman with HIV and a 12-year-old son, the product of one such rape.

He went back to Rwanda repeatedly over the next three years, photographing the women he met there and their children, now in their mid-teens. The effort became a book, Intended Consequences: Rwandan Children Born of Rape, which documents the mothers and their "children of bad memories."

Of course, these children do not justify the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, but there is something about these pictures that makes me pause. Perhaps it's because their mere existence is a testament to the paradox of humanity: even the most evil acts can create something beautiful.

[Image: Jonathan Torgovnik]

Spend your Tuesday evening learning about the economy and gay rights, two prevalent and controversial issues our country faces.

Frontline "Breaking the Bank"
In the season finale Frontline uncovers the government nationalizing the banking system and explores he change between government and private business. "FRONTLINE untangles the complicated financial and political web threatening one particular superbank, Bank of America, in particular."

"With brand name banks on the bring of failure and the federal government contemplating a massive nationalization of the banking industry, FRONTLINE goes behind closed doors to tell the inside story of how things went so wrong so fast and to document efforts to stabilize the industry."

Tune in to PBS Tuesday, June 16 at 9pm ET for Frontline's "Breaking the Bank"

Independent Lens "Ask Not"
With gay rights already being a controversial issue, explore the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Because of this policy gay Americans serve in the military under a "veil of silence." These veterans are now turning to activism to make a stance and express their feelings on this controversial policy. "Ask Not" reveals personal stories of gay Americans who serve in combat with this secrecy.

Become a military recruiter and express your opinion on PBS's interactive website, and see if your choice matches with the U.S Army's recruitment policy.

Follow up "Breaking the Bank" with "Independent Lens: Ask Not" Tuesday June 16 at 10pm ET.

President Obama seemed flustered during a press conference on Tuesday, when a reporter asked him about his position on the Iranian election and the subsequent protests and riots that have taken place there over the past few days.

While Obama said that he denounces violence and the suppression of peaceful protest, he also said that he was concerned about being perceived as "meddling" in Iran's affairs. This is, of course, the politic position to take, but in a case like this -- in which people are being bludgeoned on the streets, and the future of the world seems to be in the balance -- I wonder if equivocating as Obama is on this issue might only make matters worse.

Welcome to the age of citizen journalism, in which on-the-ground civilians engaged in protests or just walking down the street can break news far faster than any news organization could ever hope to.

Case in point: this weekend in Iran, when the country's incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed victory after a long and heated battle with his unlikely opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi. The controversial re-election incited protests instantly.

People on the street, frustrated with CNN's lack of coverage, created the "IranElections" and "CNNFail" search hashtags and blasted cyberspace with the following Tweets:

Sunday was Flag Day, a day for Americans to mark the adoption of the American flag as well, the American flag. Oddly it's not a Federal holiday and only one state marks it as a holiday. But from my memory of childhood, it was a day we always talked about in school including learning the legend of Betsy Ross:

According to the oral history, in 1777, three men-George Washington, Robert Morris, and George Ross, visited Betsy Ross in her upholstery shop. Washington pulled a folded piece of paper from his inside coat pocket. On it, was a sketch of a flag with thirteen red and white stripes and thirteen six pointed stars.

Washington asked if Betsy could make a flag from the design. Betsy responded: "I do not know, but I will try."

To mark Flag Day, NPR ran a piece on how many states require that all flags flown at government buildings be made in the USA. Remember the fiasco over American flags being made in China after the 2001 terrorist attacks? Maryland is one of those states. Not only are their flags made in the U.S. of A, but they are also made in American prisons.

Rosenne Smith, an inmate in Maryland who makes flags, chose the work over education because she already had a high school diploma. She talked about (sorry transcript unavailable at this time) how much pride she takes in making American flags.

It was important for me to start generating images which could be of some cultural value in the future. My coverage on the influenza epidemic attempts to show some scenes from what we lived in the first half of 2009. I try to include economic and geographic context in my images, and in that way give the images a place, a time and a social background of their own.

