Equality, assimilationist, and other buzzwords trolling my feed today

I've been trying to put into words my feelings on all these red equal signs and greater-than signs popping up on my feed all day, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on what appears to be an ingrown divide.

I was married once. And no, it didn't contribute to my liberation at all. It did, however, make living in this society a little bit easier. Filing taxes jointly, knowing I was assured health benefits and hospital visitation rights, and other protections I gained by enmeshing myself in that institution were all lovely privileges that I was thankful to have at my fingertips. I was also looked at differently: I was an adult woman living with an adult man, and we were married. There was more approval of our relationship, of the way we were living. It was more palatable to our society's views on relationships and love. Problematic at its core? Oh hell yes. Easier? You betcha.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual member of the LGBTQI community who actually thinks the right to marry will ensure total liberation for them or anyone they know. Sure, the neo-liberal tendencies in the more powerful lobbies make it seem that way. But their proponents know as much as the most radical queer motherfucker out there that the right to marry isn't about to solve the nation's health care crisis, combat institutionalized racism, end bullying, or provide housing for countless homeless queer youths. But I also don't believe their personal desire to enter into that institution sets anyone back; far from it, it is our short-sightedness on the issue that holds us back, not granting the right to those who wish to access it.

It's easy to look at this whole thing and write it off as some big movement to make every queer person look like a gay June Cleaver. The "assimilationist model" is indeed problematic, however, that you are so willing to dismiss a push for the right to marry as "totally assimilationist" is divisive and hurtful as well.

Is it possible that, for many same-sex couples living without radical separatist bubbles to call their own, a societal affirmation of their relationship will help make living their lives a little bit easier?

Press on for radical, ground-breaking change, YES. We should do that ceaselessly and without apology. You may say marriage is an oppressive institution fraught with conservative ideology, and I may partially agree with you, but still... what's really the harm in granting others the right to marry if they so choose?

Why Birthing Rights Matter to the Pro-Choice Movement

In the more abortion-focused circles of the pro-choice movement, birthing rights often go undiscussed.  My mentions of home birth rights specifically have brought varying responses, from supportive to ambivalent to outright hostile ("Well that is not safe!"). 

But let's be clear about something.  Reproductive justice means that everyone has complete control over if, when, where, how, and with whom they bring a child into the world.  It means that people have accurate, unbiased access to information regarding all facets of their reproductive lives, from contraception to pregnancy options, from practices surrounding birth to parental rights. It means that our choices are not constrained by politics, financial barriers, or social pressure.  In other words, how can the right to give birth at home - safely and legally - not be on a reproductive justice advocate's radar?

I mention this because we in North Carolina are enduring yet another vicious attack on the rights of pregnant and childbearing individuals.  Women seeking home births may have the legal right to do so, but just like the women seeking abortion care, these laws do nothing to protect access.  As far as home birth attendants go, our state only recognizes certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and in order for these phenomenal women to legally attend births, they must be supervised by an MD currently licensed to practice obstetrics in the state.  As you can imagine, physicians that will supervise homebirth CNMs are few and far between, and this week one of them was advised (under threats of sanction) that he cannot sign off on CNMs who are not under his direct employment.  Even though the law does not dictate these terms, the medical board's sanction left seven of our eleven home birth CNMs without a licensing MD, and countless women without a care provider.

The research is abundantly clear: when labor is progressing normally, a woman under the care of a trained midwife is as safe giving birth at home as she would be under the care of an obstetrician in a hospital.

Anti-abortion birth advocates are already taking a hypocritical stance on the matter as they decry abortion rights while asking why women's reproductive decisions are limited.  I've been biting my tongue while reading the Facebook comments of fellow birth professionals all week.  One such statement went, "It is legal to have an abortion but a woman can't choose to have a home birth with a midwife! This is crazy!"  Another, "A mother can kill her baby in all three trimesters but can't give birth at home.  The government is nuts."  [Fact-Check Sidebar: North Carolina restricts abortion access after the 20th week of pregnancy (hardly "all three trimesters"); additionally, this ruling didn't come from the government, it came from the NC Board of Medicine, an agency independent from the state's governing body.]  These ramblings are usually followed by the contradictory co-opting of pro-choice language, ripe with phrases like "right to choose" and "my body, my choice."

