In fact, there has been almost no media coverage of the Duncan Plaza occupation since its commencement ten days ago. Critics of the #occupywallstreet movement still insist that it lacks momentum, though in just under a month there have arisen solidarity occupations in over 1,500 cities worldwide on each habitable continent on the planet, only 100 of which are in the United States. The media continues to will its own confusion about the movement’s purpose, though this is articulated daily. The revolution, apparently, will emphatically not be televised, though it will be live streamed, blogged, Tweeted, uploaded, and shared. These are our tools of dissemination. When the media fails us, we must make our own media. We are our own journalists. We are our own pundits. We must make ourselves heard.

If you have occupied, marched or raised a fist in solidarity with our brothers and sisters on Wall Street, share your experience, your photographs, your videos. Make known your participation. Show us your face, broadcast your grievances, evidence your unrest. The revolution will not be silenced. We must raise our voices in resistance.

I marched in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement on October 15^th, 2011, the Global Day of Action in New Orleans, Louisiana. Here is what it looked like:

The evacuation was initiated by the park’s owners, Brookfield Properties, who had deemed the conditions in the park “unsanitary” and “unsafe.” Brookfield’s CEO, Richard Clark, had written to police commissioner Ray Kelly requesting police support for the dispersal of all varieties of unsightly rubbish. Fearing that the “temporary” evacuation might quickly become permanent, protesters promised peaceful resistance, planning to form a human chain around the perimeter of the park before its scheduled tidying at 7:00 am on Friday morning.

Bloomberg’s announcement was distinctly threatening for a number of reasons, not least of which that the occupation has foremost converted Zuccotti Park into a living space with a group of sanitation workers whose charge is to maintain the health of the park. As blogger and Wall Street occupier J.A. Myerson indicates, “Anyone who has spent time there (Mayor Bloomberg and Brookfield ownership have not) knows that there is a constant ongoing effort to keep the place clean: sweeping, tidying, removing trash, &c.” There is simply no need for such an interruptive measure.

Secondly, as Myerson points out, similar “cleanup” efforts have a long history of instigating the total dispersion of protests and occupations. We need not burden our minds to recall the employment of this same measure by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker when his capitol building became cluttered with union workers. It was also no comfort to Wall Street occupiers to recall that when a similar cleanup effort was supported by police in Spain this spring, the confrontation ended in bloodshed.

To top it all, if the eagerness of the city to comply with corporate interest seemed suspicious, that may be because the Mayor’s office is literally in bed with the company that owns the park. Bloomberg’s live-in girlfriend sits on the board of Brookfield Properties.

Needless to say, sleep must have been difficult for those on Wall Street. However, by the time the sun had risen, calls for cleaning supplies and able bodies had been thoroughly answered. Thousands of occupiers filled Zuccotti Park.  The square was flooded with brooms, mops, and new faces, tidying the park for the arrival of the NYPD. Moveon.org had circulated a petition to be sent to Mayor Bloomberg requesting the desertion of the evacuation plan. Echoes of solidarity had rung out across the world.

At 6:20 am, forty minutes before the scheduled evacuation, Bloomberg and Brookfield backed down.

Deputy Mayor Caswell Holloway issued this statement:

“Late last night, we received notice from the owners of Zuccotti Park—Brookfield Properties—that they are postponing their scheduled cleaning of the park, and for the time being withdrawing their request from earlier in the week for police assistance during their cleaning operation. Our position has been consistent throughout: the City’s role is to protect public health and safety, to enforce the law, and guarantee the rights of all New Yorkers. Brookfield believes they can work out an arrangement with the protesters that will ensure the park remains clean, safe, available for public use and that the situation is respectful of residents and businesses downtown, and we will continue to monitor the situation.”

The New York Times described the motivations for the postponement:

Behind the scenes, interviews suggested, the change in course was fueled by an intensifying sense of alarm within city government, shared even among some of those who work for Mr. Bloomberg, that sending scores of police officers into the park would set off an ugly, public showdown that might damage the reputation of the city as well as its mayor.

Bloomberg has stated that Clark’s decision was influenced by pressure from elected officials who had been calling Clark throughout the night, saying, in summary, “If you don’t stop this we’ll make your life more difficult.” Daniel Squadron, a state senator, had spoken with the Brookfield CEO four times throughout the evening, telling him, “The plan is bad for protesters’ First Amendment rights and bad for the community.” Just before midnight, Clark wrote an email to Holloway, saying, “Based on input from many, we have decided to postpone the cleaning operation for Zuccotti Park. Accordingly, we do not require the assistance of NYPD.”

This is nothing short of a triumph.

It has been said that the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks focus, purpose and strength. Yet, in each day of the nearly month-long occupation, the intentions of the movement have been made clear. If you don’t know what the movement wants, you are not listening. Alan Grayson summarized it this way:

“They’re complaining that Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody’s held responsible for that. Not a single person’s been indicted or convicted for destroying twenty percent of our national net worth accumulated over two centuries. They’re upset about the fact that Wall Street has iron control over the economic policies of this country, and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, and the other party caters to them as well.”

Chris Hedges summarized it this way:

“They know precisely what they want; they want to reverse the corporate coup that’s taken place in the U.S. and rendered the citizenry impotent and they won’t stop until that happens. And frankly if we don’t break the back of corporations we’re all finished anyway since we’re rapidly trashing the ecosystem on which the human species depends for survival. This is literally a fight for life—it’s that grave, it’s that serious.”

The President of the United States summarized it this way:

“I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel that we have the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across Main Street. And yet you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place.”

Their intentions can no longer be unclear.

The movement has also been criticized for being insignificant, yet there are, at the time of writing, solidarity movements in 1,567 cities worldwide. The movement can no longer be dismissed but by those who seek to perpetuate their own ignorance.

On Friday we witnessed the power of solidarity in the face of aggression and the victory of peaceful activism over forces that would seek to suppress it. The voice of the people was raised and it was heard. There can be no greater inspiration than this. The occupiers risked their safety, perhaps more than ever, facing the threat of a police force that has already bullied and brutalized them. They have been beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested, and yet they stood their ground. Their patience and dedication was rewarded. On Friday morning, nonviolent activism faced a very real and very grave threat, and on Friday morning it won. Long live the occupation.

