Dispatches from Left Field: On My Honor...

TNG contributor Matt' wrote this piece.

It was a clear March night nine years ago. The stars were out casting their pinpricks of light upon the rolling Georgian hills. The parking lot where I sat was washed out by the sodium vapor lights high above. That Thursday night I was nervous as hell. I was about to step into a building and finish what I had started many years prior. My stomach was a tight knot filled with a volatile mixture of acid and butterflies. The scene was not unlike one I would experience a few years later - one which would rend my heart - but this occasion was, in the end, a happy one.

On March 23, 2000, I walked into a room in a church outside Woodstock, Georgia. When I walked out, I was an Eagle Scout. My Board of Review had been successful. All the hard work I had put forth so far in scouting was recognized. But if I thought at the time that I had reached the highest point in my Scouting career, I was wrong. Scouting and I still had several years together before our estrangement would begin.

But our estrangement would come, all too soon it would seem. It was a fait accompli, our paths were to draw apart and little could be done to stop the separation. Even today, the wound that the organization inflicted upon me is painful. It throbs with the disappointment of missed opportunities and lost friendships. But mostly, its the ache of unfairness and discrimination that keeps the balm from my scar.

As I'm sure you're aware, the Boy Scouts of America takes a strong stance against homosexuality. Their position is stronger than the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In fact I have heard of cases where mere suspicion has led to expulsion. No one, neither adult nor youth, is permitted to participate in Scouting activities if they are gay.

Scouting had been a part of my life for many years. Since 1992 the organization had taught me leadership and outdoor skills. As I grew more mature, I began to take a larger leadership role, not only in my troop, but in the district. Eventually, I was on the host committee for a regional Order of the Arrow conclave. In college, I helped to found a Venture Crew on campus.

My Venture Crew drew me ever closer to Scouting and my brothers in the organization. The Crew did its share of outdoorsy things, from camping to rafting. But I got the most fulfillment out of the service we did. One of the activities I looked forward to was working with Operation Scoutreach. This program reaches out to underprivileged kids in the inner city. Scoutreach Weekend offered these youngsters the ability to spend the weekend camping at a scout reservation east of Atlanta. In my conversations with some of them, I discovered that many had never been outside the Atlanta Perimeter (Beltway) before, let alone camping. It was fundamentally good for me to give back to the community and the organization that had given so much to me.

In fact, one of the landmark moments of my collegiate career occurred while I was working on a service project with my Venture Crew. We were volunteering for Trees Atlanta, planting trees in poverty-stricken neighborhoods on the South Side. I was just a freshman. I had never seen such poverty, and it was right here in the United States. It was within sight of the gleaming skyscrapers downtown, but it was far from the eyes of those who worked in them. I had already resolved to go into planning, but until that moment, I had not known the urgency. From that day forward, my focus on planning became far more liberal. I became an advocate of environmental justice and of using the urban form to solve social problems.

But one day the inevitable became undeniable. I came out to myself. Soon, I was outing myself to select others. Despite being enrolled at Georgia's fourth largest public university, the campus community was small. I needed to come out to the Crew. But this would be the end of my Scouting career. There would be no more hikes with my brothers in the green mountains of North Georgia. There would be no more nights around the campfire, no more tree plantings, no more Scoutreaches. Perhaps, I feared, there would be fewer friends in my circle.

It was cold in more ways than one on that dark Sunday in November. Across the field, a campfire flickered. The faces of my peers, my friends, my brothers surrounded the orange tongues of flame. How would they react, I wondered. How would I survive? Scouting had not been some after school activity for me. It had been an integral part of my life for almost fourteen years. I lay in the deep grass and looked skyward. Wispy clouds swept across the heavens, driven by some unheard wind. The walls of the valley rose steeply on either side, hemming me in. Was there any way out of this quandary? A chill swept through my limbs, but it wasn't the kind brought on by the cool Tennessee air. Tears flowed down my cheeks as fond memories of my Scouting past flickered through my mind. This was to be my last outing as a Scout.

At our regular meeting the following week, I came out to my Crew. None of them disowned me. Occasionally I was able to participate in non-scouting events like service opportunities; however, I'm not sure I ever really got over being severed from the Boy Scouts. Even with their discrimination, I think that Scouting is one of the best youth organizations in the country. Personally, I never faced homophobia within scouting, other than being kicked out. And as painful as that was, I don't regret one moment of the time I spent in Scouting.

The policy comes down from the National Council, but it does not mean that Scouting is dominated by homophobes. Some of the kindest, most loyal, most service oriented people I know I met in Scouts. But the organization clearly has some deficiencies. Discrimination is one of them. In fact, I know plenty of gay former Scouts. They are all admirable people. Coming out is an experience that teaches one introspection and self respect in a way few other experiences can. Gay individuals have plenty to offer Scouting and its members. Our dedication and insight should be valued by this organization; instead we are shunned.

A Scout is trustworthy, but National Council’s anti-gay policy perpetuates lies about gays which it knows are false. A Scout is loyal, but the policy betrays faithful members. A Scout is helpful and friendly, but this policy is hurtful and bigoted. A Scout is courteous, but Scouting’s policy encourages its members to blindly reject others. A Scout is kind, but the policy is hateful. A Scout is obedient, but Scouting demands prejudice from its members. A Scout is cheerful, but Scouting’s directive denies the ability of gays to accept themselves openly. A Scout is thrifty, but Scouting is ridding itself of many excellent resources based on shortsighted and false preconceptions. A Scout is brave, but Scouting’s policy refuses to recognize the courage that it takes to be openly gay in an often heterosexist society. A Scout is clean, but in this decision Scouting’s hands are covered with the slime of bigotry and hate. A Scout is reverent, but Scouting’s anti-gay policy will not recognize the beauty of all of God’s creations, including those of us who, although gay, are also made in his image. It is time that the Boy Scouts of America decides to return to the values it espouses to have.

No, the Boy Scouts of America's policy excluding gays does not espouse the values of Scouting. It is quite antithetical to the moral teachings which have created so many upstanding citizens.

Robert F. Kennedy once told us that “Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence.” This is the message of Scouting. We are indeed disciples of a moral code which is rarely easy to uphold, but that is our message. No Scout should be taught to stand by during times of injustice.

Scouting teaches many things; foremost among is honor. There is nothing honorable in discrimination. Until Scouting rights this wrong, its image will be tarnished. That stain hurts me far more than my estrangement from the organization. My pain is especially sharp on this ninth anniversary of the night I became an Eagle Scout. But I have faith that the organization will one day reverse this unjust policy and once again welcome her long-sundered children.

Picture at top by Bruce Andersen.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: It's Just a Penis, Get Over It

TNG Contributor Matt wrote this piece.

I went to see the new film Watchmen on Friday. I thought the film was well done for the most part, but it seems that many critics have trouble moving past the penises. One of the main characters of the film, Dr. Manhattan, is quite the nudist. At first, viewers are shown this with brief shots of his nude hindquarters and shots of his calves. Later the camera reveals his muscled upper-body with no indication of garments where a waistband should be.

But then suddenly, without prelude, Dr. Manhattan appears in all of his blue-shaded glory. The sudden onslaught of full-frontal, computer-generated male nudity sent a giggle and a nervous gasp rippling through the audience.

I think that this is indicative of the American uncomfortableness with male nudity. We seem to have little compunction about showing actresses parading around the set with their breasts exposed. When it comes to men, however, don't let us see anything interesting. When I was in high school, my friend suggested that someone should invent "L" shaped sheets for movies, since there is clearly a double standard for nudity. In movies, the more nude actresses are, the larger the fan base, whereas the more naked the actors, the more uncomfortable the audience.

At some level, I think we're conditioned to associate penises in the media with sinfulness. America's puritan roots, while loosened by the sexual revolution of the 1960s, still have a strong hold on us. Europeans are not nearly as up tight when it comes to nudity in advertising and the media. Censorship might play a part in keeping mainstream America uncomfortable with nudity, but I think it goes deeper. I think it is bound up in our national psyche.