The abortion rift amongst birth advocates is really nothing new.  After all, to simply be an advocate for varying birthing options does not encompass any official position on the politics of pregnancy itself.  Birth advocates come to the work for a variety of reasons, while it certainly seems odd to me that a person could support the "right to choose" in one pregnancy outcome but not another, the social stigma surrounding abortion means that this rift is bound to exist. 

That home birth rights are not at the forefront of the reproductive justice movement, on the other hand, is beyond me.  The struggles are just too similar.  Every time someone points out that women might have to cross state lines to access a home birth midwife, I think of the women who still - in the year 2012 - have to seek abortion care in a state with fewer restrictions or more providers.  When we worry that women will have to give birth with midwives who operate illegally (or go unassisted), I think of the women who risked their lives going to see illegal abortion providers with no public credentials, or the women who simply did it themselves.  Medicaid and many private insurers restrict access to home birth midwives just like they restrict access to abortion, making both more or less a privilege to those with the means to pay out of pocket. 

Reproductive justice advocates who are involved in birthing rights see both - the right to an abortion and the right to give birth at home - as the same struggle.  We understand that any assault on reproductive freedom comes from a system of patriarchal self-interest that sees women not as autonomous beings, but as objects to be regulated and "fixed."  We know that any women who choose home birth have done their research and don't need "warnings" from government institutions, just like women seeking abortions don't need the ideological jargon in "Right To Know" legislation.  We know that women and their families are capable of making the best possible decisions regarding the births of their children, and we seek to create a world where access, stigma, and social pressure don't sway these decisions.  In other words, we live up to the full spectrum of our ideology... we Trust Women.

I call on the reproductive justice movement to make birthing rights a part of their pro-choice consciousness.  If we are to create a world that ensures sexual and reproductive well-being for all women and girls, no struggle to protect our choices or desires can go unsupported.

So this gay marriage thing...

So I was going to write this long, drawn-out piece on the limitations of confining the entire LGBTQ liberation movement into "same-sex marriage."  I was going to go off about Obama's "convenient" announcement yesterday that he now supports same-sex marriage.  And to stave off accusations of total negativity, I was also going to tie in the silver lining: that NC's Amendment 1 has ignited a movement that is focusing on issues far  broader than "marriage equality," that its passage has turned normal, everyday people from pro-equality voters to activists for complete uncompromising social justice. 

But then I read this piece at Black Girl Dangerous and realized Mia McKenzie says it better than I could ever hope to...

Obama Loves Queers! (Except Not)

The Importance of Clinic Defense

Note: The following was first published at ChoiceUSA's Choice Words.
---------------

Every Saturday morning, a dedicated group of volunteers arrives outside of the Louisville EMW Surgical Center, Kentucky's only abortion clinic. On the surface, their job is simple: accompany the clinic's patients from their cars to the clinic doors. But considering the crowds of invasive protesters doing everything in their power to block people from entering the clinic, a day in the life of a clinic escort is anything but simple.

After having possibly driven hours the morning of an abortion, this is what Kentucky's abortion patients can expect to encounter upon arrival:


They call themselves "sidewalk counselors," many of which are from the crisis pregnancy center across the street. Some wear orange jackets similar to those worn by the escorts to further confuse and ambush folks trying to enter the clinic. The ACLU has said that the EMW Surgical Center encounters some of the largest, most aggressive anti-abortion protests in the country.

Further south, the NC-based antichoice group Operation Save America regularly targets Family Reproductive Health, a Charlotte clinic known by many to be one of the most caring, compassionate clinics in the state.


The man depicted in the above video, Flip Benham, was found guilty of stalking a doctor last November and given 1 year probation. The ruling hasn't stopped Benham's followers from appearing week after week to shout over the clinic's gate in his place. Clinic defender and activist Scott Trent describes OSA as "one of the most reactionary, bigoted Christian Fascist groups in the country." Despite the very dedicated group of defenders that show up in the wee hours every week, the harassment continues. "They regularly climb the tree on the border of the property to shout at women going into the clinic, block the driveway in flagrant violation of the FACE Act," Trent tells me, adding that local police regularly neglect to enforce the federal law.

During one of the weeks I was able to make the 90-mile trek to Charlotte, a representative from an area mom's group approached me with a contact sheet. "As a group, we're neither pro-choice nor pro-life," she told me, but they oppose Operation Save America because of their tactics. She was referring to the giant posters depicting aborted fetuses and embryonic remains, saying that as moms, they don't want their young children exposed to such gruesome images. Additionally, she continued, "One of our moms has had multiple miscarriages, several have had abortions, and the posters trigger panic attacks." The moms group is working on a project where folks can hold signs warning oncoming traffic that there are graphic images ahead, then point folks in the direction of a detour.

