men working ahead: the politics of road signs

When I passed this sign driving down the hills of Lake Encino in the San Fernando Valley, I actually had to stop, reverse, turn on my hazard lights, get out and take a picture.

I just have so many questions. Who approved a sign that implies either women don't work, or that only men work in road construction? When was this sign first designed? How often are signs updated?

And most importantly, who am I going to have to call to get to the bottom of this?

I know there are some anti-equality mongers who violently hiss that "man" somewhere, somehow includes "woman." This same logic was in heavy circulation prior to 1920; women do not need to vote or hold office because men vote and hold office--and these men represent the interests of women. Hence, man comes to include woman.

Gendered relations of power aside, "Workers Ahead" would actually use less space and less paint. It makes more sense.

Come to find out, I'm not the only person angered by sexist roadside signage. In Atlanta, these signs were covered or replaced after a woman was nearly arrested for spray painting "wo" in front of "men," starting a grassroots campaign.

While some might criticize that a budget crisis is not the time to go on a crusade (signs cost money to replace), equality and dignity are priceless. Tomorrow I am calling the Department of Public Works to figure out against which office my campaign will begin. I'll keep you updated.

whale wars: more than just harpoons

When the Supreme Court ruled that military training trumps protecting whales in a dispute over the Navy's use of sonar in submarine-hunting exercises, it became clear that whales face more danger than harpoons.

While the use of sonar in the water causes bleeding around the brains and ears of the whale, it is also suspected to be a causal factor in the stranding of whales in areas where this testing is conducted.

But the problem is more than sonar. A whale stranding on the beaches of Isla San José occurred near a research ship that had been "dragging an array of powerful underwater air guns that were repeatedly set off the previous morning in the course of seismic tests of the region’s ocean floor."

While the causal relationship between certain underwater technologies and groups of whales that show up dead nearby is not quite an indisputable truth, the suspicion is warranted and logical. New York Times writer Charles Siebert writes:

It might sound like something out of a bad sci-fi film: whales sent into suicidal dashes toward the ocean’s surface to escape the madness-inducing echo chamber that we humans have made of their sound-sensitive habitat.

And let's not forget that they are massive and intelligent creatures:

Whales, we now know, teach and learn. They scheme. They cooperate, and they grieve. They recognize themselves and their friends. They know and fight back against their enemies. And perhaps most stunningly, given all of our transgressions against them, they may even, in certain circumstances, have learned to trust us again.

That's right. For all that humans devastate marine life and degrade essential ecosystems, whales seem to enjoy playing with us.

At precisely the time when you’d expect them to be the most defensive, they’re incredibly social. They’ll come right up to boats, let people touch their faces, give them massages, rub their mouths and tongues.

That really adds a sick, sad twist to the whale wars. Check out the full article

atheism: repping the cause

When a person identifies with a given group--especially any sort of minority--there is (whether it is "fair" or not) a double-burden of representing the whole. I was thinking about this recently when a friend of mine had a bad experience with anti-Prop 8 canvassers. The canvasser rudely refused a $1 donation, insisting that all donations must be made minimally with a symbolic $8. First off, that is just stupid. If every person gave that $1, the campaign would be in great shape. But worse, the cranky canvasser misrepresented a movement about inclusion, equality, and love as dismissive, condescending, and rude. Aside from being in poor taste, it is also in poor campaign strategy.

This brought me back to my own atheist dilemma. As a secular humanist, I encounter all sorts of religious people that feel an unrelenting need to preach to me--even strangers on planes. The problem is, I can't say what I really want to say, because the last thing I would ever want to do is affirm the idea that atheists "can't handle god" or are "close-minded" or "stubborn" or "extremists." In an effort to represent the cause, I have to put up with listening to so much banter. I don't want to go to your seminars "proving" god or read your "science-based" books--not because I am scared of the truth, but because to me, that would be the equivalent of reading objective support for the boogy monster or the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.

I'm a busy person. I have countless other interests. It literally pains me and is a waste of my life force to hear people rationalize god to me. But I feel this pressure and guilt to politely, respectfully, and rationally engage as an atheist and represent my peeps.