The first interesting clue to finding out the reasons for the term comes when Touré cites Michael Eric Dyson’s three primary dimensions of blackness:

Dyson defines three primary dimensions of Blackness. He calls them accidental, incidental, and intentional but I prefer to call them introverted, ambiverted, and extroverted. The introverted (or accidental) mindset is about perhaps a more private relationship with Blackness. Dyson says it’s “I’m American, I’m a human being, I happen to be Black. By accident of my birth I am Black. It just happened that way.” He gives Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice as celebrity examples. Ambiverted (or incidental) Blackness refers to having a more fluid relationship with it: Blackness is an important part of them but does not necessarily dominate their persona. Dyson says it’s “people who more completely embrace Blackness—they aren’t trying to avoid it—but that ain’t the whole of their existence. I love it but it doesn’t exhaust me.” In this group he places Barack Obama, Colin Powell, and Will Smith. “Then there’s intentional [or extroverted] Blackness,” Dyson said. “I be Black, that’s what I do, that’s what my struggles are about.” This is Malcolm X, Dr. King, Jim Brown, Jay-Z.

These are rather useful—if somewhat simplistic—dimensions of blackness. They are very useful for categorizing certain ways in which blackness is perceived in America. Whether they really are applicable as dimensions of blackness that black people fit into in reality is another story. It is precisely this sort of reductive postulation that proves to be the book’s Achilles heel. Either, as Touré states earlier, black people come in all different shapes and sizes and cannot be boiled down into “this is black” and “this is not black,” or there is some rubric of general identification for  blackness in America. While Who’s Afraid . . . purports to be championing the first position, it spends most of its time casually switching sides in the debate. In fact, scant paragraphs after being quoted describing these three basic kinds of blackness, Dyson actually explains that black people move through these “dimensions” freely depending on the situations they find themselves in. Specifically, that black people “vacillate among the modes depending on what we need. When you deal with multiple audiences you have to pivot around different presentations of blackness.” So even at the outset, it’s not clear which way the book really wants to go with this race theory.

Still, despite its amorphous first principles, the search for a clear understanding of post-Blackness throughout the book is wonderfully interesting. One of the most interesting devices Touré uses is the wealth of information he got from interviewing numerous Black celebrities, artists, and academics to pinpoint how they view blackness now. If nothing else, there are mesmerizing ideas and stories being put forth by, to name a quick few, politician Harold Ford Jr, writer Malcolm Gladwell, comedian Paul Mooney, and satirist Aaron McGruder. His list of interviewees is actually a who’s who of accomplished black Americans—Not all of whom, I suspect, would consider themselves post-black. Nonetheless, their thoughts on what it means to be black are worth deep consideration.

The most interesting celebrity case in the book is that of comedian Dave Chappelle, who actually wasn’t interviewed for the book for some reason. Most of the cast and people behind the scenes of the now (in)famous Chapelle’s Show are interviewed, and Touré refers to Chappelle as a “post-black king.” Ok, well the theory behind this is that Chapelle’s comedy (and his show, by association) are a perfect example of the kind of comedic commentary that is appreciated in a post-black culture. Now, assuredly, Chappelle and his collaborators were not thinking, “let’s make a post-black sketch comedy show,” they were just trying to make a show that was as funny as possible. What the first episode of Chappelle’s Show does do is declare allegiance to groundbreaking racially conscious comedy. Would I call it post-black? Probably not, but Touré argues that the subject matter of sketches where, for example, Chappelle plays a black Klan member who is unknowingly self-hating is somehow a tie back into his mission statement from before. I don’t really see the logic in that. While I do see how sketches like that (and the famous Wayne Brady episode with its Training Day take-off) illustrate a flexible understanding of what it is to be black, I don’t think it’s really a declaration of some movement. It’s true the comedy moves rather fluidly through Dyson’s aforementioned dimensions of blackness, but I don’t think Chappelle and his writers try to tear down the history of what is perceived of as blackness and replace it with something new. I would argue that the show instead uses the accumulated centuries of blackness to explore what blackness already is. There are no Brechtian moments when the show tries to send a clear sociopolitical message. That would have made the comedy much less effective, in my opinion. What the show does reflect is an honest curiosity about race and identity. It’s groundbreaking because it doesn’t simply say “black people are like this, and white people are like that.” Instead almost every sketch seems to share a questioning spirit. Meaning, the sketches ask why black people feel this way. Why do white people feel this way? Why, in a nation of so much shared history, is there still such an enormous divide between “this” and “that?” And it asks these questions in hilarious ways.

I think it is analyses of the show that depend heavily on a serious socio-racial bent ignore what makes the show so fantastic after the fact. Its in the questions—and not the answers—that the show makes its best offerings. When Prince—whom we think of as a short and fairly effeminate guy—whoops Eddie and Charlie Murphy in a late night game of basketball and then feeds them all waffles, Chappelle isn’t trying to make us see how our preconceived notions of race and identity are wrong. Rather, he’s using what he knows is will surprise us and make us wonder: really?!

Is that what is meant by post-blackness? Because it seems more like delving into the present black identity and using the known discomforts and presumed norms and pressure of being black to find humor. I don’t disagree with Touré that the show is a brilliant piece of art, that the comedy goes beyond the belly-laughs, and that there is a deep sense of race consciousness present in nearly every sketch. But I don’t think Chappelle is the king of post-blackness that Touré makes him out to be. I think Chappelle is a brilliant guy with a great sense of humor and an immense talent for being entertainingly thought-provoking. But any added responsibility for a movement that, at the time, was still nascent—if it existed at all—is a dubious assertion at best. And I think it was wrong-headed to try and portray Chappelle’s eventual leave-taking as being some sort of tuck-and-run maneuver that was the result of hi confronting the “freedom of the post-black era” and being “scared to death.” Chappelle had already been out there on the frontlines of race. I don’t think he had anything to be scared of out there. I reckon only Chappelle truly knows why he left.

All that is preamble though, because the real question is “What is blackness?” I think Touré tries to set up a dichotomy where in the past there was a need (because of all the overt outside pressure) for black people to come together and make a homogenous culture, and that that need forced us to give up some of our individuality in order to stave off cultural extinction. As far as that, I might agree. But as far as trying to say that because the landscape of race and racism has changed the older definitions of blackness are somehow anachronistic—there I have to draw the line. The central chapters of the book revolve around issues of personal identity for Touré and his interviewees. One chapter is centered around an experience in college where, in the middle of a black social situation, another black man said very loudly to him, “Shut up, Touré! You ain’t black!” The chapter explores Touré’s youth as a young black man in sometimes very white environments—particularly school. Now, to that point, I can commiserate.

