Beacon Broadside

recent posts

about

  • Link Roundup: No Reading Required

    Sit back and watch or listen to some recent media appearances by Beacon authors:

    J. Malcolm Garcia talks with BookTV about his experiences in Afghanistan, which came to be his book, The Khaarijee: A Chronicle of Friendship and War in Kabul.

    Carole Joffe (Dispatches from the Abortion Wars: The Costs of Fanaticism to Doctors, Patients, and the Rest of Us) discusses how access to abortion is affected by the health care legislation.

    Listen to Sonia Sanchez read two haiku from Morning Haiku at the Philly Inquirer website.

    On the Diane Rehm show, Beth Whitehouse talks about the Trebing family and their quest for a donor sibling to help heal their daughter.

    The trailer for Raw Faith, a new documentary about Rev. Marilyn Sewell, her ministry, and how she comes to terms with love in her own life.

  • Beth Whitehouse: Excerpt from The Match: “Savior Siblings” and One Family’s Battle to Heal Their Daughter

    Today’s post is an excerpt from a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning Newsday reporter Beth Whitehouse. Her five-part front-page series “The Match,” which was the basis for this book, won numerous awards, including the American Association of Sunday and Feature Writers First Place for Narrative Writing, a National Association of Science Writers Award, and a Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism in Service to Children. Whitehouse is an adjunct professor of journalism at Columbia University.

    Beth Whitehouse appeared on the Diane Rehm show this morning to discuss savior siblings and The Match. You can listen via the show’s podcast.

    4479437631_55a5c977d2 May 24, 2006

    Stacy Trebing yanked off the yellow paper hospital gown that covered her shorts and T-shirt, unhooked the surgical mask from behind her ears, and stuffed both items into the garbage pail in the entryway of her daughter’s hospital room. She’d been at her three year-old daughter’s bedside practically every minute of the past ten days.

    She needed a breather.

    The next morning, Stacy’s daughter would have a bone marrow transplant, a medical procedure that would either cure her or kill her. Every minute since Katie’s birth had been leading to this day. Everything Stacy and her husband, Steve, had done, every decision they’d made, had propelled them here.

    Including the most controversial of their choices: to create a new human being they had selected as an embryo because he genetically matched a critical portion of his sister’s DNA.

    That one-year-old baby would be brought into the hospital the following morning to donate the life-changing bone marrow that was the only chance to heal his sister. Christopher Trebing was born to be a member of the Trebing family, but he was also born with a job to do. He would be put under general anesthesia while a doctor inserted needles repeatedly into his hips and siphoned the tissue that could repair Katie’s ailing body.

    Read more on Scribd.

    An excerpt from The Match: “Savior Siblings” and One Family’s Battle to Heal Their Daughter by Beth Whitehouse http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=29438588&access_key=key-2hdbqgpq7fgf6tw8rayl&page=1&viewMode=list

  • Rev. Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock: “Lamentation” Friday and the Power of Love

    Rev. Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, a noted speaker and Christian feminist theologian,is the co-author with Rebecca Parker of Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire, which was chosen by Publishers Weekly as one of the best books of 2008. This post originally appeared on dogcanyon.org.

    Religious image  A lot of Christians are going to attend a "Good" Friday service this week and hear how Jesus loved us so much he gave himself out of love for us, to save us. This is what is supposed to make his torture and murder "good." They'll be told that if they love him back enough, they will be transformed to love in the same way and forgive unto death.

    This is a not so much an idea of love so much as an idea of unrequited passivity. And it encourages acquiescence to evil. The Canadian Catholic Bishops actually apologized in 1990 for teaching these ideas to victims of domestic violence. The Vatican has not apologized yet, but it might be too distracted right now with sexual abuse scandals to notice its been using this bad idea of love to shame victims into silence.

    (more…)

  • Matt Kailey: Forgive Me for Loving ‘TRANSform Me’

    Matt Kailey is the author of Just Add Hormones: An Insider's Guide to the Transsexual Experience. Kailey is the managing editor of Out Front Colorado and the Denver Transgender & Transsexual Issues Examiner at Examiner.com. He blogs at Tranifesto, where this post originally appeared.