Humph. A double-burden and a double-bind.

world powers have climate constipation

The world's most powerful industrial nations and emerging powers met and discussed the climate and reductions in emissions--but no consensus came out. Included in what didn't happen was a proposal dropping emissions 50% by 2050.

The New York Times reports:

The failure to establish specific targets on climate change underscored the difficulty in bridging longstanding divisions between the most developed countries like the United States and developing nations like China and India. In the end, people close to the talks said, the emerging powers refused to agree to the specific emissions limits because they wanted industrial countries to commit to midterm goals in 2020, and to follow through on promises of financial and technological help. full article

Luckily, American officials report that G-8 nations within the discussion have agreed to 2050 reductions, even thought developing countries would not jump on board.

become a fan of The Colonic on Facebook!

Click here to become a fan!

Obama and DOMA: don't get it twisted.

I cross-post my blogs involving trans issues on another blog, where Obama wishy-washy on LGBT issues received criticism. My post negatively--and rightfully--focused on the Obama Administration filing a notice of a motion to dismiss the first same-sex case filed in federal court, thereby upholding DOMA.

While I responded by comment on my guest-post, I wanted to fully address this issue on my own blog with a brand new post. I would like to clarify that what is unacceptable is the reasoning included in the brief.

The Washington Post does a lovely job of summarizing the questionable way in which this matter was handled:

The department could have fulfilled its obligation to defend the nation's laws without repeating ugly reasoning rooted in ignorance.

The Justice Department could have stopped with its sound argument that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not "claim to have plans to seek recognition of their . . . California marriage in another state" and they "do not suggest that they have applied for any federal benefits, much less been denied any at this point." Thus, neither an "imminent injury" nor an "injury in fact" attributable to DOMA has been established. The plaintiffs lack standing. Case closed. That would have been fine with gay rights groups, which viewed Smelt-Hammer as an imperfect vehicle for challenging DOMA's constitutionality. "We had no problem with DOJ getting rid of this case," one legal expert told me. "The plaintiffs didn't tell a good story."

But Justice went further. It cited a 1961 case involving incest (a marriage of an uncle to a niece that was "valid in Italy under its laws") to show that states were not bound to honor "certain marriages performed elsewhere." Read the full article

White House appeal is a no-go

The White House will not appeal a federal court ruling of nearly $500,000 to a Library of Congress hiree who was discriminated against for transitioning.

When Diane--then David--Schroer informed the Library of Congress that she was undergoing surgery to become a female, the Library of Congress rescinded her job offer the next day.

While the Bush Administration argued that this is not an example of illegal discrimination according to the Civil Rights Act, the Obama Administration let the opportunity to appeal expire shortly after welcoming LGBT leaders to the White House and promising more action.

While this may win Obama more favor with the LGBT community, the DailyKos remarks how this victory has flown "under the radar" and is under-reported.

Clinton Climate Initiative

And here I thought it was only Al Gore fighting the good fight.

The Clinton Foundation has taken on a new project, the Clinton Climate Initiative--a business-oriented approach to helping cities reduce their emissions. This includes retrofitting private and public buildings with energy efficient technologies, developing waste management systems that include recycling, composting, and methane capture, as well as implementing optimal transportation systems and street/traffic lights.

Additionally, CCI works to pool purchasing power:

CCI is working to leverage the buying potential of cities throughout the world to achieve favorable pricing on – and thus faster adoption of – energy-efficient and clean energy products and technologies. CCI has negotiated discounted pricing agreements with more than 25 manufacturers of energy-efficient products, including lighting, chillers, solar control window films, and “cool” roofing that will help to lower the costs of building retrofits. CCI has also negotiated discounts on clean technology vehicles, energy efficient street and traffic lights, and other products that will be deployed in cities through CCI programs.