Last month Dr. Tiller was assassinated in his church. This comes years after he was shot in both arms, his clinic the site of massive protests, sit-ins and harassment. All of this meets the FBI's definition of terrorism, yet only two media outlets -- Rachel Maddow and LA Times/Chicago Tribune -- called radical fringe abortion protesters terrorism in the first few days after the shooting.

Wednesday an 88-year-old white supremacist killed a security guard inside the National Holocaust Museum. I was just sitting down in my seat on JetBlue as this ran across the cable news networks. This meant that I got to watch almost two hours of straight "breaking news" of the shooting. It did not take more than an hour for the CNN to label the shooting as terrorism. This is a good thing.

We need to name what is happening or we can't truly address the issue. We can call it the "Obama effect" or whatnot, but it is terrorism.

A few months ago a Homeland Security report was leaked hat included a section about the threat that extreme right-wing radicals have to the United States. The GOP had a tantrum that even my 5-year-old hasn't thrown. The press ran with it and eventually she offered an apology. After the museum shooting, even FOXNews says that perhaps the report was right.

Yes, there are left-wing terrorists, animal rights and environmental activists, but right now we are dealing with two (or three, depending on how you view the shooting at the military recruitment office) shootings within two weeks. The Tiller and the museum shootings are from "lone wolf" members of extreme right-wing groups.

Unlike after the Tiller shooting, the FBI Taskforce on Terrorism has been called into action. Hopefully this means that threats like the ones women's health clinics have been receiving since Obama was elected will be investigated fully. But is that the best we can do? What can we do against hate this intense?

In South Bend, Indiana (home of Notre Dame), volunteers at the South Bend Center for the Homeless have been working to address the problem of homelessness through an innovative program that introduces the homeless to the great classics of world literature. Rather than viewing the homeless as people living on the fringe of society, the coordinators of the program -- known as the World Masterpieces Seminar -- awaken in participants a sense of their own value and their unique perspectives on the world. What makes the program so interesting is that the program is taught by two Notre Dame literature professors, Steve Fallon and Clark Power, using the same works and same approaches as they use with their university undergraduate students.

Here, Steve Fallon, professor of English and chair of the Program of Liberal Studies at Notre Dame, explains why his World Masterpieces Seminar program has already achieved such success in South Bend in solving for the problem of homelessness.

AWEARNESS: When most people think of the classics, they think of a very privileged part of society that has been exposed to the great writers like Shakespeare, Homer, Milton and Plato. What was your inspiration for bringing the study of the classics to the homeless population of South Bend?

If you got a call from a police officer who knew your name, your address, and your social security number, informing you that you had defaulted on a loan and would be arrested if you did not repay that loan immediately, what would you do?

If you have your wits, you'd probably ask for his number and then contact the real authorities to let them know about a possible fraud scheme. But what if you're elderly or easily confused?

Phony debt collectors are serious business. In this clip, Jon Hann of Richmond, VA returns a call he received from one such "debt collector," a man with a heavy Indian accent who identifies himself as a ULPD officer:

If you're anything like me, you have hundreds of email contacts, and you never, ever delete them. You figure you might one day need to get in touch with that person you met at a cocktail party four years ago, with whom you had a stimulating conversation about social work on Chicago's South Side.

Of course, you've yet to contact that person, but her email address remains unused in your ever-growing contacts list. And then, she receives an email from you -- long after she's likely to remember your name, no doubt -- offering to fix her laptop, her iPhone, or her motorcycle. Then she gets another one from you advertising "China's #1 online store."

And so do all your other contacts: colleagues current and past, former girlfriends, and many others you'd just as soon maintain some degree of dignity around, or not contact at all.

This is the dilemma I found myself in over the weekend, when I learned that my Hotmail account had been hacked and an indeterminate number of my contacts had been spammed with stupid, atrociously written emails. I changed my password, but the spamming continued, and I was left with one option: change my email address.