    Kailey When I heard about a new makeover reality show where the subjects are unhappy and insecure, the makeover artists are trans women, and the whole premise is that the trans aspect of the makeover team is a big surprise, all I could think was, "Houston, we have multiple problems."

    In VH1's new reality show, TRANSform Me, unhappy women send in a videotape explaining why they need a makeover. Those who are chosen are told that the makeover artists will arrive at their home on a certain day and time to transform them. What they don't know is that the three members of the emergency makeover team are all transgender women (I would call them transsexual women myself, but over the last few years, the two terms have become synonymous, so I use the language that the women themselves use).

    The show was conceived by Laverne Cox, a trans woman who has been on several television shows and has won a GLAAD award her appearance on I Want to Work for Diddy. The other trans team members are makeup artist Jamie Clayton and model Nina Poon. Needless to say, these three women are gorgeous and incredibly sexy, and they play it to the max.

    Even though I have never been opposed to makeovers, unlike many other feminists I know (yes, I consider myself a feminist), the two major problems that I foresaw were: 1. that the "surprise" of the show was that the makeover artists were trans women, setting up the possibility that the makeover subjects would be freaked out or repulsed, much to the delight of non-trans viewers, and 2. that the whole show revolved around the premise that unattractive, unhappy women could be transformed into happy, confident women simply because they suddenly looked "beautiful."

    I basically saw an army of offended trans people protesting that the show exploited trans women by making them a possibly unwelcome "surprise," and an army of offended activists, both trans and non-trans, upset that the show objectified all women by making physical beauty the gold standard for happiness. And there may be an offended army out there, but I'm not one of the soldiers. I love this show.

    (more…)

  • Carole Joffe: An Open Letter to Bart Stupak: All Violence Should be Condemned

    Book cover for Dispatches from the Abortion Wars Dear Congressman Stupak,

    As a citizen of this country, I was deeply distressed to learn of the abusive behavior and threats of violence that you, your family and a number of your Congressional colleagues have suffered since you and others voted in favor of health reform. A fellow member of Congress screamed “baby killer” as you were speaking on the floor of the House. You have received death threats. I heard on television some of the phone calls you received and they were truly sickening. I understand why your wife has been so tormented by these threatening phone calls, that she has taken the phone off the hook.

    Protestors showed up at the home of the brother of Congressman Tom Perriello of Virginia mistakenly thinking it was the Congressman's home, and cut a gas line. Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York was mailed a letter purporting to be anthrax (this turned out to be a hoax, but a very time consuming and frightening one, as workers in Weiner's office had to be decontaminated). Other members of Congress have expressed fears for their families' safety in the wake of the health reform vote.

    In a civilized country, no one should be subject to these kinds of actions because of his or her political beliefs. It is not too much to say that what you and other Congressional officials have experienced constitutes authentic domestic terrorism. I'd like to point out to you that there is another group of Americans who have long been terrorized in ways similar to what you and your colleagues have experienced. I refer to members of the abortion providing community. There are literally thousands of documented instances of death threats, anthrax threats, aggressive picketing at providers’ homes and places of worship, and harassment of family members, including children, that this community has suffered. Eight members of this community have been assassinated.

    In the wake of the threats that you have received, you have spoken out forcefully against this kind of unacceptable behavior. I truly sympathize with you when you say those threats had made your life a "living hell."

    I wonder, however, if your own experience has made you more empathetic with abortion providers, who have for years endured similar behavior from the same antiabortion extremists who have now targeted you?  Though obviously you and the provider community do not agree on the abortion issue, perhaps now you can agree with them that the disagreements over this issue must remain civil. How can we call ourselves a democracy if we cannot express political beliefs without fear of violence?  Congressman Stupak, I respectfully call on you to disavow violence against all Americans, not just elected officials.