In my last post, I embedded an interview with BC on his project, but I'll embed it here again. My favorite part is when Bill explains:

Much of what we need to do is economical now if we can get organized and get after it. For example, you tell me which is more valuable—forget about climate change: a statement that says “We are going to reduce the AIDS death rate by 15% in the next 10 years.” A statement. Then you have all these meetings and figure out how you are going to do that. Or the establishment of a global fund on HIV and malaria which actually provides funding to keep people alive and reduce the death rate. So it’s fine to have these goals, but I’d like to see the international community focus on mechanisms. For example, if you look at what we did today arguably the most important thing was to get the 5 billion dollars in commitments from the financial institutions, which more than double the size of the market, and then get the commitment from the energy savers to offer performance guarantees, which then made it possible to finance repayment of the bank loans through energy savings lower utility bills every month. And doing that is really really important, and maybe a lot more important than just stating “we’re gunna have a goal here.” You gotta figure out how to get this stuff done. I’d like to get us back in the solutions business.

looking back on Clinton's 1993 energy tax

Andrew Revkin over at the DOT EARTH blog on the NY Times posted a nice throw back to the Clinton years and his attempt at an energy tax. He even included this nifty interview with Bill.



Revkin talks about the differences between the two initiatives:

The 1993 tax was pursued mainly as a source of revenue to cut the deficit, not a means of reducing American dependence on foreign oil and cutting risks of dangerous climate change. But there is one similarity. Democrats, particularly from coal states, helped set the stage for the failure of the 1993 tax, according to various experts, and according to Mr. Clinton. He touched on this in the interview. Democrats from states that produce or depend on fossil fuels have been slow to buy into the climate bill. Check out the article.

Thomas Friedman on ACES

In his article The cap-and-trade bill is a mess; here's why Congress must approve it, Thomas Friedman expresses his utter dislike for ACES (and calls American youth to action) but insists that it must pass in the Senate. Why?

Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions.

The next step is to strengthen the bill--but at least not weaken it--in the Senate. And to do so, Friedman says we need the support of three parties: Republicans, Obama, and the people. On Republicans, Friedman asks,

Does the GOP want to be the party of sex scandals and polluters or does it want to be a partner in helping America dominate the next great global industry: ET -- energy technology?

The funny part is that the GOP has an eco-friendly past. T.F. recalls Teddy and the national park system, the Nixon Administration which created the Clean Air Act and the EPA, and the Rio Treaty of 1993 signed by George Bush to protect bio-diversity.

Friedman speculates on Obama (who holds secret meetings with coal companies and blatantly attempts to hide them cough cough):

I also hope we will hear more from Barack Obama. Something feels very calculating in how he has approached this bill, as if he doesn't quite want to get his hands dirty, as if he is ready to twist arms in private, but not so much that if the bill goes down he will get tarnished.

That is no way to fight this war. Mr. Obama is going to have to mobilize the whole country to pressure the Senate -- by educating Americans, with speech after speech, about the opportunities and necessities of a serious climate/energy bill. If he is not ready to risk failure by going all out, failure will be the most likely result.

And my favorite part, We the People:

Attention all young Americans: Your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody's face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon. That will get the Senate's attention. Play hardball or don't play at all.

Read the full article. It's a good one.

LA vegan restaurants not all so vegan

Thanks to Torey Van Oot for sending me this not-so-promising investigation into LA vegan restaurants.

Two vegan bloggers used their own money to test 17 restaurants, with only 10 passing as vegan.

Winners include Flore, Vinh Loi Tofu, Truly Vegan, Vegan Glory, Vegan Express, Vegan Plate, Real Food Daily, M Cafe, Native Foods and Leaf Raw Cuisine.

Vegan House, Lotus Vegan, California Vegan, LA Vegan and Green Leaves Vegan had either egg, casein, or both.

Check out the detailed report

Call to action: keep the Capitol Visitor Center free of religious engravements

The Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy is launching a campaign against House Concurrent Resolution 131 (H. Con. Res. 131), which would engrave in the new Capitol Visitor Center the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto "In God We Trust."

According to CFI:

The Pledge of Allegiance and the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum (“out of many, one”) were unnecessarily altered during the 1950s in an ill-conceived effort to make religious minorities feel like outsiders to the national community.

By the way, confusing church and state is not free. This project costs an estimated $100,000 taxpayer dollars, is unnecessary, and alienating to secular Americans.

Tell your representative this is a lame and offensive waste of money by clicking here, or calling the office.