I spent much of my childhood in non-diverse educational environs. I was able to test into a specialized magnet program when I started school. The program was meant to somehow find and gather bright young minds and put them on accelerated courses of learning. Of course, what it meant, effectively, was that from kindergarten to eighth grade I was always surrounded by white people. Now, much like Touré, I am at pains not to vilify those kids I came up with. At that tender age, they were certainly not to blame for being better equipped and supported at home for things like reading, writing, and arithmetic. This was the late 80s in New York City. The black population was suffering huge losses to drugs, violence, and prison. Many of those people I was in class with have become lifelong friends and the education I received was superior to what I might have been granted otherwise, so I do not begrudge being given the chance to do better. Still, when I was given the choice of choosing to continue in mostly white environments or to attend a school with a much more diverse population, it was a no-brainer. And to this day, I think those first twelve years of the public school experience, of being separated from my cultural brothers and sisters because of something so trivial as test scores, have had an impact on all my days since then.

Like Touré, I lived through galling experiences where I had black people tell me I was “acting white” or “speaking white,” or that I liked or did things that black people didn’t do. Like  Touré, I found those experiences hurtful because, after all, how can I stop being like myself? I didn’t want to end up being what Michael Eric Dyson would call an “accidental” black person. At home, I was steeped in black culture. My parents insisted on augmenting my classwork with extra homework: reading about Crispus Attucks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, Sojourner Truth. Reading Ralph Ellison and Richard Wright. Indeed, I inherited my favorite writer from my mother: James Baldwin. So why, when I was finally reunited with my black peers, was I considered different and/or weird? And it is here that I think Touré and I part ways. It could be a generational thing (he’s about twelve years older than me) or it could just be a matter of perspective. The central chapters of the book, in which Touré and several of his interview subjects describe similar formative experiences, is meant to be a shot across the bow of people who still subscribe to the old notions of what it means to be black in America. They are meant to say, “Hey, we are black and we’re different and many of you tried to dis-include us for that. And now it’s a new day, we’re post-black. We don’t need those tired old requisites anymore.” While that may be a cathartic and liberating argument for a black person who experienced that kind of discomfort to make, I think it just serves to dilute the real issue at hand. For when I was confronted with claims that I wasn’t black enough or wasn’t “down,” I realized that perhaps it was because I had, indeed, been an aberration.

As I said, we’re talking about NYC in the late 80s and early 90s. We’re talking crack epidemic, New Jack City, and Reaganomics. We’re talking about the beginning of the systematic adulteration of black social mobility in America. Perhaps the beginning groundwork for the destruction of class mobility in America. And so here comes this black kid who got lucky and was talented and was in the right place at the right time and got into a specialized program and got all the opportunities a gifted non-black child would. A black child from a two-income household where the parents were former black activists in the 70s, who gave their kids African names and instilled in them a sense of the whole history of black people in America. And then, at the age of fourteen, I showed up for high school with all that as my backstory. I was weird. I was different. That didn’t mean that my new black friends were wrong about me—it meant, to me, that the system, in trying to help me, nearly prevented me from having a genuine black experience. And that is the crux of the entire discussion about blackness: the Black Experience. So I grew into my own. I learned (yet another) code for my code-switching repertoire. I learned about what the world really though black kids were supposed to be able to do. I learned about the pressure of having people be completely clear about their expectation of your failure. And it changed me significantly. That experience, those lessons, and those people (who also have become lifelong friends) have remained with me in all the days since then.

Now, I don’t mean to say that they were right when they said that I wasn’t black. That’d be ridiculous. But we were children then and I think what they meant was “You do not act like a black person. You LOOK like us, but act different and you make us uncomfortable.” And, most beautifully important: “We’re letting you know.” It was frank and hurtful dialogue. But it was also a moment of decision. I was given a choice between blaming them for my awkwardness and being open to the idea that my opportunities had given me certain privileges that most black children didn’t get. I chose the latter.

Touré goes on to describe how, as a fledgling writer in New York City, he faced a lot of (maybe) unconscious  racism from editors who thought he could only write about black culture—things like drugs and rap and so forth. How he had one editor basically tell him that he was good writer, but there was no way he could write about someone like, say, Eric Clapton. I find these stories fascinating — because they mirror my own current experiences.—But I still don’t think they are universal. I don’t think they really form the foundation of something that could universally be called post-blackness. I think the only way Touré’s stories are really universal is the way in which they speak to the pressures and obstacles that one faces when one has black skin, no matter what his or her background may be.

And at this point in the book Touré begins to cite studies about black people that will probably make your skin crawl. Studies about how black men who have youthful (baby) faces are considered less threatening and have a much higher chance of being CEOs of a company in America. About the concept of John Henryism, wherein black people who feel the psychological pressure of stereotypes for their failure subject themselves to deleterious redoubling of effort just to beat what seems unbeatable. Or, more insidiously, the inverse relationship between the GPAs of black students and their number of black friends. Of course, none of these are totally new things, but they do reinforce the systematic nature of race and racism in America. It’s not a simple matter of hate or perceptions of beauty or what-have-you, but something far more pervasive. It is a kind of all-suffusing law of motion. It is a kind of social gravity. And in arguing for that Touré once again undercuts his post-black argument. For when you look at the evidence you can’t deny that this is a shared dementia and that there must be a shared core blackness because of it.

In the end, my problem with Touré’s thesis is that I just think it’s too neat. It’s to clean and clear-cut. I think it’s a lot easier to simply say, “Oh, things were really messy and weird but we’ve dropped the old way and now have this new way that is much simpler: we’re all just who we say we are.” If that was doable, we’d have all done it long ago. But American history is a short but sticky quagmire of that have taken nearly a thousand years to get as messy in most other nations. There is no escaping being black in America, and so those of us who are must live it it. We can choose to live it thinking plurality is the law of the land or we can choose to subscribe to some sort of Dyson-like rubric of kinds of blackness, or we can continue to admit that it’s just about as complicated an issue as humanity has ever created. That the half-measures and little advances and the advent of persons like Barack Obama serve to make it that much more intricately complicated. We can admit that every theory is probably only part of the way the whole thing works. And we can dig for knowledge in the lessons learned in our brief history as a people in order to make informed decisions for the future.

Unlike most cultures, we don’t have thousands of years of history to draw on. In a very real way, the history of black people in America begins, out of nowhere, four or five hundred years ago. And that’s all we’ve really got. There is no single epiphany that can untangle all the knots in that brief history. As America advances, we advance. And people like me, who find themselves weirdly removed from their culture for a while, will have to strive to rejoin the narrative. As post-colonial actors on the American stage, it is the only way to retain sufficient perspective. Progress can’t be a quantum leap. It’s a slow, uncomfortable process. We know that the post-racial thing is utter nonsense. We know that “color-blindness” is not actually progressive, just willfully ignorant. In fact, it is another kind of racism, claiming ignorance. True progress is admitting that there is a norm and contending with it. If, as Touré did, a black person wants to go skydiving or play tennis, they will have to face the fact that most black people don’t have the kind of temporal and financial privileges one needs to do those things. They will have to deal with being black and different (being the Other’s Other, in a sense). And slowly, as more begin to become comfortable with the changes, the changes can become part of the core narrative. But the agents of change can’t try to drag all the rest of blackness with them off a plane. Not gonna happen: that dog won’t hunt.