You'd think that after more than a decade of such cyber-nuisances -- indeed, the "Melissa" virus of 1999 sounds annoyingly familiar -- someone would have figured out a way to stop email viruses. To the contrary: the hackers have only gotten smarter, and they always seem to be a step ahead. Just look at the Conficker virus, which might be the culprit in my situation.

I sent a mass email to every one of the 300-odd people in my contacts, including those I'd rather not have anything to do with anymore, for one reason: to save face. I was ashamed of the spam, even though I did nothing to warrant them and could not have stopped them. But I felt compelled to explain what had occurred, and to apologize for the inconvenience.

Am I crazy, or is this a normal response to a computer virus that does nothing but annoy everyone you know under your name?

[Image: CNN]

In case you've missed her, I'm posting a short video of Sarah Palin offering up her signature brand of political commentary: folksy, down home, and just plain confusing. Even Sean Hannity, the Fox News anchor/arch-conservative pundit, seems a little bewildered by her thought process.

"What a commentary there," Palin responded yesterday on conservative radio host John Ziegler's show. "That's pretty pathetic, good ole David Letterman."

There are a few urban enclaves in this country that act like magnets for young, hip, artistic sorts who want to pursue their dreams, or simply join the "scene." Every city has a trendy neighborhood, but some require a small fortune to rent an apartment there.

Perhaps no place in America embodies this reality like Willamsburg, Brooklyn, that formerly rag-tag industrial cluster of old factories and dilapidated apartment buildings just across the East River from Manhattan's Lower East Side.

When I first moved to New York, in 1999, Williamsburg was a place where you could find a raw loft for under $1,000 and feel like a pioneer on the new urban frontier. There were a few restaurants and bars, but for the most part, going to Williamsburg felt like going to Philadelphia -- that is, a long way from New York City.

These days Williamsburg is home to scads of twentysomethings who all seem to be in one band or another. And they're as interchangeable as they are numerous: every time I exit the Bedford Avenue station on the L train, I feel like I'm immersed in a grand social experiment, in which the subjects change as frequently as the marquees at the local music venues. Where do all these kids come from, I wonder, and more importantly, where do they all go when their time is up?

The New York Times published an article on Monday about the funding for residents of Williamsburg -- their parents. The article suggests that a great number, if not a majority, of those hipsters are heavily subsidized by moms and dads who've earned enough (by being square, no doubt) to pay their mortgages and their kids' $3,000-per-month rent. But in these dire economic times, the article goes on to say, those pools are rapidly evaporating. Though, most hipsters are loathe to admit they receive any assistance from anyone residing in those godforsaken suburbs.

Suddenly, paying for your 25-year-old child's loft so he or she doesn't have work is starting to seem like a luxury many parents can live without. Meanwhile, their kids will either have to relocate to cheaper digs or figure out pretty fast if they're capable of earning their keep.

I suspect that resume-writing services will be in high demand in the coming months, as well as clothing that fully covers limbs adorned with tattoos.

[Image: Stuffhipstersdon'tlike.com]

Well at least in terms of how jerseys will be looking like. The Phoenix Mercury has sold the rights to advertise on the front of their jerseys. Is this the wave of the future or the end of sports purity?

"You're going to see more and more of this," said former AOL executive Jimmy Lynn of JLynn Associates, a sports strategic advisory firm. "I definitely see it happening in men's major sports within five years."

"It's natural product placement," said WNBA President Donna Orender. "We're a ground-breaking league. We're not bound by convention. I think this enhances who we are."

Christine Brennan seems to be OK with this because we've had years of NASCAR and I'll add in soccer too. But is it really OK?

In 2005 Comcast was the lead sponsor for the Chicago Bandits, my local women's professional softball team. This meant that every single time the media talked about the Bandits, it was "The Comcast Bandits won 3-1," and every time the team was announced at the park, "The Comcast Bandits."

Given that women's professional soccer failed even after rolling on the momentum of Mia Hamm and company, I'm not surprised that the WNBA and women's softball would have gone that way.

If advertising moves into Major League Baseball or the National Football League, would you be upset? Feel the team/league sold out?