Watchmen certainly pushes the envelope. American films mostly limit male nudity to bare buns and those views are usually brief. This movie not only includes the penis, it shows it frequently and in long scenes. No attempt is made to camouflage or hide his genitalia. It hangs around like a wallflower at the prom, not really participating, but visible nonetheless. Honestly, I've seen straight porn with less penis screen time.

The display of Dr. Manhattan's penis in Watchmen actually has nothing to do with sex. The character is just nude. When it comes down to filming, the director could shoot around Dr. Manhattan's implied nudity, which is the typical response, or he could shoot the film as if the nudity didn't matter - as it doesn't to the characters. Since Watchmen was filmed using the latter technique, the audience faces some discomfort, but the director didn't sacrifice the nudity of Dr. Manhattan called for in the graphic novel.

Regardless of what the FCC thinks, nudity occurs everyday. It is as much a part of our story as other things commonly portrayed in movies without objection. Films portray life, they portray stories of fiction and truth, they portray struggles to understand things beyond our comprehension. These portrayals have to deal with the same things we do in life in order to make them relevant. One of those things is nudity. To pretend that it doesn't exist is dishonest, but to overrepresent it runs the risk of being gratuitous.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Watchmen is too gratuitous or not, but I am sure that they didn't dodge the issue. I hope that this represents an improvement the typical knee-jerk reaction to male nudity in the media. But America just needs to get over it. It's just a penis. Half the population has one and just about everyone over age 18 has seen one. Films shouldn't pretend they don't exist. And Americans shouldn't freak out when they are shown on the silver screen.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: On Enfranshisement

TNG contributor and District of Columbia resident Matt' submitted this piece.

Last week, the Senate voted on the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2009, approving it with a filibuster-proof 61 votes. The House is expected to follow suit shortly on their version. Voting rights for the District is closer than it has ever been. This legislation will give the almost 600,000 residents of the Federal City voting representation in the United States House of Representatives. As a resident of the District, I find this prospect exciting and long overdue.

The Founding Fathers never intended for the creation of the District of Columbia to cause American citizens to be deprived of their "inalienable rights." They envisioned the District as an area carved out of other states (so as to be free of their influence) which would be large enough to provide for the defense of the federal government. I don't think the Founders predicted that a permanent population would reside in Washington. Nonetheless, the District has grown to a cosmopolitan metropolis, home to hundreds of thousands of citizens. Their disenfranchisement is a civil rights issue and is a blemish on our great republic.

There are two related issues at stake. The primary issue is, of course, the lack of full representation in all three branches of the federal government. But another gap in the rights of citizens of the District is the lack of home rule. While both issues are pressing, right now Congress seems intent on solving only one - and only part of that one to boot.

A Vote in the House
The values upon which this country is based transcend politics. These principles, according to the Founding Fathers, transcended all time and culture and no outside entity has the right or ability to remove them. But politics has often kept the vote far from the reach of Washingtonians.

In the Senate's version of the DC Voting Rights Bill, Republicans attached a provision which would strip DC of its ability to regulate guns. The conference committee's compromise might eliminate this amendment, but the fact that some legislator thought it appropriate to make a civil rights issue into a political issue is offensive to me.

The gun issue is merely an indicator of a larger agenda. The Republicans are often found opposing DC enfranchisement, ostensibly on the grounds that it's not a state. The real issue, however, is that any representatives or senators from the District will be Democratic for the foreseeable future. The DC Voting Rights Bill attempts to balance this issue by granting ultra-conservative Utah an extra seat in the House. However, any American citizen who is truly a patriot should unconditionally support DC voting rights. There is nothing more American than the power to shape one's government through the vote.

While it is true that residents of the District of Columbia have been able to vote for President since the election of 1964, they still have no voting Representatives or Senators. The nearly 600,000 residents of Washington cannot write their Senator, cannot visit their Representative, cannot be given the full rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution, even though they many are natural born citizens. And in the system of checks and balances set forth by the Framers, the lack of a vote in any of the branches is the lack of a vote in all of the branches.

Until the District has representation in both houses, the work of the Framers is not yet done. A voting Representative in the House is a step in the right direction but it is not the end of the journey. The Senate, for instance, confirms executive appointments and signs treaties. The residents of the District have no say in this process now and won't even under the proposed DC Voting Rights Act. A letter to the editor in today's Washington Post wondered if getting half a loaf now might keep us from ever getting the rest of the loaf. I wonder about that too.

We are the only republic in the world that does not allow citizens of its capital the rights given to all other citizens. This egregious injustice must be righted. And any attempt to block or compromise the granting of this sacred right with amendments is blasphemous to the very foundations of this nation.

Last month, a Republican Congressman from Texas, Louie Gohmert, announced that he was a convert. He had previously opposed granting voting rights to the District, but now he was for it. However he thinks that giving DC a Representative is unconstitutional because it is not a state. As a stopgap, he has proposed exempting District residents from the federal income tax. Our license plates, it seems, have gotten to him. But it seems something was lost in translation. Because while the cry of both colonists and Washingtonians was "no taxation without representation," what was (and is) really meant was "let us govern ourselves." Mr. Gohmert does not understand that while taxation without representation runs afoul of the founding principles of America, so does legislation without representation.

Local Government
The Founders gave Congress sole jurisdiction over the affairs of the District when they wrote the Constitution. This clause creates a truly unjust situation for the citizens of the District. Even though citizens of the District vote for a Mayor and Council, Congress still has to approve all legislation. They even have the power to remove (as in abolish the offices of) the Mayor and Council without asking the voters of the District.

No other jurisdiction in the country is forced to pass the federal bar for every piece of local legislation. From budget bills to the most inconsequential ordinances, every action taken by the District Council is subject to review and revision. Today, conservatives are especially concerned about the gun issue. While this time they attached it as an amendment to a voting rights bill, they often try even more dastardly things.

Nothing is more of an affront to local government than having legislation written for it. In every other city in the nation, no matter how big or small, city councils decide through the democratic process what is best for citizens. But in Washington, legislators, none of whom represent the District, decide what is best. They are completely unaccountable for their actions. Their constituents are often hundreds or thousands of miles away and hold different values than we here in Washington. So sometimes, all too frequently, it seems, politicos try and score points at the expense of District residents.

Last summer, Mark Souder, a Republican Congressman from Indiana, tried to write the District's gun laws on behalf of the District. The 580,000 residents of Washington would have no say in how this legislation was crafted, but the citizens of the other states would. But the needs of Indiana and California and Alaska are far different than our needs. Our voice, it seems, does not matter. Once again, legislators here in Washington have decided to play politics with our rights. The gun amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act of 2009 will strip DC's ability to legislate gun control. No other state or jurisdiction in the United States must face such federal interference.

This proposed amendment, along with other Congressional overrides of the local government of the District smacks of the tyranny inherent in the reviled Massachusetts Government Act. This government, one made of the People, by the People, and for the People, is supposed to stand for something. It is supposed to be a shining city on a hill, a beacon of hope in a world without freedom. But here, in the very shadow of the Capitol's Dome, that light is dimmed. And the lack of home-rule makes it still darker here.

In 1963, 10 years before the city of Washington would receive a locally elected mayor and council, President John F. Kennedy travelled to an island of democracy in Eastern Europe. There, standing in front of Rathaus Schöneberg, standing in the shadow of the Wall, he said that the proudest boast in a world of freedom is "Ich bin ein Berliner." This phrase, said Kennedy, is the boast of "all free men, wherever they may live."

Oh, how I long to say that phrase.

Berlin was an island of freedom in a sea of totalitarianism. Washington is surrounded by the lapping waves of freedom, and while they haven't built a wall to keep us in, they haven't given us the vote either.

But we're closer than ever. I hope that the good men in Washington will do what is right. Giving us a Representative is yet one more step along the path to Freedom. But until we also have the right to chart our own course, until we have the right to write our own laws, until we have the right to full representation in the government we help to uphold, we will not be able to add the light of our candles to the beacon of Freedom.