The books ends with an exploration of how to make more post-black success stories moving forward. Specifically, more Baracks. I like Barack Obama. A lot. But he is not the end-all and be-all of blackness in America. More Baracks? Sure. But that’s no reason to give up on making more Baldwins or Coltranes or Hookses or Malcolm Xs or Melissa Harris-Perrys or, indeed, more Tourés. From my first year college seminars (returning to the lap of liberal whiteness from my black refresher) I recall that Aristotle said “The Good is excellent activity.” I took this to mean that it is not a single thing you do that makes you good, but rather all the things you do. The continuing, ongoing thing. And another Greek gave me “call no man happy ‘til he is dead.” So it must be with blackness. Touré’s book is an excellent installment in the ongoing struggle. I find I disagree with much of it, but I must be honest and say it ain’t over yet. When all is said and done he could be right. Whether what is happening now is post-blackness or just blackness on the move, I can’t say. I’m still working it out.

I was first made aware of Occupy Wall Street during the Troy Davis vigil a few weeks back. Many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters took a break from the occupation to join in the Davis march. After years of Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts, the Patriot Act and Katrina, the Troy Davis execution was the straw that broke my complacency. For a moment, it seemed that public dissent would—had to—dictate the staying of a wrongful execution. Pressure from the populous must be powerful enough to overthrow a tyrannical wrongdoing. When the execution was carried through, we were shocked into the realization that if we do not do our best to change the system, we are complicit in its mistakes.Prior to Occupy Wall Street, the question often posed to my generation was, “Why are you so damn apathetic?” I have always disagreed with the use of this term. Splintered acts of civil society have planted seeds of change for years in the form of non-profits, activist councils, and community outreach programs. To see this civil society in action, you can protest the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, attend one of the nation-wide AIDS walks, participate in NOLA rebuilding efforts, stand with Planned Parenthood, or ask your peers how they expressed their democratic vigilance pre-Occupy Wall Street. You may be surprised by the dedication and span of activist endeavors you find.

The women in my holding cell are a perfect example: among us were activists for women’s rights, labor rights, Middle East conflict resolution, sexual and racial equality—even animal rights. These women, like so many others, were not apathetic up until Occupy Wall Street emerged for them to strap an empty wagon to. These women (pictured, right) had for years exhausted efforts to make a difference locally and globally. Choosing a cause has become almost a right of passage for my generation, but these targeted causes can become frustrated when fought in an isolated vacuum.

Occupy Wall Street is not a first plea; it’s just the opposite. It is a coalescence of many preexisting movements that have gone unacknowledged in the splintered excess of the information age. We are bombarded daily with online petitions, fundraisers, horrific news stories. But for every action we take, we are thwarted by questions and doubt about where our pleas go. We have even attempted protests before—war protests that seemed almost quaint in the era of Bush and terror as law. The eight years of the Bush administration were extremely disheartening to many in my generation. For those of us who were unable to vote in one or both of those elections, wading through the administration was systematically discouraging.

We are not apathetic. We are exhausted.

Though Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for its “buck shot” approach, the diversity of goals contributes to the ongoing dialogue. Here is an opportunity to recognize that we are all interconnected, as are the issues we are passionate about, and that many of our struggles have been hurt by the perpetuation of corporate greed as law. The question “What do YOU stand for” is different than “What is Occupy Wall Street founded on?” But to its credit, Occupy Wall Street has adapted to welcome its new participants. The march on City Hall last Wednesday played almost like a College Fair of activist causes, with cries ranging from economic critique to funding for AIDS research. While these may appear separate on the surface, all these issues connect back to the problematic distribution of resources in our country, and a systemic protection of inequality.

In the end, perhaps Occupy Wall Street is about the ongoing reshaping of our country’s dialogue. It is this amazing competency of communication that makes Occupy Wall Street so important and unique. Here we are presented with a real opportunity to hold discussions between Ron Paul supporters, Obama loyalists, and radical socialists. Maybe we have something in common after all: this is a country full of opinions and power struggles, and it is necessary to acknowledge and respect this constant back-and-forth. We all want to be heard—even if that means chatting to each other over donated pizza in Liberty Plaza. We are reaching out from the isolation of family dinner tables and beers with friends and blogospheres and tweets. That Occupy Wall Street has sparked face-to-face discussions with people we normally pass without words, even our arresting officers, is exactly the reaching across the aisle we’ve been working towards.

On one hand, you have the detractors—or, in colloquial-speak, the haters. This camp, which includes famous funny person Julie Klausner, views Zooey as the spokeswoman for a certain type of particularly saccharine adult girlishness. In an article republished on Jezebel, Klausner writes:

It’s like how we used to hide our interests around boys (“I hate math! It’s so hard!”). Now, instead, we’re singing the praises of Skittles Sours instead of emulating, say, Kathleen Turner? Barbara Stanwyck? Any female lead from the pre-awkward era who stuck out her tits and didn’t talk like Rocky from the Bullwinkle cartoons? You realize the Harajuku girls who danced behind Gwen Stefani, are like “seriously, bitches?” And then they go to book club.

It’s all to the same ends—women are trying to broadcast to men that we won’t bite their dicks off. It’s just that now, instead of lipstick, we’re wearing glittery lip gloss, or that shit you get in the drug store that tastes like Dr. Pepper.

The comments on this article are particularly telling. Hoards of Etsy-lovin’, bird jewelry-wearin’ feminists come out to deny one of Klausner’s main points—that this whole girly girl act is a thing we just put on for the men folk—using purely anecdotal and persona evidence. Now, I have to say I disagree with Klausner on this point as well. I don’t believe the candy-mouthed infant act is necessarily an attempt to get a boyfriend. I do, however, think it’s tied to certain ideals of what a woman should be that aren’t necessarily made for men, but are constructed around a world that is still defined and dominated by certain power dynamics.

The act that Zooey Deschanel appears to perform on a daily basis, the act that The New Girl presents as a way of life, is unabashedly child-like. Though there are plenty of narratives about the grown-up dude bro (see: The Hangover, Parts I & II) and plenty of people worried about the decline of manliness, I find myself far less concerned with the breakdown of the modern man. This is partially because the “fountain of youth” version of masculinity no longer means the man’s a scrub—it’s equally possible that the jeans-clad hipster type is a successful Zuckerberg-in-training, or something equally lauded by society.