I could go on about the importance of clinic defense, how activists in both small and large numbers sacrifice their time and their safety to uphold the right to choose. It shouldn't have to be this way, but this is the reality we live in. And while the Feds and local law enforcement alike could be doing more to enforce the FACE Act, defenders put themselves on the line to pick up where the police do not (or cannot) step in.

End Note: This summer, Operation Rescue is revitalizing the "Summer of Mercy" event that led to increasingly violent action against the slain Dr. Tiller in Wichita 20 years ago. This time they're targeting Dr. Carhart at his new Germantown, MD location. If you are able, hook in with local organizations, contact folks organizing defense projects to keep this clinic safe and open. The Summer of Mercy event 20 years ago involved human blockages of clinic entrances, massive arrests, violence, and profound harassment of those receiving much-needed needed care.

Zero Tolerance Zone

Instead of "new year's resolutions," I've decided to simply compile a list of five things I resolve to not tolerate this year, mostly for my personal sanity.

This isn't a list of "bad -isms."  I haven't ever tolerated sexism, racism, classism, bodyism, etc, at least not in recent memory.  And while I could certainly make one of these about people and concepts that fuel the fires of said -isms, I blog enough about those to already have a pretty clear picture of how I will/will not tolerate such activities.

This is for myself, for clarity.  I am not trying to attack any individual, at least not one that's likely to know about and subsequently read this blog.  I am certainly not trying to accuse or attack any friends of mine; perhaps I have some constructive criticisms regarding the way we treat social issues, but that is in no way intended to be an attack.

So here they are... things I will not be tolerating in the coming year:

1) Anti-Birth Sentiment, Militant Child-Free Folks, and the Overpopulation Brigade.
This refers to so-called "pro-choice" individuals who oppose a person's right to carry a pregnancy to term, whether it was planned or not, and to birth without stigma.  This includes folks who might otherwise be considering abortion: maybe they are in high school, are putting their big dreams on hold due to the pregnancy/baby, people who may have a substance abuse problem, single women, etc.  I am including here my belief that pregnant people have the right to call the pregnancy what they want without being "corrected." You're not pro-choice if you don't believe in the right to explore all options, and you're doing the movement a grave disservice by assuming women might be "caving" to anti-choice pressure when they decide against abortion.

2) The Holier-Than-Thou Radicals
As an activist, I think I've been pretty lucky to have encountered very few of this type, and have never organized alongside one directly.  But you see them... at marches, rallies, in fleeting appearances at meetings (only when they show up to say they won't be attending your meetings because you're "too reformist").  They don't ever really organize... they just criticize.  They won't work with people with even slightly different views or methodologies, and they seem to only exist to denounce the efforts of organizers who are actually doing something.  Come to think of it, I've never really tolerated this type, but I wanted to make it clear.

3) Undeserved Total Denouncement
Now here I actually am speaking about a number of people I have worked alongside, people I consider to be friends, and people I respect in many other ways.  The foremost example that comes to mind is Jon Stewart.  While there were issues with the Daily Show's Sanity Rally, I have said that, while it didn't stand for everything, it also did not stand for nothing.  No, Jon Stewart is not a champion of social justice movements, he doesn't stand for deviation from the status quo, and he's not likely to solely build a productive movement to counter all the BS we're in right now.  Nor does he claim to be.

That being said, as a person and commentator, Jon Stewart does not deserve to be completely written off.  I feel like a lot of people have chosen to do so, citing the obvious problems in his ideology (an ideology he does not claim to be revolutionary, by the way).  However, if there is one figure in popular culture capable of reaching an entire generation of left-leaning young people, it's Jon Stewart.  Not only that, but the way he and the Daily Show's staff takes to task our political system, the media cycle, and the need for discontent in both should not be completely shunned or denounced.  In his outlet, he asks some tough questions, he points out hypocrisy, and he actively promotes critical thought.  That is nothing to ignore, even if we may have deeper ideological differences.

Jon Stewart is not the only one who has had undeserved total denouncement thrown at him from the Left.  And I believe that is unfortunate: you are unlikely to find popular figures who are 100% on board with your beliefs, and if someone comes up who promotes dissent in a forum that speaks to a large number of left-leaners, you can't just write them off point-blank.  A discussion of your ideological differences can then ensue, and so long as you don't make it stand-offish or aggressive, you can probably get a pretty good rapport going with a wider base of people. 