The picture at top was taken by the author.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Photographic Freedom

TNG contributor Matt' submitted this post.

"Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it."
--Michelangelo

"The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking."--Brooks Atkinson

The photograph has played an integral role in the creation of our world. They decorate our homes, fill museums, and permeate the media. From our walls to our wallets, we have pictures of our loved ones, of our past, and of places we've been. They are sometimes a way to tell a story, sometimes a way to hold on to our memories, and they are sometimes a way to express ourselves. Photographs evoke emotion and trace the narrative of the human race.

Each moment is fleeting, and with an infinite number of images available only for a split second never again able to be captured by a camera, those of us who are shutterbugs are constantly in search of the shot. We search for something that will capture the power of emotion or frailty of humanity or the majesty of nature. We are hunters, oft on the trail of a picture that will capture what we see and what we want to show. We look through the lens of our eyes and see juxtaposition, we see a kaleidoscope of colors, we see the mixture of races and peoples; we see the amalgam of cultures.

But some are insistent on keeping our apertures closed. In this day and age, photography is becoming more and more taboo. And while property owners have always had the ability to bar picture taking on their land, the line between the public and private realms is seemingly becoming less clear. In the summer of 2007, an innocent photographer capturing the vibrant street life along Silver Spring's Ellsworth Drive, was accosted by security guards and ordered not to take pictures. As it happens, Ellsworth Drive, despite massive amounts of public funding for redevelopment, is in private hands. But protests and complaints from community leaders helped to change the mind of the property owners.

Similarly, a few stops away on the Metro, stands one of Washington's most ornate buildings. Designed as the grand foyer, the entryplace to Washington, Union Station is a breathtaking way to enter the Capital. Legally, it belongs to the federal government, but it's leased to a firm responsible for its day-to-day operations (this does not include the Amtrak-owned railroad terminal at the rear of the station). The federal government says that it's okay to take pictures in the station, but that hasn't stopped security guards from hassling tourists, travelers, and fans of truly great architecture. They even stopped a news crew from filming a story about the harassment of photographers in the station.

Believe it or not, when the Bill of Rights was signed, the camera already existed. It was not much of a device back then, but it was a technology that would soon change the world. Still, the Founding Fathers probably had no idea about the existence of this invention. They set out to ensure that the rights of Americans would not be infringed on by the government. Among the rights which they elaborated was freedom of expression. But you'd better not get caught with a camera in the subway station steps away from where the document was signed. That's because Philadelphia's transit operator, SEPTA, is one of many systems that has made using a camera illegal, even on semi-public property, like a train platform.

These bans on photography presume that there are no images worth capturing in these places where we live our lives. For some of us, the subway or the shopping mall are daily parts of our lives. Things happen there worthy of film. Whether only the act of commuting or children visiting Santa Claus, sometimes seemingly innocuous scenes can capture the mundane in a way which touches and inspires us.

The sun rising over the Capitol, a clear blue sky behind the snow-capped Rockies, a herd of bison sweeping majestically across the amber tinted prairie, these are all images we can accept as moving. But to photograph the sunset as a backdrop to the sweeping architectural masterpiece of the terminal at Dulles is to become the definition of suspicious. To see through the lens the Empire Builder winding through Glacier National Park casts unwanted doubt upon the best of intentions.

Some places are more accepting than others. Washington's subway operator does not restrict photography and when New York's MTA tried to in 2004, the outcry was loud and swift. As the zeitgeist surrounding September 11 begins to fade, clearer heads are beginning to prevail. Sacramento's transit operator advises customers to report suspicious activity: photographers taking pictures of areas not of general interest to the public, for instance. This is certainly a good approach. Instead of a blanket indictment of shutterbugs, people who are merely getting a shot of a train in front of the State House are no longer as suspect.

When I was living in Atlanta, MARTA decided to ban all photography from the system. I have seen customers hassled by staff just for taking pictures of friends while on trains or in stations. Not only does this do little to increase security on the system - indeed, it wastes resources chasing teenagers with camera phones - it also antagonizes customers who see no reason for the attention. Perhaps understanding this some MARTA leaders are moving to overturn or at least lessen the ban.

But, as I elaborated before, these bans extend beyond transit agencies. As an urban planning student, I constantly look for good examples of urbanism. When I see one, I like to take a picture or two (or three). They're particularly helpful when you blog. Instead of typing at length, I can just insert a picture and voilà. But many instances of good urbanism are, like the aforementioned Ellsworth Drive, opposed to photography. Atlantic Station is a mix of public and private spaces, but the private spaces are not well-delineated. Private streets look just like public ones, but despite the public funding for the project, the developer reserves the right to regulate seemingly harmless behavior - like photography. So when I visit the sprawling metropolis of Atlanta, I'm barred from taking pictures of this new quarter, nationally renown for its good design.

Recently an ironic event took place to demonstrate the extremes our paranoia has reached. A railfan taking pictures at New York's Penn Station was taking pictures when he was arrested by Amtrak's police. The interesting part is that he was taking pictures for Amtrak's photo contest. And since he was a ticketed passenger on a train platform, he wasn't engaging in anything illegal. Except taking pictures, apparently. But an Amtrak spokesperson says that Amtrak does not have a photo ban. This story is so convoluted that even Steven Colbert picked it up.

The pendulum of security is beginning to swing back toward freedom. One of our Framers, Benjamin Franklin, tells us that "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." While Franklin probably couldn't have imagined photography in its current form, but he was certainly able to imagine freedom. I suspect that were he alive today, he would have lodged an objection with SEPTA by now. Or perhaps not. It's impossible to determine what the Founding Fathers would have done if confronted with a world of constant electronic communication and global terrorism. But I'd like to think that they'd stand by their beliefs - their unalienable truths.

All photos in this post were taken by the author.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Fruit of the Broom

TNG contributor Matt' submitted this post

I'm a huge fan of Harry Potter. I read the books for the first time in August of 2007, a time of turmoil for me. I had uprooted myself from my home of four years and was moving to a new state for the first time. During this period, my companions were the friendly students at Hogwarts .

Shortly after having finished reading the series for the second time, I traveled to Philadelphia with a friend of mine from my hometown. I was surprised to see Harry Potter making headlines on the television, but after figuring out what it was all about, I understood. I wrote the following reflections for my personal blog in October 2007.

I was very surprised to see the caption "Dumbledore Gay" on a news broadcast while I ate breakfast at my hotel in Philadelphia on Sunday. I was not surprised to see the coverage of the fundamentalists who are quite upset by this revelation. Since mid August, I have read the entire 7-book series twice. As I said, I was quite surprised, because nowhere in the entire series does Dumbledore out himself. Instead the public and posthumous outing of this esteemed Hogwarts official was made by author J.K. Rowling, quoted as saying "Dumbledore is gay, actually" at a recent Q&A session in New York.

This news tidbit has been reported in the muggle media as well as in the Daily Prophet. The Quibbler is reporting record sales of its issue reportedly exposing Dumbledore's old flames. Officials in the newly instated Shacklebolt Administration have refused comment, saying that "the personal lives of our fellow witches and wizards is none of the Ministry's concern." The Daily Prophet interviewed several bar-goers at Merlin's Beard, a popular hangout for witches of a certain persuasion in Hogsmeade's fabulous Horizont Alley. One witch, quoted on the condition of anonymity, reported that she is "proud to hear that Dumbledore's sexuality is finally out in the open." She says that "it is time for the Ministry of Magic to recognize that witches and wizards represent a broad spectrum of individuals" and "that it is time for the discrimination to stop." Another patron "doesn't see what all the fuss is about." He says that since "Dumbledore wasn't exactly a Hippogriff Hawk and only made the occasional appearance at Showtunes Tuesday, it shouldn't matter who he slept with." If nothing else can be said about this revelation, it is that the owls will surely be flying for some time. No comment was made available by Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry by press time.