However, while you can’t argue that Zooey has got her shit together, the issue is not with whether she plays the part well, or whether she can sell the image in a lucrative way. The question for me—and for Klausner—is whether this version of nonthreatening femalehood is something we do specifically because it is nonthreatening. And, let’s face it, sexualized. We live in a world of Toddlers in Tiaras, where chain stores sell bikinis for seven-year-old girls, where women worship at the altar of anti-aging, injecting chemicals into their jawlines and spending thousands of dollars to do the impossible–reverse the leathery ravages of time.For thousands of years, the barely-pubescent girl was viewed as a highly valuable sexual conquest, a piece of property that could ensure the propagation of male genes. While our modern laws and sensibilities ostensibly reject the idea that a 13-year-old should be viewed as a sexual object, I think we doth protest too much. Kids, like it or not, can be sexual. And while it’s nearly impossible not to notice this, it’s also not necessary to fetishize the “barely legal” look. I believe this version of heterosexual attraction, which demands doe-eyed, big breasted, slight, young-appearing women can’t be simply filed under some dubious “evolutionary biology” heading. I think it still has a lot to do with the patriarchy.

And though he may  not use that word, so does Salon‘s Matt Zoller Seitz. In his review of New Girl, he writes:

If you thought you couldn’t get enough of Zooey Deschanel’s 21st century Diane Keaton routine—the stammering, the fluttery hands, the retro singing, the game-for-anything klutziness—the new Fox sitcom “New Girl” (Tuesdays 9 pm/8 central) will cure you of it. I won’t bore you with analysis of Deschanel as an example of the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” ; if you don’t know what it is already, click here, or watch almost anything Deschanel has ever appeared in, starting with “All the Real Girls” or “Elf.” Suffice to say that if Deschanel didn’t invent the MPDG prototype, she damn sure defined it—and that it might be time to re-tool it, or maybe retire it for a while.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who sees Zooey as a walking, talking epitome of a pixelated trope. Despite her spot on prime-time television, she’s still being sold to us as a subculture hero, an indie rock MPDG who spreads light and unicorns everywhere she goes—all while retaining a certain amount of geek, dork, insider-y appeal. It’s actually quite a feat, when you think about it: the woman manages to walk so many lines—mainstream and subculture, adult and child, pinup girl and physical comedian—that even Johnny Cash would be impressed.

But for me, what it all comes down to is this central divide, one that seems to break apart our acceptable forms of femininity. You’ve got the Klausners and the Clintons of this world on one side, and Zooey and her army of kittens on the other. There is the strong, capable version of womanhood that reeks of Second Wave, and the retro-fun, irony-rich version of grown-up-girl on the other. It may not necessarily be dumbed down, but I can’t shake the sense that there is something lost in all the lightness. Does throwing on a pink babydoll dress actually lessen down our considerable intellect? Of course not. But the things we wear, and the way we present ourselves, send a significant message to the rest of the world. And though many may not want to recognize it—consider the many commenters protesting Klausner’s argument with “but I just really like pink kitten-printed rompers!”—these trends always come from somewhere.

As everyone’s favorite incomprehensible literary theorist Jacques Lacan once argued, there is no outside. We exist within a framework, be it the symbolic, or simply the social order. Lacan believed that all thoughts and actions existed within the symbolic, which was held up like a giant, flimsy tent by the central signifier, which he (fittingly for my argument) called the phallus. But, like all symbols, the tent-pole piece is ultimately, and tragically, empty, lacking in substance—yet still exerting power. The patriarchy works the same way. There is no space truly outside this vast and insidious construct. Our choices, choose-my-choice feminist as they may be, exist within the framework. Rebellions are always rebelling against something.

And at the bottom of this barrel of monkeys lies my point: we really are damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If we enjoy the activities and decorations ascribed to the girly-girl act, we’ll always be damned by more serious types for betraying the sisterhood. But if we jump on the I am Woman Hear Me Roar train, we’ll always be barred from certain freedoms of behavior. Judgment exists all around, and each type of ladyhood is rife with pitfalls. However, until we recognize the fact that this is all an act—as every performance of gender always is—you miss a valuable chance to blur the boundaries. As with all well-dressed straw men, this split is false, and serves to obscure the real problem, which comes with the obsessive labeling, defining, and categorizing our different ways of being female. And while I don’t see a way out of the patriarchal cage, I do think we can skip the name-calling and stop pinning our hopes on one-dimensional images.

And if you are looking for a great, nuanced and funny female lead on the television, may I suggest to everyone Leslie Knope? Any other options are more then welcome, in the comments.

In a Republican presidential “debate” staged this summer by CNN, each of the candidates expressed explicit disinterest in the equality of American citizens. Michele Bachmann stated plainly, “I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.” I suppose the congresswoman may believe what she likes, but her beliefs completely ignore a recent study that showed a 0% abuse rate in lesbian households. This, of course, is compared to a 26% physical abuse rate and an 8% sexual abuse rate in heterosexual households.

When asked whether or not she supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, she answered, “I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law,” which is an incoherent thought. (Of course, however poorly articulated, her stance is made resoundingly clear by the existence of her Christian counseling clinics, wherein homosexuality is treated like a disease.)

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have spoken out in support of a constitutional amendment as well. Herman Cain has said that he believes marriage to be an issue best resolved by individual states, which expresses a troubling prioritization of state rights over human rights. Ron Paul said that he, too, wants federal government out of the marriage debate, suggesting instead that we all go look up “marriage” in a dictionary. Paul then went on to ask, “Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.” Apparently Congressman Paul is unaware that the majority of American citizens do not attend church. In any event, how marriages overseen exclusively by churches would influence taxation, property rights, and child guardianship is beyond the imagination of this author.

Both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have signed a pledge to the National Organization for Marriage that they would seek a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Within the pledge is a promise to elect Supreme Court judges who “reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.” Whatever the Founding Fathers did or did not insert into the constitution is of no consequence. When the Constitution of the United States stands in the way of the equality of its citizens it must be duly amended. Incidentally, the Constitution says nothing at all about marriage. It does, however, say quite a bit about the influence of religion upon legislation.

This should be clear: a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would be a Constitutional amendment to ensure inequality.

Sarah Palin, whose potential candidacy is supposed to be a mystery, said in the same succession of sentences that, having voted for a prohibitive amendment to her Alaskan constitution, “I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” but continued, “I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do.” This is trying to have it both ways and does not make any sense.

There is a bizarre pattern of rhetoric inherent to each of these statements that actually tries to court the gay vote while deeming gay men and women inferior. That Palin can say that she supports a federal amendment securing the inequality of American citizens while simultaneously affirming that she will not “[sit] in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do” is nonsense. When Wolf Blitzer pressed Herman Cain about his professed belief that gay men and women should not have the right to marry, Cain couldn’t even muster the courage to agree with himself, repeating mindlessly that he “supports traditional marriage.” This is laughable cowardice. If anti-equality politicians are uncomfortable expressing their own opinions, perhaps they should change them.