  • Thomas N. DeWolf: Traces of the Trade, Reparations, and Goodwin Liu

    Thomas Norman DeWolf is the author of Inheriting the Trade: A Northern Family Confronts Its Legacy as the Largest Slave-Trading Dynasty in U.S. History. DeWolf was born in California and educated at the University of Oregon. He served as city councilor, county commissioner, and for nine years on the Oregon Arts Commission. His years of public service focused on literacy, children’s issues, and restorative justice. This post originally appeared at his Inheriting the Trade blog.

    photo of Goodwin Liu I did not see this one coming.

    President Obama has nominated Goodwin Liu, an Associate Dean and Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law, to serve on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Opponents have seized upon comments Liu made during a panel discussion on May 6, 2008 following a screening of Traces of the Trade at the Newseum in Washington, DC that was sponsored by the Council on Foundations (I wrote about the event here).

    The distinguished panel was moderated by Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree and PBS Senior Correspondent Judy Woodruff. Panelists discussed the major themes in the film and how they connect to the world of philanthropy; how foundations can effectively facilitate discussions on race, the legacy of slavery, and the need for healing. When government lacks the capacity–or will–to lead the way in creating a more just world, how can we best encourage grass roots leadership in undoing racism and other forms of oppression.

    Goodwin Liu’s comments were right in line with these themes. Yet if you Google “Goodwin Liu, Traces of the Trade” you’ll find several links to a YouTube video clip, just over 2 minutes in length, titled “Obama Appeals Court Nominee – Goodwin Liu – on Reparations for Slavery.” You’ll find an article by Ed Whelan, prominent conservative legal analyst and blogger, in which he claims Liu “… would make those who were not complicit in slavery pay the price of his grandiose reparations project.” You’ll find many other bloggers chiming in.

    But if you watch the entire discussion (which you can download here) you’ll find that what Liu was advocating in saying that each of us has a moral duty to make things right is that,

    …instead of looking for the single national strategy, which is what everybody always looks for, think about what you can do on a much smaller scale in much smaller communities, around specific problems that people face, whether it’s in their schools, in their workplaces, access to health care, in their housing; whatever it may be.

    For far too long we have allowed extremists and the media to define “reparation” for historic slavery as that “single national strategy” in which people who never enslaved anyone pay the price for checks being written to people who were never themselves enslaved. Such a definition serves well those who rely on division and controversy to serve their own ends. But it isn’t helpful to those who want to make a positive difference in the world.

    (more…)

  • Video: Bruce Rich on Universal Health Care in Ancient India

    Book cover for To Uphold the World In To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethic from Ancient India, author Bruce Rich contemplates the rule of the Indian emperor Ashoka over 2,200 years ago, whose philosophy of tolerance, conservation, nonviolence, species protection, and human rights still have much to teach us today. One of the many programs established by Ashoka was a system of universal health care for people and animals which, once established, served the Indian empire for close to a millennium. Rich discusses Ashoka’s health care system in this video. 

    Bruce Rich is a Washington DC based attorney who has served as senior counsel on international finance and development issues for major environmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Rich has published extensively in environmental and policy journals, as well as in newspapers and magazines such as The Financial Times, The Nation and The Ecologist. He is the author of Mortgaging the Earth, a widely acclaimed critique of the World Bank and reflection on the philosophical and historical evolution of the project of economic development in the West. He has been awarded the United Nations Environment Program ‘Global 500 Award,’ the highest environmental prize of the United Nations, in 1988, and also won the World Hunger Media Award in that year for the best periodical piece on development issues.

  • Nancy Polikoff: Same-Sex Marriage and the 2010 Census

    <Today's post is from Nancy D. Polikoff, author of <a href="http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2024&quot; target="_blank"Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Polikoff is a Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, where she teaches Sexuality and the Law and has taught Family Law for more than 20 years. For more, read her Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage blog.