I applaud Rowling's characterization of one of the pillars of the Hogwarts community. When I originally read the Harry Potter books, I was dismayed at the lack of openly gay characters. It seemed to me that the gay community deserved representation in this modern take on the struggle between good and evil. Still, I thought to myself that since the books were geared to a younger audience, it might not be an appropriate venue for this particular battle against evil. Of course, there are good ways of exposing children to diversity, and I had hoped at some level that Rowling would be able to work it into this series.

Of course, now that Professor Dumbledore has stepped out of the proverbial broom closet, fundamentalists are coming out of the woodwork. I'm not particularly sure how this affects their children since they already wouldn't allow them to read the books (see my earlier post). Of course from all the commotion that they are making, one would think that the books have Dumbledore skipping classes to go to circuit parties or being seen at less-than-reputable Hogsmeade establishments in drag. The fact that Dumbledore seeks for the other Quidditch team has little bearing on the well-being of the readers of the acclaimed series because Dumbledore spends his entire tenure at Hogwarts in the closet.

I'm not sure what upsets the fundamentalists more, the fact that Rowling recognizes that there are such things as gay people or that she portrays a good person as homosexual. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. It could be that the fundamentalist community is rallying against what they see as a historical inaccuracy. By their (convoluted) logic, in the great battle of good against evil, surely all of the homosexuals would have been on the side of Mr. Voldemort.

What is really at stake here, however, is something far simpler than a battle over children's books and gay rights. Fundamentalism's take on literature and symbolism seems to be based on a tenuous dichotomy wherein literature can reflect Truth or is meaningless. Meaningless, however, does not mean harmless from the zealot's viewpoint. From their perspective, revelations like Rowling's make their struggle harder by empowering free thought. For fundamentalism, any viewpoint of reality which allows symbolism to dilute the Word through interpretation is dangerous. Rowling's books offer a non-Christian interpretation on the struggle which fundamentalism claims to have a monopoly on: good versus evil. By attempting to reflect some semblance of reality in her books, Rowling has attempted what the fundamentalist community sees as a deliberate and offensive assault on their version of reality, which does not leave room for empowered women or openly gay persons.

The fact of the matter is that the Harry Potter books are true to form. In real life, we interact with gay people every day. Many of us have gay mentors and friends. Not all of those people live publicly gay lives, and like Dumbledore carry the burden of the closet in silence. This newly established battle over Dumbledore's legacy demonstrates how entrenched anti-homosexual feelings are in today's world. It is a shame that Dumbledore must symbolize the truth that many people live every day of their lives. I commend Ms. Rowling for her symbolism and her advocacy on behalf of those of us who find ourselves in yet one more alienated minority group.

Image at top by bibicall at Flickr.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: I'm Not Feeling It

This week, contributor Matt' discusses the concept of "gay" identity and it's role in his life.

I look at this column as a challenge every week, because while I am gay and I like to write, I don't see myself as a gay writer. I don't see a contradiction in that either. Yet, each week as I pen Dispatches I am writing to a (I assume) mostly gay audience. I have to be careful to write about issues that are interesting to the LGBT community, but at the same time your tastes vary wildly. So I wonder how one does write to the gay community.

Of course, it's obvious that some topics automatically apply. When one writes about specific events in the gay historical consciousness or about events that directly affect homosexuals, one clearly speaks to that audience. But on other issues the connection is not so neatly drawn. And yet, we are interested in far more subjects than anything regarding the gay part of our lives.

An interesting comment on last week's staff survey helps to illustrate my point. The comment, by Ben64, in response to gay stereotypes, says, in part,

I make a distinction between sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual) and cultural identity (i.e. "Gay"). Therefore I do not equate homosexuality with Gayness....Therefore, while homosexuality may be foundational to one's identity "Gay" (as a culturally learned set of behaviors) is not.

Gay identity has never been formed outside of oppression. Consequently much of it is a defensive reaction-formation to hostility and persecution. While that response has been necessary and empowering in past decades it is, nonetheless, an accommodation to homophobia. I'm not sure any of us know what "Gay" is outside that confining space. I think it is very important for us all to have a discussion about whether or not that is "false consciousness".

If Ben is right, and I agree that he is, then the very idea of "gay" is only temporary--not only in the larger, societal sense, but also, and more importantly, in oneself. Of course, the two concepts are tied--even though I believe I've moved past the part of my life where I let stereotypes define what I should be, even though I consider the homosexual part of me to be only a minor part of my Self, I still refer to myself as "gay," although it is not my defining characteristic.

So what does the concept of "gay" mean to us? It seems to mean little to me. I am certainly homosexual, but other than the stuff I do with my boyfriend, homosexuality plays a very small role in my consciousness. When it comes to writing, I typically write about policy, planning, or transportation, places where I'm in my element. As I pointed out last week, I don't fit many stereotypes, but that's alright because I'm just being myself.

The basic premise of The New Gay is that gay stereotypes don't represent us. We are much more than the society makes us out to be. But if "gay" really is just a social construct designed to explain or name or identify people of the one gender who are attracted to people of the same gender, then I wonder if it's even possible to really write to our demographic. I mean, clearly people are reading posts here at TNG (mine included, I hope), but these are posts about our life stories or our ideas. They're here because they represent one of us as a gay individual or they espouse an idea important to the gay community. I assume that the largest portion of our readership self identifies as gay.

But why do we read about this subject? Even though many of us probably have reached the stage of acceptance where being gay means no more to us than our left- or right-handedness, we still seek out others with similar stories because they are also homosexual. I think this indicates that there is something that binds us together as a community. Perhaps there is something to "gay" that is beyond a social construct developed to cope with oppression. Honestly, I'm not sure which it is, and that is one reason it's often so difficult to churn out Dispatches.

It is clear that our common homosexuality binds us as a community just as race and religion can, but less clear is the relationship between our image of "gay" and our image of ourselves. Honestly, I'm not feeling it, when it comes to gayness. I like ABBA as much as the next fruit, but it's not because I'm gay, it's because they made good music. But I don't feel gay in any other sense than my attraction to men. I gather that I am not alone in this sensation, however, I still can't quite wrap my mind around this separation between homosexuality and gayness - even though in my gut, I believe it to be right.

Picture at top by wallyg on Flickr.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: On Finding OneSelf

TNG Contributor Matt', who submitted this piece, reflects upon coming to terms with hisSelf.

I grew up in a small town in rural North Georgia. I think it's safe to say that opinions, especially about sexuality were (are) not particularly enlightened there. Despite the proximity to the gay mecca of Atlanta people in my hometown very much pretend that homosexuality is something that doesn't exist outside of large urban areas. As a consequence, when I was in high school, there weren't even any rumors about gay students. It was something that no one talked about, period. "Gay," where I grew up, was simply a stand-in for the word "lame."

So, until the summer before my senior year of high school, I had never even met an out gay person. All I had to go on about homosexuality were my stereotypes - those shaped by the religious right, ignorant rednecks, and the media. And despite having crushes on all the hot guys in school, I didn't think of myself as gay. I suppose my journey to understanding mySelf began in the summer of 2002. That year, I was selected to attend a summer honors program which brought together Georgia's top high school students for a six-week stay at Valdosta State University.

As luck would have it, my roommate was gay--although he didn't come out to me for some time. Years later, when I came out to him (over instant messenger), he says he fell out of his chair in surprise. Apparently, I had come across to him as a touch homophobic that summer, although I really wasn't. I was just ill-informed and confused. I also desperately wanted him to make a case for homosexuality that I could buy into, something he never did, probably not wanting to antagonize me. And despite the fact that I was still deep in denial at the end of the summer, there were now cracks in the foundation.

There's not too much to tell about the rest of high school or even the first couple of years of college. Not being attracted to girls, and unable to accept my homosexuality, I essentially withdrew from trying at relationships or dealing with my sexuality. Until my Junior year, at least. After returning from a summer living in Germany, I felt like I was finally prepared to deal with my gayness. I don't know exactly when it was, but at some point over the summer, I admitted to myself that, yes, ich bin schwul--I am gay. Perhaps it was the openness of Germans toward homosexualität or just being outside of my normal comfort zone, but whatever the reason I was ready to out myself.