4) Defense of Julian Assange
I've said it before: Assange is not WikiLeaks.  We should defend WikiLeaks and its right to exist.  However, as the evidence mounts against Assange, and as Assange shows his true colors, no movement that claims to be anti-sexist can ignore the very serious actions Assange is being accused of.  And yet, so many liberals and Leftists alike seem to be doing it, from mainstream Keith Olbermann to activist Jennifer Van Bergen. And while both simultaneously give lip-service to the denouncement of rape during their defense of Assange, their framing of the Assange situation continues to put the rape allegations on the backburner, continuing the centuries-long trend of treating sexual assault as a conditional offense.

I'll just say this: the media and world governments want us to link WikiLeaks and Assange inextricably.  But they are different.  WikiLeaks may have been founded by Assange, but it can continue without him.  You can denounce Assange as a person while defending WikiLeaks.  It is imperative that we do so.

5) Method Elitism
There was a time when I railed against those who worked primarily in everyday actions.  By which I mean, folks who don't organize mass movements or attend every single rally, but instead live their lives as a person who changes the world on a person-by-person basis.

After meeting some amazing people who work 60+ hours a week toward the same ends as my organizing, I realize this form of activism has a place.  Not only does it have a place... it is an integral facet of our very diverse movement.  These are not people who sold out and stepped down to a gig in the nonprofit industrial complex; these are people whose gift is in the individual, the every day.  These are folks who change the world daily, maybe in a nonprofit, maybe just in their personal lives.  I've learned that this is a respectable form of activism, and in fact one I have recently decided to try out for myself.  These folks haven't given up on their ideals; they have just found new ways to implement them through total embodiment. 


Now to clarify what I mean by "will not tolerate."  When we hear someone will not tolerate something, we think of aggression and severed ties.  When I say it, though, I mean quite the opposite: I will not lash out, I will not become aggressive, and I will not be unforgiving.  Taking things inward over the past few months has taught me that it is possible to be at peace with the world as it is while still fighting for much-needed change.  But I know I cannot simply stay quiet when these things come up.  That would be me being at peace without demanding change, and that's the last thing the Left (and the world as a whole) needs right now.  We have a status quo, too, and we do ourselves a disservice by never examining ourselves when things aren't going all that well.  How does that saying go... the true mark of madness is to keep doing the same things expecting different results.  At least, that is indeed a good way to go mad.

By "will not tolerate," I simply mean I will try to engage in these discussions more often, where I feel I have previously been relatively silent on these matters.  When I don't talk about it, they grate at me, and I've found I begin harboring silent resentment towards people I should be trying to strengthen my bonds with.  Which, of course, is not healthy.

So there it is... my Zero Tolerance Zone for 2011.

A Farewell to Arms, or something

I've gotten so tired of aggression.  It wears you out over time.

Though there were clear problems raised by the well-attended "Rally To Restore Fear and/or Sanity," the way it was advertised, how it was penned, what it did(n't) do, etc, there is one principle that really sticks with me: "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."

Maybe the problem is that no one wants to hear anything, or have just gotten so sick of hearing the same old that they need to add noise themselves.  But noise is noise; we continue one-upping each other on the decibel level until we all go deaf.  I know it was a metaphor for the Cold War, but Dr. Seuss' Butter Battle Book comes to mind.

Really it's the rhetoric that delivers the final nail in the coffin.  Maybe it delivered all the nails, but whatever.  I can't deal with it; it's like drama, except instead of just pertaining to a few people, it involves everyone.  That's exhausting. 

What I've been reading in listservs and on political blogs lately has convinced me that this is my breaking point: not the problem, not the possible solutions, but the means.  Political discourse today seems to turn from a disagreement to a Hitler accusation in record time.  New ideas have absolutely no shelf-life; everything must be devoured whole without chewing then pooped out to be reformed into one's own mold.  Buzzwords replace discourse.  Headlines outshine the story.  No one seems immune: mainstream politics, the Tea Party, the Left, we all do it, and we all blame the others for doing it first.  As if that's an excuse to continue the cycle. 

Needless to say, turning my efforts inward from the big idea to the every day action has been good for my soul.  I've been so happy these last few months.  Working with both birthing families and breastfeeding moms is nothing short of awesome, and it's all leading me on a path that can sustain me, personally and professionally. 