There is an insufferable tendency for those on the Right to ally themselves with the Founding Fathers, which they ostensibly think admirable. However, they do so to the extent that they value some human beings more highly than others. This is not worthy of admiration; it is worthy only of ridicule and scorn. This position is morally indefensible and cannot be reconciled with the tenets of justice, freedom and equality. And for pity’s sake, let us stop invoking the Founding Fathers as unequivocal moral leaders—they were no such thing.

When the argument for inequality stoops lowest, it begins to conduct multiple conversations at once. It is often repeated that the allowance of gay marriage necessitates the allowance of polygamy and the marriage of humans to other non-human animals. These issues are entirely unrelated. Personally, I cannot understand why consenting adult persons should be prohibited from marrying each other, no matter how great in number. On the other hand, that the legal rights of gay men and women would be compared to those of unthinking animals is so fundamentally offensive that I cannot bear to offer a rebuttal.

Advocacy of this particular inequality is Heterosupremacy and it must be regarded as such. Of course, Heterosupremacy is not exclusively a Right Wing cause. President Obama shares the spineless view that the right of consenting adult human beings to marry is an issue best addressed by individual states. There is one aspect of this debate that the Right has correct: this is a federal issue. No state in this union should have the right to devalue any citizen under the law.

Equality is a simple concept. It does not operate on a sliding scale. There is no such thing as more equal or less equal. There is no middle ground. There is equality, or there is inequality. Any denial of equality is an endorsement of inequality. We must no longer elect representatives that advocate the supremacy of one group over another. I challenge any reader to illuminate the differences between prohibiting marriage between people of the same sex and prohibiting marriage between people of color. Lest I be recommended to some dictionary or other, I would warn that such a suggestion prioritizes the integrity of linguistics over the rights of human beings. In any event, I value the definition of “equality” far more highly than I value the definition of “marriage.” Equality is self-evident. Equality is unalienable. Equality is for all.

Of course, one must confront the fact that the holy books of Islam are particularly good for making terrorists. Many from within and without the faith have tried desperately to separate Islam from the motivations of its most radically devout followers, but this has proved both negligent and futile because it elects to ignore the confessed faith of the aggressors, the distinctly religious claims made thereby, and the litany of supportive passages in their holy books. This useless endeavor is often undertaken by those trying to distinguish “Muslims” from “fundamentalists” or “extremists” in an attempt to preserve the ostensible integrity of the faith. The glaring logical inconsistency is that fundamentalists, by definition, do not extrapolate, interpret, or rewrite—they simply believe what they read. If one struggles to understand just what motivated these religious zealots to turn planes into bombs, one need look no further than their holy books.

Subsequently, there has commenced a bizarre and unsubstantiated verbal war between one camp which would deem every disciple of Islam a potential human bomb and another which would remove religion from the discussion entirely. This argument is meaningless because it ignores what should be an obvious and vitally inseparable pair of facts: 1. Al-Qaeda is a militant Islamist organization, and 2. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. That these statements can coexist in truth is attested by all available evidence. Regarding the former, al-Qaeda has made no secret of its religious foundations throughout the entirety of its 22-year history. One may disregard this if one likes, I suppose, but I cannot make out the benefit. The continued existence of the author, the reader, and the remainder of humanity should suffice to confirm the latter.

This problem is distinctly linguistic. Distinctions must be made between “Islam,” “Muslims,” and “terrorists.” The idle conflation of these terms has directly caused the deaths of thousands of our brothers and sisters across the world. Short-cutting language in this fashion has consequences, and a laziness in language is often symptomatic of a laziness in thought, which is exponentially more devastating. Imprecision of this kind, whether unintentional or, in its most vicious form, deliberate, leads to incredible misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It is ambiguity of this kind that provides the justification and framework for the sort of unfounded babble spouted daily by uninformed bigots on both sides of the podium. Linguistic and intellectual imprecision on this point has inspired a decade of ignorance and hate, stifled the religious freedom and culture of millions of American citizens, and stumbled our country into more than one gratuitous war.

Islam is a wicked and silly religion, though certainly no more wicked and silly than the remaining Abrahamic cults. The books of Christianity and Judaism are irredeemably violent as well (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Book of Job destroy all hope of a “loving” Old Testament god; and Jesus, after introducing the enduring vision of hell, has few kind words to say to those who don’t believe his outrageous claim to divinity), and thankfully most believers in each case have employed their evolutionarily inherited faculties of reason and morality rather than accept the spiteful ramblings of sadistic nonsense. For this reason we cannot identify a person’s moral character by identifying his or her religion. We rational thinkers from within and without the faith community must be diligent in taking no issue with a person of faith because of their holy book until that person takes issue with us because their holy book commands it. Until then, we must recognize that the issues we have are ideological issues and, while of dire importance, can only be resolved (or at least better understood) through sober and intelligent discourse. In lieu of this ability we must judge one’s actions when they are taken.

There are vast numbers of intelligent, critical Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. that value the tenets of the Enlightenment, believe in rigorous intellectual debate, and engage in an ongoing, informed dialogue between the secular and religious communities. Even those that do not subscribe to these principles specifically or are not afforded by birth or effort the opportunity to do so largely abstain from religious violence anyhow. We must be thankful that there exist such Muslims as those who publicly denounce their book’s more violent commandments (while we solemnly wish that there were more who would do the same).

The books of Islam command violence. However, to claim that “Muslims are violent” because Islam is violent would be a dangerous inaccuracy. This sentiment is no different from deeming Jews violent because of the butchery commanded in the Torah and it should be ridiculed and dismissed as readily. The true aim of rational, educated critics of religion (especially including those within the religious community) must be bent toward the source. Islam is a target worthy of dedicated and merciless criticism. However, it must be remembered that Islam is an ideology, not a person, or even a group of people. Critics of Islam (who should, by my reckoning, likewise be critics of all religions, for I don’t see how one of these wretched fictions is more appealing or reasonable than another) must be careful to limit the instruments of their assault to language and thought, which, for the record, are far more explosive weapons than bombs.

Let us be precise when we say that this is, above all, a war of ideas, and that it can only be effectively fought as such. If our target is religion, let it remain so and let us aim our words and pens well. Our target must not transform to include all those of faith. Earthly punishment can only be doled to earthly creatures, and we must reserve it for those deserving. We cannot punish an idea but with reason, and let us stand by this. Precision on this issue, both linguistic and intellectual, is paramount. To mistake an idea for an action, or one’s holy book for one’s character, can be, as we have long seen, fatal. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make because it not only gets us nowhere, it undoes progress.