There was just one problem. I didn't know how. It's, of course, easy to just tell someone - which I did on October 5, 2005 - but dealing with it took more control. Besides, I couldn't let my parents find out before I was ready to tell them, something I talked about last week. I also didn't really know what being gay meant for me. I ended up in counseling, which really helped me come to terms with myself. I was initially scared when I first started going to Pride Alliance meetings, not really knowing what I was getting myself into, but I eventually settled in, despite being stalked by a crazy graduate student.

But after coming out, I felt the need to conform to stereotypes. I suppose I was just trying to assert to myself and others that I was gay, but the result was that I changed a lot about myself, from my haircut to the way I dressed. I gather that this is not all that uncommon in newly-out persons, but I still felt incomplete. It was a fun time in my life, finally free of the repression of the Closet, finally free to explore my sexuality, finally free to discover mySelf. But I suppose that on my trek to find myself, I took the scenic route. In trying to fit stereotypes, I only lengthened my journey to discovery.

In actuality, I traveled thousands of miles to figure out something I should have seen years before - and without even leaving Atlanta. But I was blinded by stereotypes and curiosity. So I went on a pilgrimage. Sort of. I was visiting potential grad schools on the West Coast and saw my chance to visit San Francisco (I was applying to Berkeley). So a 13 hour trip on the Coast Starlight from Portland brought me into the Bay Area. And a few hours later, I found myself at the corner of 18th and Castro, deep in the heart of the gayborhood. Called "the gayest corner in the world" by some, I found myself intimidated and intrigued, frightened yet excited.

Yet my pilgrimage was successful - I had a revelation. I realized then that being gay only means being who you are. It's not about fitting some stereotype. Liberating myself to be myself was the final step on my journey. I think that my revelation came because of the diverse nature of the Castro. I saw gays in so many guises, and realized that I didn't need to do anything other than be who I was born to be - which is not to say that I don't fulfill some stereotypes - I absolutely love musicals.

We often work hard to dispel negative stereotypes about homosexuality that contribute to homophobia and heterosexism, but I wonder if stereotypes are negative even when they are perpetuated by the gay community. I don't mean to suggest that people who fit stereotypes are necessarily fake, but I do sometimes get the impression that some gays only do certain things because they think it's how they're supposed to act. It just seems unhealthy to me. It's the natural course of human development to come to terms with the Self, to become comfortable with who we are, but I think that stereotypes place hurdles in that process, no matter who is creating them.

Thoughts?

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Prayers for Mommy

This week, Matt reflects upon the new made-for-TV-movie, Prayers for Bobby and his own experiences with coming out.

In 1983, Bobby Griffith jumped to his death from a freeway overpass. For four years he had been struggling with his sexual orientation--and his family's reaction to it. While tragic, his death inspired his mother to become a strong advocate of gay rights.

Bobby's life and his mother's reaction to his death were the subject of a 1996 book by Leroy Aarons, called, "Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms With the Suicide of Her Gay Son." Saturday, Lifetime Television aired a film adaptation of the book. Called simply, "Prayers for Bobby," the movie was a sad, yet inspiring.

When Bobby is outed to his conservative, evangelical family, it starts a harrowing part of his life. Desperate to find his mother's acceptance yet be true to himself, his self-esteem continued to fall until his soul was beyond repair. Believing that his mother would never love him for who he was, he took his own life.

Yet that act shocked his mother into questioning her own beliefs. Eventually, she found herself an advocate for gay sons and daughters. Her transformation is heartwarming, but is tragic because of her loss.

Bobby's struggle with his family somewhat reminded me of my own. I came out to my parents over three years ago, but I don't feel like I've made very much progress beyond the few baby steps made in the first few months. And I can't for the life of me figure out why it bothers me so much.

I can still remember when I came out to them--like it was yesterday. I made a trip home from college, which was only about 50 miles, but was fairly rare, so they knew something was up. I suppose I really surprised them. My dad said "Bullshit" and my mom said "Why do you think that?" Despite my best efforts to explain to them that I was gay and that there was nothing wrong with me, I went back to Atlanta disappointed and stressed more than ever.

I hadn't really been ready to come out to my parents, but I'd had little choice in the matter. I'd been coming out to friends at college for a couple of weeks, and while I hadn't come out to my (conservative, fundamentalist) roommate, I knew he'd figure it out eventually. And his mother knew my mother. And my roommate, always eager to help, would have seen it as his duty to help me by making sure my parents found out. He would have intended for them to get me "help." So I headed him off and did it myself. I didn't want my parents to hear it from someone else.

Over the next few months I had to deal with a lot of the same issues that came up in the film. My dad wanted to know how I could be sure I was gay if I'd never been with a man. My mom thought I just hadn't met the right woman yet. At least originally, my father was convinced that all gay people eventually died of AIDS. All the gay people he'd ever known (like three) had died in the early 1980s of that disease, and I suppose he feared his only son would too.

Even today, three years later, my mom thinks it's "just a phase." Of course that's an improvement from her original belief that I was just confused. Both of my parents still refer to me as their son, "who thinks he's gay," not their gay son. Of course, they don't discuss it much.

Like Mary Griffith, my mother grew up in a fundamentalist church, and that has shaped her views. She thinks it's a sin, and she thinks it's unnatural. But unlike Bobby's mother, she doesn't condemn me for it. Neither of my parents has disowned me or mistreated me because of my orientation. But they haven't accepted it either.

Originally, I was loathe to discuss any relationships I was having. I was afraid that when one failed, it would only prove to them that they were right--that I was a confused straight male and that gay people were doomed to miserable lives. I still think that they believe that last bit. They seem to think that all my life, I will be denied jobs and be at risk for homophobia. They don't think I will be happy as long as I masquerade as a fruit.

But despite the lack of my parents' acceptance, I am happy. I have a good life, and other than this recession, I have few complaints. I have tried to show them that I am happy, but it doesn't seem to have made much difference. In May, my boyfriend and I flew down from Washington to go to a wedding in Atlanta. We stayed at my parents' house. In separate rooms, as my mom insisted. Still, I hoped that introducing my boyfriend would prove something. It doesn't seem to have done so.

They met him again in July and for Thanksgiving here in Washington, and yes, it was the same boyfriend. I've been with the same man for over a year now, but my mom still thinks my orientation is a phase.

When I saw that the film was debuting, I had my parents watch it. I haven't yet heard their reflections of it, but it would surprise me if it has made much of a difference in their attitudes.

I have no intention on giving up (either on life or on my parents), but I'm at wit's end as far as what I can do to get acceptance from my parents. I'm also at a loss to understand why it's so important to me. If I've not had to face any negative consequences, why do I find it so important for my parents to start thinking of me as their gay son, and not accepting any apologies for it?

I don't think my own mother will ever stand at the front of the PFLAG delegation at the Pride Parade, but I do hope for some improvement. I've encouraged her to go to PFLAG meetings amongst other things, but the best I can get out of her is for her to talk to her minister. And trust me, that's bad. He's not the gay-friendly type of minister.

I hope that in time, things will work out. But I'm impatient. Three years is a long time to wait, and I wonder how many more are yet to come. Regardless, I'll continue to struggle. And someday, I pray I'll be successful.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Policy--It's Like Making a Cake

A new administration has come to Washington. After eight long years of Republican control of the executive branch, Democrats under the leadership of President Barack Obama are taking over. In that regard Dispatches considers the implications of policymaking.

If you’ve ever baked a cake, you know that a successful recipe depends upon getting all of the ingredients right. If any of the parts are spoiled or if any of the incorrect ingredients are mixed in, the cake won’t turn out the way you intended. Policy is the same way.