Thing is, I can hear this nagging voice in the back of my head: "You selfish, sell-out hussy.  Losing sight of the big picture, just like everyone else that's responsible for the world's social epidemics."

I don't think the voice is me... I think it's an idea I've heard many times but never quite came to accept.  After all, it's not like I'm losing sight of anything.  There is a clear evolution from where I was three years ago to where I am now.  There is no abandonment; consider it ideals put into practice.  Besides, as much as I'd love to be back at Jo-Ann's using up all my time-off requests to go to a march that weekend, I can't carry the world on my shoulders any more.  Which isn't to say I can't carry my fair share.  I plan on doing that, maybe even some extra, but you can't just keep lugging around a stillborn movement without feeling the drain. Which is why I haven't picked it up in over a year... I guess it's just now become clear why I put it down in the first place.

I do believe everyone has a place, and right now mine is behind closed doors, interacting one-on-one with people who need support.  Sure, I want to go to rallies and whatnot, but I have to leave organizing them to others for a while, and I do not need to feel guilty when I can't do it all.  That's not my calling at this moment. I want to support women in their day-to-day lives, be it a challenging birth, a hiccup in breastfeeding, an unintended pregnancy, an abortion or miscarriage, or just a parenting freak-out.  I want to defend clinics.  I want to continue helping to grow and develop the Spectrum Doula Collective.  I want to continue to write; I guess that's what my most obvious (read: most public) form of activism has been.  I want to do yoga, eat well, and take care of myself.  All of the above are compatible. 

Still ever more complicated.  I can hear it now: "There are plenty of people in Iraq/Afghanistan/Palestine/Haiti/etc who would just love to do yoga and eat well."  Yup, probably true.  But their problems are not about to be solved by me or any number of people simply making themselves miserable.  That's probably what's taken so long to come to terms with.  There is indeed a fine line one must tread to find the balance between the selfish and the selfless.  Thing is, it takes a certain amount of selfishness to equip oneself with the ability to be selfless.  That's what I've learned.

So I guess this is me saying I'm putting down my protest sign for a while.  I'm sure the spirit will find me again someday, but right now I just need to do my thing my way.  It's not cynicism, and I'm not being blinded by false hope.  I've spent enough time feeling bad about being absent, but obviously not so bad to plunge myself back in.  I'm not allowing myself or anyone else to make me feel guilty about my decisions, nor am I allowing anyone to make me think that what I'm dong now is any less valid or relevant than what I was doing before.  I would say I'm sorry, except I feel I have absolutely nothing to apologize for.  It is indeed a freeing feeling.

Taking CPC Awareness to the Streets

The following was first published as a ChoiceActivism submission at ChoiceUSA's ChoiceWords blog.
------------

Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers continue to pose an affront to informed choice in our country. Outnumbering real abortion clinics 2-1 nationwide, CPCs often advertise themselves as abortion providers or places where women can obtain unbiased information about their reproductive options. They are known for misleading women with bunk statistics about a purported link between abortion and breast cancer/infertility/depression and for effectively delaying a woman's decision past the point where she would be able to choose a medical, non-invasive abortion procedure. While disclosure requirement efforts by activists in Baltimore, MD, Austin, TX, and New York, NY would help to stave off confusion, a group of grassroots activists in Greensboro, NC are taking public awareness into their own hands.

Organized by simple word-of-mouth, monthly demonstrations take place in front of the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, an affiliate of CareNet. They hold signs reading, "FAKE CLINIC," "Honk 4 Choice," and others in order to educate passing cars about the Pregnancy Care Center. They do not engage with people going in and out of the center. The participants are students, workers, and retirees. What brings them together each month is their continued concern over the information given out by the CPC.

During an appointment, a staff member at the center told a UNCG student that abortion is linked to higher instances of breast cancer, a claim that has been continually repudiated by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and others. When I personally called the center to inquire about emergency contraception (they call it simply the "morning after pill"), the woman on the phone told me I would have to make an appointment, and that the next available appointment was in three days. Had I really needed emergency contraception, this would have put me past the point where the drug would have been effective, possibly leading to an unintended pregnancy and possibly an abortion. What's more, the woman on the phone never told me the center did not carry the medication.