This article was adapted from another entitled “The Importance of Precision,” published on September 11^th, 2010 at The Clam Room.

Over the last few months, an array of Republican presidential candidates has confessed skepticism about one of science’s most well established facts. Texas Governor Rick Perry told a South Carolina supporter last Friday that “God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don’t know. But I know how it got started.” This came just one day after he told a woman and her child in New Hampshire,

How old do I think the earth is? You know what, I don’t have any idea. I know it’s pretty old so it goes back a long, long way. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long…how old the earth is. Your mom was asking about evolution and it’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution in our public schools, because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.

Let’s take this in parts.

“How old do I think the earth is? You know what, I don’t have any idea. I know it’s pretty old so it goes back a long, long way.” Let us be thankful that the Governor does not write the textbooks that he so hesitantly distributes.

“I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long…how old the earth is.” We do, in fact, know the age of the earth. Any glance at a textbook or idle wandering through a museum will confirm that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. (“Pretty old,” indeed.)

“Your mom was asking about evolution and it’s a theory that’s out there.” This seems a bit of an understatement, does it not?

“It’s got some gaps in it.” I certainly hope the gaps the Governor is referring to are not gaps in the fossil record, because complaints about missing fossils have been exploded consistently and thoroughly by every evolutionary biologist who has written on the subject. Every fossil ever found has been discovered precisely where it would need to be were evolution a fact. I would challenge the Governor to produce any legitimate piece of fossil evidence that contradicts Darwin’s theory. Lest the Governor echo the tired moan that there is not enough fossil evidence, I repeat my suggestion that he visit any natural history museum at all.

“In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution in our public schools, because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.” This, if true, would make the young man demonstrably smarter than Governor Perry, which should surprise no one.

Of course, Governor Perry follows from a long tradition of willful ignorance. The Governor’s opponent, Representative Michele Bachmann, blathered incompetently on the very same subject earlier this year. Following the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, Representative Bachmann told reporters:

I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.

What Representative Bachmann fails to understand is that intelligent design is completely devoid of science. All science has been put on the table and literally every detail ever observed verifies Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution is not a “scientific issue,” it is a scientific fact, which has no “side” on which to “come down.” To claim that there is “reasonable doubt on both sides” is an outright falsehood.

In 2006, Representative Bachmann claimed that “there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact… Hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design.” No such controversy exists, and when challenged to produce the name of any Nobel Prize laureate who believes in the argument from design, the Representative instead answered a question that no one asked.

Much of the confusion seems to come from a misunderstanding of the word “theory.” While “theory,” in the common sense, can refer to a speculation, a hypothesis or a conjecture, each of which requires no demonstrable evidence or testable predictions, in the scientific sense—in which the word is used in “the theory of evolution,” say—it refers to a hypothesis that makes testable predictions which have been verified by an overwhelming array of factual evidence. A theory in this sense is a hypothesis for which the truth has been so well demonstrated that it has no legitimate equal.

Some are further confused by the concept of a scientific “law,” imagining that if evolution were so thoroughly established that it would become “the law of evolution.” This is a misapprehension. Theories do not become laws. There is no direct progression between them. A law is a fact which describes a body of observations, such as Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton observed an unerring truth and used his law to describe it. However, his law does not explain gravity. This is the work of a theory. While Newton’s Law describes gravity, we use Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to explain it. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity will never become Einstein’s Law of Relativity. This would have no significant meaning.

Critics repeat tediously that evolution is “just a theory,” which, I suppose, is meant to imply that theories and facts are mutually exclusive. The problem here is that the word “theory” is being used in the improper sense, rendering the whole idea meaningless. That evolution is a theory in no way precludes it from being a fact. Douglas Futuyma, an American biologist who has written textbooks on the subject, describes a fact this way: “A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.” The National Academy of Sciences published a book about evolution, in which was written the following:

Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

Let it be said again: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a fact.

Governor Perry and Representative Bachmann, among many others, have denied the undeniable. Such driveling nonsense might make for an amusing farce if it were not so pervasively dangerous. To disregard such an exhaustively demonstrated scientific fact as evolution reveals either a critical distrust of evidence in favor of baseless speculation, or a passionate insistence upon ignorance. Either of these qualities should immediately disqualify any candidate for the leadership of this or any country.

The President must routinely consider the advice of experts in various fields, from foreign policy to environmental policy to healthcare to economics to war. For the President to neglect the consensus of those respective advisors (consensuses which are rarely so immovable or factually substantiated as the consensus in the scientific community surrounding evolution) would be intolerable and grave. If the President of the United States can disregard a basic fact about the development of organic life in the face of literally mountainous corroborating evidence, how can we expect him or her to be able to reason soundly enough to effectively lead a country? Candidacy for the President of the United States must be conditional upon the ability to distinguish evidence from mythology, the appreciation of overwhelming expert opinion and, consequently, the acknowledgement of evolution as scientific fact.

Free speech is an integral component of diverse, free, vibrant, and open societies.  But free speech also has its limits.  Speech is powerful: it can enliven and awaken the broad spectrum of human emotion; and it can encite action, both positive and profoundly destructive.  Some of the most despotic and destructive political regimes the world has seen gained their power not through military might, but through powerful rhetoric—words used to manipulate emotion and action.  The same could be said of many of our most valued advocates for social justice; anyone who has read or heard the speeches of Rev. Martin Luther King cannot deny the power of his words to move and motivate.  As a law student, as an advocate of civil rights and freedoms, I am loathe to put limits on free speech.  But there is a point in which speech can incite dangerous action.

Even in our country, where we worship at the temple of the First Amendment, there is a point at which the safety of society trumps an individual’s right to free speech.   Colloquially, this is often summarized by the metaphor of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, which references the majority Supreme Court decision penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the case of Schenck v. United States (1919).  The Schenck case remains controversial, as plaintiff Charles Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing flyers and speaking against the military draft.  Justice Holmes, in his majority opinion, stated:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force…The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

This standard set by the Court in the Schenck case was overturned in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, and a new standard for proscribing free speech was instituted, and still stands today.  The new standard, called the Brandenburg Test, prevents government from curtailing First Amendment rights unless  the speech is (1) “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) is “likely to incite or produce such action.”  This standard is more strict, meaning that it is tougher for the government to curtail First Amendment rights.  The problem is, one often doesn’t know what speech will result in “producing imminent lawless action” or is likely to produce such action; often we do not know until after crimes have been committed.  There are people out there who will construe and interpret even the most innocent of statements in incredibly destructive ways.  Anders Breivik is someone who took an ideology rife with extremist rhetoric and used it to justify his horrific actions.