    Census image by Quinnanya on FlickrIf thinking of yourself as married to your partner turned you into husband and husband or wife and wife, then we wouldn’t need a marriage equality movement, right? So imagine my puzzlement to find gay organizations instructing us to fill out the 2010 census based on how we think of our relationships. The Williams Institute, to whom I turn for all things demographic about gay men and lesbians, offers this advice, which other groups are repeating:

    Same-sex couples who have been legally married or consider themselves to be spouses should identify one person as a “husband or wife”.

    Other same-sex couples may be more comfortable using the term “unmarried partner”. In general, this designation is designed to capture couples who are in a “close personal relationship” and are not legally married or do not think of themselves as spouses. (emphasis mine).

    Now I understand the census is an imperfect instrument (very) for counting our relationships. If a couple does not live together, they will not be counted, because the census counts households and the relationships of the people in each household. There is also no option for those who are registered as domestic partners or in civil unions. I applauded when the Williams Institute and others won from the Obama administration the right to be counted as same-sex spouses when they were same-sex spouses.

    But now it appears that labeling the person you live with your husband or wife is actually not going to measure the number of same-sex married couples but rather the number of couples who consider themselves spouses, whatever that means — and I truly do not know what it means.

    (more…)

  • Jay Wexler: “Under God” and the Religion Clauses

    Today’s post is from law professor Jay Wexler, author of Holy Hullabaloos: A Road Trip to the Battlegrounds of the Church/State Wars. He studied religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School and law at Stanford, and worked as a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Wexler teaches at the Boston University School of Law, and he blogs at holyhullabaloos.typepad.com.

    Photo by JColman on Flickr The First Amendment’s religion clauses raise a lot of hard questions about how much intermingling of church and state is constitutionally acceptable in our religiously diverse nation, but whether the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional is not one of them. The Pledge, in its current form, in which children of impressionable age declare that they live in “one nation under God,” clearly violates the First Amendment. The practice of leading kids in reciting the Pledge violates every one of the Supreme Court’s tests for what passes constitutional muster: it endorses a specific and controversial religious viewpoint, coerces non-believing youngsters into declaring their belief in a single god, and undeniably has a religious purpose. When Congress added “under God” into the Pledge in 1954, it did so specifically to proclaim our superiority to those awful godless communists of the Soviet Union.

    This is not to say, however, that those of us who believe in church-state separation or who are personally offended by the idea that our nation purportedly exists under the gaze of a single supreme being should be too upset by a recent 2-1 decision of a federal appellate court that the Pledge is constitutional. At least we can look forward to not watching an embarrassing replay of what happened the last time the appeals court heard the question, when nearly the entire House came onto the steps of the Capitol to hold hands and sing “God Bless America” in protest. We also likely don’t have to worry that the Supreme Court, which last time around dismissed the case on procedural grounds not present here, will take the case and decide it in a principled fashion, thereby instigating a movement to amend the Constitution to declare us a Christian Nation.

    The dissent in the case, penned by Stephen Reinhardt, the most minority-rights-friendly judge remaining on the federal bench, is a judicial masterpiece. In over 130 pages (the length of the opinion might explain why the court waited over two years since oral arguments took place to release the decision), Judge Reinhardt carefully tears apart all of the arguments advanced by the majority and then some. The opinion should be required reading for anyone who cares deeply about the Constitution and the protection it provides minorities in a diverse democracy.

    (more…)

  • David Bacon: We Need a Better Alternative for Immigration Reform

    Today’s post is from David Bacon, author of Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants. Bacon spent thirty years as a labor organizer and immigrant rights activist. His articles appear in The Nation, American Prospect, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, and he hosts a weekly radio show on KPFA-FM in Berkeley, California.

    Borderwall Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham announced Thursday their plan for immigration reform. Unfortunately, it is a retread, recycling the same bad ideas that led to the defeat of reform efforts over the last five years. In some ways, their proposal is even worse.

    Schumer and Graham dramatize the lack of new ideas among Washington powerbrokers. Real immigration reform requires a real alternative. We need a different framework that embodies the goals of immigrants and working people, not the political calculations of a reluctant Congress.

    (more…)