[Getty Images/NBAE

Areej Khan, who just received her MFA from the School of Visual Arts in New York, is not to allowed to drive in her native Saudi Arabia. For her Master's project Areej created the "We The Women" project to further the debate and possibly persuade the new King to get with the times. Check out the "We the Women" photostream here.

While the general reaction to Barack Obama's speech in Cairo last week seems to be positive, there are of course those who fault the president for what he left out.

Two of the most common criticisms I've come across are that he didn't speak in specifics, laying out a clear plan of action for how to reconcile differences among Israelis and Palestinians, the Muslim world and the United States, and that he did not apologize for the deaths of Iraqi citizens at the hands of the United States military.

Those critics might consider the facts that A) making promises of specific policy changes is a death knell for a politician, especially on matters as complicated as those that Obama went to Cairo to address; and B) as the president of the United States, it would be self-defeating to baldly apologize for his country's military while the conflict is ongoing. Indeed, it would no doubt incite even more conflict.

Aside from those political considerations, I thought that President Obama spoke with characteristic ease, striking a tone and pose that seemed more professorial than presidential. He was authoritative without being dogmatic, deferential to his hosts but also firm in his adherence to the message he went to Cairo to deliver: that mutual respect and understanding of differences are critical to the future prosperity of all groups, all countries, and all belief systems.

To my mind, Obama's message is less political than it is humanitarian. Yes, the president spoke in Cairo as the chief ambassador of the United States, and everything he said was colored by the position he holds in the world. But his words, and the ideas behind them, to whatever extent they can be taken on their own terms, reflect a sincere interest in peace and the hope for a diverse, harmonious future among those who have been divided by ideology for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

[Image: The Palestinian Chronicle]

When people ask about my personal blog, I say that it is about the intersection of motherhood and feminism. And since I have a daughter, many of my mom posts are about raising girls. And while my feminism has evolved to include the fact that feminism frees men and boys from their tiny gender role box, I still get asked "What about the boys/dads?"

Joe Kelly laid it out straight about how dads need to ante up if they want to gain the a higher level of respect:

Yes, we must provide money for our kids, but we have to broaden our own definition of "provider" to include providing our time, affection, presence, expectations, willingness to do mundane tasks (like diapers and carpooling), and much more. Only when we show people how comprehensively we can provide for our kids can we reasonably expect society to broaden its "provider" definitions, respect fathers, and treat us well.

He is talking to all the men's groups out there that complain about having to pay child support and not having enough visitation with the kids. Kelly is also addressing dads who just don't feel they get enough credit.

And just like Kelly, I sympathize with them. Then again, I know that the bar for fatherly excellence can be just above knowing how to put on a diaper properly.

I'll add one more thing to Kelly's list of what has to happen. Moms need to give dads credit. When was the last time you praised your baby daddy in public? Does he babysit his own kids or watch them? Do you like to list off all the things he messes up to your girlfriends? I admit that my husband has his fair share of screw ups, but so do I. I also make a point of praising him when anyone asks me how I "do it all." I couldn't get half of the stuff I do done without him being such an amazing dad.

Many dads need to step it up, but we also need to give them some slack.

But don't tell my husband I said that!

It may not be the most important commemorative day of the year, but anyone who reads this blog regularly will probably guess that anything called National Running Day will hold a special place in my heart.

Well, it does and it doesn't. I love to run, true, and I did go running on National Running Day, which was Wednesday, June 3rd. But this isn't unusual: I go running six days a week, and I didn't run on Wednesday because I was "supposed" to; I ran because I can't think straight if I don't.

But I like the idea of National Running Day, if only because it brings a little more awareness to a sport that has become like a religion to me. Indeed, I've often wondered if I get from running what my brother and sister-in-law, who met in seminary, get from religion. It's taught me discipline, it gives me something around which to structure positive and constructive habits, and it brings an indescribable peace to my life. What's more, races provide me with a community of other runners whom I get to see every couple of weeks (on Sunday mornings, oftentimes).