There is often a lot of talk about Education Policy or Transportation Policy or Environmental Policy. These are all red herrings. In reality there is only one Policy (capital P). Now I know this sounds strange. I can hear you saying, “of course there is such a thing as Education Policy,” and you’d be right. There is something called Education Policy. It’s how we address schools and curriculum, among other things. But it is often doomed to fail by other policy areas, Transportation and Housing Policies for instance. This is because the way we view policy (lower case p) divides public policies into silos. Essentially, we insist on continuing to think of the egg as an egg, even long after it's become part of the cake.

If for example, we’re baking a cake (Policy) which seeks to further the aims of a chef (administration), it would include ingredients such as eggs (Education), flour (Transportation), sugar (Environment), and much, much more. Even if the eggs are fresh, the cake might turn out badly if we forget to include the flour.

Let’s consider Education in more detail. Our last President pushed for a bill called No Child Left Behind. This act was to improve our education system by doing things like punishing underperforming schools, offering choice, and holding teachers accountable. It placed lots of emphasis on standardized tests and other measures such as attendance and graduation rates. But schools are in largely the same shape they were eight years ago. Why didn’t No Child Left Behind significantly change schools?

For simplicity’s sake, let’s forgo the criticisms of the Act itself. Instead I would like to focus on how other Policy areas affect educational outcomes. Studies show that neighborhood poverty has a huge impact on educational attainment. But because we have “silos” for policy, fixing neighborhoods, while integral to fixing schools, is not considered part of Education Policy. In that regard, we’re leaving out part of the recipe.

When it comes to Education, we’ve been dooming urban schools since the 1930s at least. Many of the same things that created the Gayborhood contributed to the decline of our schools. Housing Policy encouraged suburban housing construction, while covenants limited that development to whites. Transportation Policy, beginning in the 1950s, gave (white, middle-class) Americans the ability to leave the city, while still being able to commute over freeways to work. At the same time the destruction of urban transit systems split many lower income people from their jobs. As policy decisions in other policy areas encouraged the creation of urban ghettos, our schools started a nosedive which they’ve yet to recover from. Just last week, I saw that school segregation is increasing in the United States.

I don’t want to belabor the discussion on education, however. My thinking about this Policy/Cake concept started when the Obama Administration left the Secretary of Transportation off of his Green Team. This group of high-level officials consists of the Energy Czar, Secretary of Energy, Director of the EPA, and the Secretary of the Interior. And while these department heads certainly run agencies which have a large role to play in solving the climate change dilemma; without seriously changing the way we approach transportation, we won’t be able to stop greenhouse gas accumulation.

According to Growing Cooler a report on the relationship between urban development and climate change, "Transportation accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States" (page 2). This report refers to the "Three-legged Stool" of Fuel Economy, Carbon Content of Fuel, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Any policy that fails to address all three legs of the stool will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions far enough to reach targets. Because the Department of Energy projects that increases in VMT will outstrip improvements in fuel economy and carbon content, any emissions savings from those two legs will be outpaced by increases from the third leg, VMT.

So even if we are able to transition cars to cleaner sources of fuel and make them more efficient, we can really only solve the problem by encouraging walkable communities and public transit in addition. Luckily, this reimagining of the urban environment gives us the opportunity to rethink the selfsame policies (like housing) which have resulted in a failing education system and a gridlocked transportation network.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once said:

"The best cure for destructive sprawl is to build cities people don't want to abandon, places where they can live healthy, fulfilling lives in densities that don't devour our landscapes, pave our wilderness and pollute our watersheds, air, and wildlife. To achieve this, we need to invest in urban schools, transportation, parks, health care, police protection, and infrastructure that makes cities great magnets with gravity sufficient to draw back the creeping suburbs."

In other words, in order to save the city, we have to focus on all of the relevant policy areas--from Education to Transportation. We can't confine our Policy to just one silo.

I’m reminded of an example from Atlanta. As the region was building a MARTA (metro) extension to the Northeast, the Georgia DOT was widening the adjacent gridlocked Interstate 85. Not surprisingly, ridership on the Doraville train never reached what planners had hoped. Here in Washington, on the other hand, a series of freeway battles helped ensure that Metro would be successful by limiting freeway construction. So while Mr. Obama has promised transit investment during the next few years, he has also promised road building. And his stimulus gives more money to roads. One wonders if his Policy (capital P) will be end up truly being “green” or if policy silos will leave the frosting off the cake.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Race, Prejudice, and Outcome

This week, Dispatches considers the effects of racism past and present and how different groups perceive it.

Over the past few weeks, I've been involved in several conversations which encouraged me to reflect on how other groups perceive racism. I was very offended by some of the things said by some ignorant people, and I was inspired to try and develop a framework for understanding racism and prejudice.

This framework is not a completed product. It is something I'm still trying to fill out and understand. I appreciate any insight you can offer. If I've left anything out, it is certainly unintentional. I hope that this column can help to generate a fruitful discussion.

In general, the ignorant conversationalists suggested that because things like segregation and jim crow have ended, that African Americans have equal opportunities. (I do not mean to insinuate that African Americans are the only targets of racism--in fact, anyone can perpetrate racism on anyone else--however in the case of these conversations, blacks were the subject.) They also suggested that African Americans have no cause for complaint. They implied that the era of racism is gone and said that the election of President Obama proves it. I think that thoughts like these are the result of a very limited view of racism.

I would hypothesize that many whites (I don't know if it's "most" or not) only consider racists to be perpetuators of what I call "active racism." We all know about active racism. It is an overt action on the part of the racist either verbally or physically. It can also be in the form of choosing not to hire someone or patronize an establishment due to race.

Minorities, on the other hand, would consider other things racist or at least influential on racial outcomes. One such type of behavior could be dubbed "passive racism." While this categorization might seem dubious to some, it occurs when someone crassly dismisses racial concerns, as was the case with those who inspired this column. In reality, many things have influenced the state of race relations in this country and continue to do so today. To disregard them merely because they are not overt acts of racism is itself a form of prejudice. Additionally, passive racism can be attitudes and beliefs that don't manifest themselves in actions, but which can result in negative stereotypes.

Contributing to disparate racial outcomes is "rippling racism." I call it that because the effects of past racism can ripple through generations long after racists have ceased. Take white flight for example. In this case, racism in the post-war era, especially after Brown v. Board of Education, middle and upper class whites fled cities to avoid desegregated schools. Today, despite the integration of public schools, urban schools are the filled with poverty. Their underperformance can be traced back to the loss of middle class students decades ago. There are essentially two school systems in the United States in this day and age, and I think one could blame past (or rippling) racism for it.

"Institutionalized racism" is another form of discrimination that affects outcomes. It occurs when behaviors and policies are ingrained overtime in institutions. Housing is an excellent example. Restrictive covenants and blockbusting both typify this type of racism. Over time it has led to segregated neighborhoods, which can be very difficult to change.

I hope that President Obama's election will start a substantive and helpful discussion on race in America. However, I am also fearful that many will use this election as an excuse to ignore passive, rippling, and institutional racism. Still, I believe that Americans truly are willing to acknowledge the results of past and present racism. I think that November's vote proves that we are willing to discuss solutions.

What have been your experiences with racism?

Read More......

Dispatches From Left Field: Rethinking Metro?

This week, Dispatches considers the planning of Metro and some of its criticisms.

I know that this is not a directly gay-related subject, but people have expressed interest in a Dispatches column that deals with other topics outside of the typical LGBT bubble. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic regardless. Of course, I'm biased.

Since moving to Washington almost a year ago, I have heard many criticisms of the Metro. I will be the first to admit that many of these are warranted--in fact, I've done some of the criticizing. But I'm also one of the first people to come to WMATA's defense when it comes to ill-informed or undeserved criticism.

Lately, with the inauguration approaching, Metro will be stretched to the brink. Some have questioned why WMATA wasn't designed well enough to handle the crowds, but despite the upcoming overload of the system, I think it's time to consider the trade-offs required to get the subway built.