It's not just personal experiences that led to concern over this particular CPC's operation. While they recently added a disclaimer that they do not provide or refer for abortions, their website continues to claim that they offer "accurate information about all pregnancy options." Or do they? Under "Abortion Education," they claim that medical abortion ("abortion by pill") can only be used up to seven weeks since the last menstrual period (LMP), when in fact it is effective and prescribed up to nine weeks LMP. Another page ("Morning After Pill") claims that emergency contraception can cause "an early abortion," which is not only a medically inaccurate claim, but could dissuade a woman who is morally opposed to abortion from taking steps that could prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Until these centers are held accountable for the misinformation they provide, policy-based activism and grassroots activism alike will continue. The concerned citizens of Greensboro, NC are no exception. From a press statement:

We hope to alert women to seek help for their pregnancies or suspected pregnancies at proper clinics and OB-GYN offices. As advocates of the pro-choice movement we believe that every woman deserves the right to be informed about every option (abortion, motherhood, adoption) truthfully and without coercion or intimidation.

Glenn Beck's rally ignored by major media outlets (except for CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, NPR, and Fox)

I've been to a lot of national rallies in DC over the past few years: anti-war, women's rights, LGBT rights, and others. These have ranged in size from 10,000 to over half a million attendees and have been organized by both mainstream and more radical organizations. However, I don't think I've ever been to one that was covered, live, from start to finish, by any major news network.

Must be nice.

I say this because Glenn Beck, host of today's "Restoring Honor" rally, likes to play pretend that he's a grassroots activist who is always ignored by the "liberal media." He began his rally today by joking, "I have just gotten word from the media that there are over 1,000 people here today."  I know this because CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, and of course Fox are all streaming the entire day's events on their websites.

Okay, so corporate-sponsored Glenn Beck playing oppressed grassroots activist is not something that's particularly new.  But to take a jibe at the very hand that's feeding your ideology to millions of Americans via every major news outlet... now, that takes some cojones.  But I will agree with Beck on one thing: many large-scale demonstrations don't usually get the full, unspun media attention they deserve.  This hardly applies to anything Beck has ever endorsed or been a leader in himself, but if we have to agree on one thing, that's going to be it. 

What we might not agree on, however, is the role of Fox News in all this.  According to Glenn and his fellow talking heads, Fox News is "fair and balanced."  The people's network, if you will, but not in the icky socialist way.  And true, in the past 12 months Fox News has devoted much more air time to protests than other networks, though let's be fair... some of the only major demonstrations of the past 12 months have been organized by the Fox-supported Tea Party Movement.  But you gotta give it up to them for turning their cameras in the direction of the people, right?

Or do they?  I remember a rally I attended not so long ago: The National Equality March last October.  It was by far one of the largest and most inspiring rallies I've ever been to.  The single demand?  Equal protection under the law regardless of race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, etc.  It was huge.  Police and organizers estimate over 200,000 in attendance, though mainstream media outlets (including Fox, ahem) reported numbers around 75,000. 

The mainstream media, however, was definitively absent from the day's events.  As Jon Stewart so wonderfully pointed out, Fox itself used only a small amount footage from the march, footage that was initially taped by ABC News, even though Fox has a Washington bureau that could have easily seen the large crowd from an office window.

The kicker, however, was what Fox chose to report on instead: the same day, a small sidewalk demonstration took place in front of a Burlington, NJ school that had taught students a song celebrating President Obama as part of a Black History Month presentation.  The demonstration attracted crowds in the double digits, and Fox saw fit to send a satellite van out to the site to later show viewers where the crowd had been earlier that day.  The final tally of time the network devoted to either protest?  National Equality March: 3 minutes, 42 seconds.  The anti-Obama sidewalk deal: 8 minutes, 16 seconds.

I'll let Glenn Beck go on and on about his so-called "grassroots movement" spearheaded by one of the largest media corporations in the world.  I'll even let him make a complete ass of himself by holding what is essentially a nouveau-white power rally on the anniversary of (and on the grounds of) MLK's historic "I Have a Dream" speech.  I won't, however, allow his poor oppressed white dude personae pretend he's being censored or just ignored by the media when he is the media and receives abundant coverage from not only his own network, but competitor networks as well.  Mr. Beck, you are either an idiot or an evil genius.  (I believe I know which, and it's frightening.)




P.S. Okay, I won't let him hold his offensive mock-MLK rally unchallenged. I just don't have the energy to go on about that particular issue right now.  There's just too much wrong with what GB does... you gotta choose your battles, right?  The hijacking of the Civil Rights Movement is offensive, and that's all I really have to say about it.