No doubt some will consider this a blasphemous thought, but what is religion, really, if not an organized system of beliefs, habits, rituals, and communities that gives meaning to its members' lives?

With that said, happy National Running Day. Sure you missed it, but that doesn't mean you can't go running anyway.

[Image: Me with my fellow running zealots in the Boston Marathon, 2009]

Katie Allison Granju makes some great points in her essay The Cult of the Bad Mother: When everyone's a "bad parent," is anyone?" It's not just a tsk-tsking of the bad momosphere with tales of drinking during playdates or anyone who would put an AC/DC song on her daughter's mix CD as a way to keep her from listening to "Kidz Bop" too many times. *ahem*

As with any movement that the media picks up as representative of an entire class of people, we must stop to ask "Does it really reflect everyone? If not, who does it reflect then?"

It's not about the drinking or loving our husbands more than our kids. Truth be told, my husband and I try to remember that after the kid is in college (T-minus 12 years) we have to live with each other again, so we might try to love each other more. But it's about who has the freedom to be "bad." Granju's example of the FreerangeKids Mom who lets her 3rd grader roam the NYC subway system alone: "However, a poor, minority or immigrant mother who made the same parenting choice would more likely get a visit from Child Protective Services."

is an excellent one. As a mom of color, I often find myself reflecting on how my mommyhood is perceived by those around me when I'm out with my daughter. Is she acting up to the point of annoyance? If so, will people think we're without manners because she's full of sugar or because we're Latinas?

Deesha Philyaw covered the area of the lack of moms of color memoirs last summer in Bitch magazine, another aspect Granju points out:

The absence of black mommy memoirs mirrors the relative absence of black women's voices in mainstream U.S. media discourse about motherhood in general. In particular, this discourse is concerned with how women balance the demands of family and careers, and with the decision by some college-educated women to opt out of the labor force altogether and remain at home with their children.

Is the fact that I am equally proud that my daughter can add double digit numbers at age 6 and the highlight of her summer just may be seeing Depeche Mode at Lollapalooza make me a bad mom? If so, why?

Should videos depicting dogfights and the killing of small animals be viewed not as animal cruelty, but as expressions of free speech?

This coming fall the U.S. Supreme Court will decide just that, as they review "whether a federal law outlawing the sale of graphic videos of animal cruelty amounts to a violation of free-speech rights."

In 1999, the federal government passed a law (Public Law 106-152) that makes it illegal to "create, sell, or possess videos depicting animal cruelty with the intention of profiting financially from them." In the past, this law has been used for prosecuting dog fighting videos, yet the impetus behind first passing the law was to stop the production of "crush videos." Crush videos are videos that "cater to fetishists who gain sexual gratification from watching women torture and kill small animals by stepping on them." In these videos, "women, often in high-heeled shoes, impale and crush to death puppies, kittens and other small animals...," and, if that isn't terrible enough, "The cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain, can also be heard in the videos."

In 2004, the law was used to prosecute Robert Stevens, a Virginia man who sold videos of pit bulls attacking other dogs. Last summer however, a federal appeals court reversed Stevens' conviction on the grounds the video was an expression of his free speech. Thankfully, at the request of the federal government, the Supreme Court recently agreed to review this court's ridiculous ruling that "the depictions at issue are 'protected speech' and that preventing animal cruelty is 'not a compelling state interest.'"

In my opinion, the very idea that videos glorifying animal cruelty could be considered an "expression of free speech" is both disturbing and ludicrous. These videos do not depict fake events -- the animals' pain and suffering are actually taking place and result in death. This is what is being filmed and sold for sexual "entertainment" and profit! How can we condone such violence and cruelty and still consider ourselves "civilized"?

"We wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder staged for the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts, and the same legal principles apply to despicable acts of animal cruelty," said Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). According to HSUS, "Before the law was enacted in 1999, there were some 2,000 crush videos available in the marketplace, selling for $15 to $300 each. Over the last decade, that market all but disappeared. However, since last July, crush videos have proliferated on the Internet in response to the appellate court's ruling."