One of the more common complaints, especially with the rapidly increasing ridership, is the lack of a four-track subway downtown. Last summer I had a memorable conversation where WMATA's designers were cursed for not planning for the ridership seen on an average weekday. I can't fault them, however.

They say hindsight is 20/20, and that is precisely what this criticism is. If we consider, however, the foresight it took in the early 1960s to even consider a subway, we should be applauding WMATA's designers. When all this Metro talk started, the corpses of Capital Transit's streetcars weren't even cold yet and transportation planners wanted to build a subway?

Heavy Rail systems in the United States can generally be broken into two categories: Modern and Pre-Auto Age.

Pre-Auto Age:

• New York City Subway (1868, first L)
  
• Chicago CTA: L (1892)
• Boston MBTA: Red, Orange, Blue (1901)
  
• Philadelphia SEPTA: MFSE, BSS (1907)
• New York/New Jersey: PATH (1908)
• Philadelphia/Camden PATCO: Speedline (1936)
  
• Cleveland RTA: Red (1955)
  

Modern Systems:

• San Francisco: BART (1972)
• Washington Metro (1976)
• Atlanta: MARTA (1979)
• Baltimore Metro Subway (1983)
  
• Miami Metrorail (1984)
  
• Los Angeles: Red Line (1993)

I make this distinction because the characteristics of these systems are very different. Cleveland's Red Line was the last gasp of the pre-war systems and would preceded almost two decades of subway (and urban) decline in the United States. However, by the 1960s planners had big ideas for how to revitalize America's metropolises. In 1972, BART opened, the first of a new type of "rapid transit." Marked by an acronym, and notably absent the "subway" moniker, BART was designed for the space age. And it came just in time for the first Oil Crisis.

BART and the systems to follow it were designed based on an entirely different premise than were the earlier subways. With the modern systems, the goal was to give suburban commuters an alternative to driving. These systems were marked with long distances between stations, higher speeds, comfortable seats, and most importantly, a sea of parking at outlying stations.

The earlier systems, contrastingly, were designed with the pedestrian in mind. Stations were close together, resulting in slower speeds but with the advantage of reaching more pedestrian patrons. These systems had shorter cars, designed for tight corners in the built-up urban areas they served. Rarely did they venture into the suburbs and almost never included parking.

Of the seven early (pre-auto) systems, only three include express tracks somewhere in their systems. The most extensive set of express tracks lies in the New York City Subway. There, many of the lines are complimented with express service in the peak direction or in both directions. In Philadelphia, the Broad Street Subway includes express trackage for most of its length. The Chicago L offers express service on the Purple Line during rush periods (and a short stretch of the Red south of Belmont). These three cities are the densest three cities in the United States over 1 million in population (in the order NYC, Chicago, Philly). This is not a coincidence.

Of the six modern systems, only the Washington Metro comes close to a ridership threshold where express (or 4-track) service becomes cost-effective. Look at Metro's counterparts. The systems constructed in the 1970s (BART and MARTA) both garner about 300,000 riders a day, the 1980s systems (Balto, Miami) get around 60k. The main point to be made here is that Metro was far more successful than anyone ever imagined it would be. It's the exception rather than the rule.
Let us return to the 1960s and 70s. Think big hair. Think disco. Imagine a Washington in turmoil. Fresh out of the freeway fights that pitted suburb against central city, the feds against the locals, neighbors against neighbors. Fresh from the smoke and rubble left after the 1968 riots. Already jobs were starting to follow residents to the suburbs. In America, cities were changing dramatically.

From this viewpoint (the 60s/70s), Metro is an alternative to driving. It is not a way to redefine the way people live. It will never be able to compete directly with the automobile on the automobile's turf. These heavy rail projects were a last-ditch efforts to save central business districts. No one expected any of these projects to rival the older systems.

Think about the position in which these planners found themselves. Considering the three-state makeup of the region, it is amazing we even have Metro. The funding problem is perhaps one of the most complex in the nation and a four-track subway would have roughly doubled the cost of the system.

Given that, had planners pressed for a four-track system, Metro would either be half the size it is today, would have taken twice as long to build, or would have been killed outright. The debate we're having with the Tysons/Dulles Silver Line right now is case-in-point. Already the project has been sliced and diced in terms of frill, and it's still in danger of not being funded. If things like redundant elevators and the familiar hexagonal tiles might be enough to kill the project, can you imagine the reaction of UMTA (now FTA) if Virginia demanded four tracks?

No. We cannot fault Metro's designers on the four-track front. Politics is the art of the possible, and thanks to their hard efforts we, unlike many cities that were considering heavy rail in the 1970s, actually built our system. And we finished it. Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Miami never achieved their full transit vision. Even here the belt-tightening Reagan years contributed to an extended construction period. Metro was supposed to be finished by 1983, but it wasn't actually complete for another 18 years. Not until the Green Line to Branch Avenue opened in 2001 did the dashed lines on the Metro map turn solid.

But despite complaints, people continue to ride Metro. In larger numbers than ever before, as a matter of fact. Hopefully, Washingtonians will continue to put up with Metro's design "flaws" and understand when unforseen circumstances disrupt service. What's most important however, is that we fix what we can and plan for the future. Complaining about the lack of a 4-track Red Line won't get the M Street (separated Blue) Subway built.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: An Introduction

This week, Matt' introduces himself and his column, Dispatches.

I've written a couple of columns so far on TNG, and I think it's time for some introduction.

I entered the so-called blogosphere in August 2007 when I started my personal blog, Track Twenty-Nine. When I started my blog, I really wasn't sure where the blog was going to end up, and I think Dispatches is in the same position. I started writing about transit issues over at T29 alongside posts about my personal life, but once the transit-interested readers found me, there was little choice in direction. I had found a reader base, and started catering to them. If I didn't believe that an audience shapes one's writing before, I certainly do now.

And that means that Dispatches, while still nebulous now, will be shaped by you and your interests. But it will also be constrained and steered by my expertise and ability.

***

I grew up in a small town in north Georgia. My town was mainly white and protestant. And it was a small enough place that everyone knows you and a good deal about you. My hometown was, for the most part, white and protestant--the kind of place where most people are in church on Sunday morning and in the high school football stadium on Friday nights. The diversity of the city was far, far away, beyond the southern horizon. Living in such a homogenous culture would make my coming out journey difficult. I didn't even meet another out person until I was 17.

When I finally escaped, I moved to Atlanta. Never again would I consider living away from the bright lights of the city. I found the diversity enriching and refreshing. Doing community service exposed me to the problems of the inner city, and inspired me to find ways of advocating environmental justice--equity within our regions. Still, I had not made the leap of coming out--not even to myself.

During my 4 years in Atlanta, I got my BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. I tried to make the most of my tenure at school, including a study abroad in Germany. It was, I think, my time in Europe that was the catalyst for my coming out experience. When I returned to the United States in the Fall of 2005 I knew it would only be a matter of time before I would out myself to the world.

I did indeed come out during my junior year of college, an experience which was one of the most challenging and liberating of my life, and one which was certainly one of my most valuable experiences. For a while, being out was a very important aspect of my life, but with time that has faded. Sure, I am a gay man, but that is only a small part of my Self; something that I began to come to terms with after I made my "pilgrimage" to the Castro.

Being out didn't change my path in college too much. I finished up my degree and prepared to move. I had decided to start the next chapter of my life in Washington, DC. I began my Master's studies in the Urban Planning program at the University of Maryland last Fall, finally doing something I'd wanted to do my whole life. I've always wanted to be a transportation planner, even before I knew that it was something you could get paid to do.

***

Because my expertise is in the field of urban planning--specifically transportation planning--I sometimes find it difficult to determine a topic to write for my column. Sure, urban planning affects the gay community, but I don't think it affects us more than any other group. Therefore I have to find a way to construct a bridge between my area of expertise and the part of me that is gay.

Writing this column has proven to be quite a challenge. Not only do I have a deadline, but I also have difficulty writing something that I think will interest TNG's readership at large. What do you think Dispatches should become and where should it go?