[Image: Daily Kitten]

Bill O'Reilly may or may not have inspired Dr. George Tiller's murderer, as some have suggested, but he has openly denounced the alleged killer, Scott Roeder, for, at the very least, disregarding the rule of law.

Nevertheless, as this clip shows, O'Reilly didn't waste any time in shooting back at those "fanatics" who spoke out against him, effectively turning the issue from one about the unjust murder of a doctor who performed legal abortions into a spitting match between himself and the liberal media.

Is it just me, or does this kind of he said/she said nastiness do nothing more than divide Americans on serious issues like reproductive rights and, yes, even murder? A man is dead, and another man is behind bars. And all Bill O'Reilly seems to care about is what the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post have to say about him.

On Thursday, President Obama gives what many regard as the most important speech of his his life in Cairo, the traditional intellectual capital of the Middle East. Arabs and Muslims will be listening for the president to go further than the Norouz message for the Iranian New Year. The president has indicated that the speech may offer some criticism of Israel, an important American ally.

At the risk of giving Rush Limbaugh even more attention than he already has -- what was he thinking? Seriously, does Limbaugh really believe that there is a valid comparison between Judge Sonia Sotomayor and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke? Is he just saying these things on-air to get ratings? The answer, unfortunately, is probably a little of both.

Limbaughian influence flourishes in periods of GOP instability. Notice how many elected leaders refused to criticize Limbaugh's rhetorical excesses on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday. As the Republican party lacks at present a clearly defined leader, Limbaugh, 20 million or so listeners strong, traditionally becomes the titular head. Although Limbaugh has never had the courage to actually run for office (too much money in radio, Rush?), he has had a measurable impact politically in this country. Limbaugh's impact, however, has been ensorcelled in tomfoolery. His "Operation Chaos" may or may not have prolonged the Democrat primary in 2008, tilting open primaries in the last days in favor of Hillary Clinton's by then quixotic Presidential campaign. Limbaugh also attacked both former Governor Huckabee and John McCain in the Republican primaries last year, prolonging Mitt Romney's lagging candidacy, selfishly inserting himself into the contest. It is instructive to note that Limbaugh -- although he certainly could have -- did not endorse Romney.

Rush Limbaugh eschews taking actual stands in an elections unless it is a sure thing. To do so, perhaps, would be too much of a risk career wise. So long as Limbaugh causes mischief at a distance without taking an actual political stand in the arena, so much the better -- his influence grows. The shadow of Limbaugh's legend lengthens with every childish PR prank, with every irresponsible utterance. Had Rush Limbaugh actually endorsed a losing Romney, he might have lost face and influence within the party. Who cares if it would have been the principled thing to do -- endorsing the purest conservative in the race?

Will anyone stand up to Rush Limbaugh?

[Image: Twolia]

Christine Quinn, the Speaker of the New York City Council, was featured on CNN's State of the Union program this weekend. The subject of the conversation was the legalization of gay marriage and when ceremonies will be performed in culturally progressive New York. We may have to wait, alas. Ironically, although Speaker Quinn is openly gay and one of the most powerful politicians in the city, she cannot marry her partner, Kim Catullo.

Last month the New York Assembly passed legislation allowing same-sex marriages. Now the question moves to the state Senate before New York City itself can move forward. Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, opposes gay marriage. "We are now working in 24 Senate districts," said Gallagher on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday. "We know we have generated thousands of phone calls to legislators. I don't think they will be passing a gay marriage bill this session."

Perhaps the bill will not pass this session -- and that would be a terrible thing -- as New Yorkers are still very closely divided on the issue. But a Quinnipiac poll last month offered up a bright spot. Survey participants aged 18-34 back same-sex marriage by a 61-33 margin. Further, participants 35-54 support it by a 48-44 margin. It was voters 55 and older that oppose gay marriage, 55-37. What does this tell us? "Young people are for this," Quinnipiac University Polling Director Mickey Carroll said. "If the gay advocacy groups are patient, they're going to win."