Keeping in mind that I am both an urban planner and a gay man, what should the balance be? Do you value a policy discussion or personal dialogue here? What topics would you like to see covered?

I look forward to your comments. Thanks for reading.

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That...

This week, Dispatches reflects upon a recent article in the Washington Post. With actors kissing actors, the media seems obsessed with finding out how gross it really is. Matt' also blogs at tracktwentynine.blogspot.com.

I still haven't seen the movie "Milk." I've been meaning to for a while. In fact, I was in San Francisco when it debuted at the Castro Theater, although I didn't find out about that until the following morning, in the Chronicle. But last week, my boyfriend and I went downtown to one of (only) two theatres in metropolitan Washington that is screening the film. The woman in front of us in line got the last two tickets.

So I still haven't seen it. This weekend, I'm going to get there an hour and a half early, since 45 minutes isn't apparently enough. We weren't the only people turned away, either. I think the movie theater could make some more money with additional screenings, but supply and demand isn't the subject of this column.

Kissing is.

Today's Washington Post ran with an article on that subject. It responds to the question that everyone in America, apparently, wants to know: what's it like to kiss a guy?

And the title of the article says it all: Why Can't A Kiss Just Be a Kiss?

James Franco has been fielding questions left and right about his on-screen kiss with Sean Penn in Milk. And after reading some of the questions, I agree with the writer. And I'm offended.

First off, I've never been a fan of Letterman. When I do watch late night television--and that's not often--I watch Leno. I always found Letterman to be in bad taste and quite uncomedic. I mean how desperate can you be for jokes when you have to resort to "will it float?" I'll make sure to steer clear from now on.

"I didn't want to screw it up," Franco told Letterman on "Late Show" last week.

"See, if it's me, I'm kind of hoping I do screw it up," Letterman shot back. "That's what you want, isn't it?"

"To screw it up?" Franco asked.

"I mean, do you really want to be good at kissing a guy?" Letterman said as his audience howled with delight.

Well, yes, Mr. Letterman. I suppose an actor playing the role of a gay man would actually want to be good at it--that's what it means to be a good actor, to be good at portraying something you aren't. And what's wrong with that? Is James Franco suddenly to be shunned because he didn't vomit afterwards?

Mr. Letterman might have been making light of the situation the only way he knows how, but his tasteless jokes suggest something more. They suggest that there's something to be horrified about for any straight actor handling this situation.

The article's author, Hank Stuever, makes this point very poignantly.

Underlying the questions (and the answers) is this notion that a gay kissing scene must be the worst Hollywood job hazard that a male actor could face, including stunt work, extreme weather or sitting through five hours of special-effects makeup every day. We live comfortably, if strangely, in a pseudo-Sapphic era in which seemingly every college woman with a MySpace page has kissed another girl for the camera; but for men who kiss men, it's still the final frontier.

There's a whiff of discomfort of the Seinfeldian, "not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-it" variety. It's a post-ironic, post-homophobic homophobia, the kind seen most weeks in "Saturday Night Live" sketches or in any Judd Apatow movie.

To put it in perspective for those of you who bat for the other team (after all that's how it appears from my dugout), the article entices the reader to think about how it must feel for those of us in the GLBT community:

"No one ever asks Neil Patrick Harris what it's like to play a straight guy who sleeps with lots of women" on the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother," Scholibo says. "No one ever asks him how 'gross' it is to kiss a woman."

And from personal experience, it is gross. I don't know why. It just is. It always has been. But I don't expect my heterosexual readers to agree with me. And that's fine.

Perhaps the most mature of comments I've heard on the topic come from (heterosexual) "Brokeback Mountain" star Jake Gyllenhaal, who talks about his on-screen kisses in "Brokeback" by saying it's "like doing a love scene with a woman I'm not particularly attracted to."

Exactly. At least one good thing's come out of all this:

I can finally stop saying to Letterman, "I wish I knew how to quit you." (Image from washingtonpost.com)

Read More......

Dispatches from Left Field: Out in the Family

In his newest installment in the “Dispatches from Left Field” column on TNG, Matt looks at the significance of family values in the context of holidays, American culture, and recent political events. Matt is a graduate student at the University of Maryland and also blogs at tracktwentynine.blogspot.com.

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving and a safe Black Friday. I intended to write on this topic last week, but decided to use last week’s column to respond to issues about the gayborhood.

Families have always been an important part of the American mindset. Since the founding of this nation, the family unit has been dominant across the land. And while the family has undergone changes over the past 232 years, we still think mainly of family on the most American of holidays, Thanksgiving.

Originally started as a harvest festival and celebration of deliverance in the New World, the holiday has morphed into a kickoff for the Christmas shopping season and orgy of gridiron rivalries (way to go Yellow Jackets!). But it’s still a time for being with family and friends, still a time for eating traditional delicacies, and still a time of remembering those things that we are thankful for.

However, I imagine that for many gays, Thanksgiving does not come without some trepidation. The first Thanksgiving after I came out was fraught with tension, and I curtailed my trip home. While my relationship with my parents has improved since then, I’m sure that for many the tension is real and continuing.

For those of us who are out in our families, there can be awkward questions and disapproving looks, but for those among us who haven’t yet come out to our families the pressure can very well be overwhelming.

There are some in America who rail against the “Gay Agenda” and rally support for family values. These groups have taken up arms against the gay community in fighting the culture wars. Since the mid-1970s, their movement has gained steam and ours has not always been able to answer their volleys effectively.

They charge that we are out to destroy the American family, but they hold fast to an outdated concept of the family. Indeed, it seems that it is their goal to destroy all but what they consider to be an appropriate family unit. For their attacks have succeeded in slowing the tide of acceptance for the gay community, and in that, they have also succeeded in keeping many gays silent.

But we too are family members, and by hindering understanding, social conservatives, like those who fought to pass Proposition 8, are damaging our familial relationships. The fear and hatred that their movement abides for the gay community not only drives wedges between parents and children, sisters and brothers, and between friends, it also condemns many to a life spent in the proverbial closet.

While the battle for gay rights has often been fought over legislation, there have also been many casualties. One of the most notorious of these was the assassination of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. He was the first openly gay man to win public office in the United States, doing so in 1977. The following year he was assassinated in City Hall by a fellow supervisor. In a prophetic statement, he recorded a tape to be played in the event of his assassination, saying “If a bullet should go through my head, let that bullet go through every closet door.”

I don’t know if Milk understood the stakes in his fight for gay rights, but his statement suggests that he did know that there were those who would try and silence him. He also knew that the only way to triumph was to defeat silence. Less than three weeks before his assassination, he made a speech in which he declared:

“Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize we are indeed their children, we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo, will be destroyed once and for all.”

I believe that public opinion in the United States is beginning to swing our way. Gay marriage is only a matter of time, but that is little consolation. In the words of William Gladstone, “Justice delayed, is justice denied.” But if our victory is not yet complete, it’s because we have allowed ourselves to be silenced by those family-destroying “family values” voters.

I think it is time that we in the gay community changed tacks. We can no longer wait for our rights to be granted. Even if the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice, that is no excuse to be silent.

This Thanksgiving, we have much to despair over, but we also have much for which to be thankful. Proposition 8 may have passed, but it didn’t pass by much—and if polls are any indication, the same tide that swept in discrimination in California also swept in a President likely to build bonds between the gay and straight communities. It also seems to have catalyzed the gay community into action once more.

But most importantly, we should be thankful for our families. For despite what those on the right say, the American family is a diverse, many-faceted organism as varied in composition as the people of this great nation. But the gay movement cannot allow us to be silenced anymore—not in the public arena and certainly not in our own families.

There’s a new film out about Supervisor Milk this Thanksgiving. And while I’ve yet to have an opportunity to see it, I think the message that can be gleaned from Milk’s life is that a minority can be oppressed for only as long as it is silent. The healing begins when we raise our voices. Happy Thanksgiving.

Read More......