The nativisit, nationalist, and xenophobic attitudes espoused by Breivik are not unique, and beliefs such as his seem to be gaining steam in Europe and America.  Nationalist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Islamic political groups are gaining political ground across Europe, and the internet has provided a fertile ground for extremists to espouse their beliefs.  While official representatives of these far-right political parties have largely renounced Breivik’s actions, no one admits that their rhetoric and positions may have contributed to the beliefs and justifications for Breivik’s crimes.

In the U.S., our answer to Europe’s far-right groups is the Tea-Party, whose official and self-proclaimed proponents have put forth an ideology of fear, racism, and nativism, complete with ludicrous and bizarre conspiracy theories.  People like Glenn Beck and blogger Pamela Geller stoke fears of the dangerous “other” (often Muslims, but Democrats and “socialists” are also often cited) that is imperiling “American values,” Christianity, and civilization as we know it.  This kind of irresponsible rhetoric—often not based in logic or fact and intended to stir outrage and anger—espoused by people like Beck, Geller, Rush Limbaugh, and many others makes some people believe crimes against homosexuals, Muslims, abortion providers, and any other targeted group are just and justifiable.  It is irresponsible and can be incredibly dangerous.

Recently, Beck compared the teenaged victims of the shooting at the youth political camp in Oslo to members of the Nazi Youth on his radio show: “There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler youth.  I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics?  Disturbing.”  Its abhorrent to portray the victims of the camp shooting as analogous to the Hitler Youth, and it is also ridiculous.  Political parties in the U.S. and Europe hold youth conferences, activities, and retreats; the Labor Party camp is not unusual.  Beck’s statement is especially absurd given that the Tea Party group 9/12 Project (which Beck founded) is running its own political/ideological summer camps (“Patriot Camps“) for youth in several states.

Then there are the statments made by anti-Islamist blogger Pamela Geller, who immediately jumped on the “Jihadi” bandwagon as news broke last week about the attacks in Oslo, because, of course, only militant Islamist Jihadis could be capable of perpetrating such crimes.  But the man behind the bombing and massacre in Oslo is not a Jijhadi, or a Muslim; he is a Caucasian self-described defender of Christendom against the Muslim invaision and left-wing multiculturalism.  Breivik is a Christian terrorist, one who admired Geller, and praised her in his manifesto.  When this was pointed out to Geller again took to her blog, stating:

Attempts to link us to these murders on the basis of alleged postings by the murderer mentioning us are absurd and offensive.  Our work is and always has been wholly focused upon defending humane values and freedoms.  There is no way that any sane person could possibly conclude that committing mass murder of children would advance the principles for which we stand.  And if he was not sane, then any imputation of responsibility to us falters on that basis.  Islamic jihadists and supremacists routinely invoke Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence, and thus those teachings are and should be rightly held up to scrutiny; by contrast, our record of support for human rights and the dignity of all human beings is consistent and unbroken.  This murderer should be punished to the full extent of the law; any attempts to tar freedom fighters with his actions is deplorable.

The problem with Geller’s statement is that Breivik thought of himself as a freedom fighter too.  So does Glenn Beck.  So did the Unabomber.  So does Al Quaeda.  So do countless other people, who may or may not actually be ”freedom fighters.” One person’s freedom fighter is often another’s terrorist. Breivik did not use Islamic texts and teachings to justify his crimes; he used an ideology strikingly similar to those held by upstanding Christians, like Beck and Geller.  But according to Geller, and many others, Breivik is not a Christian, and his actions had nothing to do with Christianity:  “Watching CNN and BBC coverage about Norway, I found very disturbing to hear the number of times they use the word ‘Christian.’  They would never dare refer to religion when it is jihad, and this attack had nothing to do with Christianity. It is outrageous.”

Bill O’Reilly has also jumped on this, stating that because Breivik was not attached to any church, and “criticized the Prostestant belief system,” he is not a Christian.  Breivik choose to be baptized at age 15, he self-identifies as Christian, and claimed his crimes were committed in defense of Christianity.  Just because he’s deluded, perhaps insane, and dangerously violent doesn’t mean he’s not a Christian.  History is full of religious figures and bodies who have committed atrocities in the name of their faith.  Were the men who perpetrated the Inquistion not Christian?  They certainly thought they were doing God’s work, even though many today do not see that heinous part of European history as a shining momement of Christian benevolence.

Every country, every religion, every ethnic group, every political group and any other group will have within it certain deranged individuals who take an ideology too far and use it to jusitify their crimes.  Glenn Beck, Pamela Geller, Mark Steyn, and others like them, whom Breivik cited in his deranged manifesto, are not responsible for Anders Breivik’s actions.  But they are responsible for stoking the fires of racism, xenophobia, and hate, often using arguments that have no basis in logic or fact.  But of course, because Breivik is quite probably mentally disturbed, they are absolved from spewing their vitriolic ideology designed to jusitfy their hate.  They are not responsible because words don’t kill people;  people kill people.  But what happens when the motivations of those who murder are deeply rooted, encouraged, and nourished by a destructive ideology?  How do we maintain free speech and free societies while protecting public safety?  Everyone has a right to express their opinions, but those with great power have a great responsibilty to think carefully about how their words will be interpreted, and to be aware of how hyperbole can inflame righteousness but also inspire dangerous actions.

Some background: about a year ago, I threatened to be a more avid cyclist, a commuter. However, thanks to a pretty bad winter and a workplace that doesn’t really support cycling, I waved the white flag and continued my abusive relationship with the subway system of New York City, only using the bicycle sparingly. It was in an almost less conducive atmosphere, this particularly humid New York City summer, though, that I actually developed the habit of repeatedly going biking. Every other day, for more miles than I thought I’d be able to do, I get on the bicycle and scale the west side of Manhattan, from Houston Street to under the George Washington Bridge. Along the way, though, I’ve witnessed, and been a party to, many of the problems that come with the privilege of cycling in an already congested environment.

Yes, it is a privilege. The opportunity to ride a bicycle around a metropolitan area is not a right. It is a luxury, in fact. It demands not only the cost of the rental, upkeep, or purchase of a bicycle (a sturdy pair of wheels connected by gears and a seat can start at around $400), but a bit of safety and sanity as well. Anecdotal evidence supplied from anyone who has ever witnessed a moving vehicle in the city will tell you that they operate within not only their own laws, but by their own laws of physics. Bicyclists, too, have more recently acquired a reputation for unlawful behavior, which we hear more about these days. This, by my count, is for two reasons: New Yorkers generally feel free to walk in that little bit of space right off the street, which we now know as bike lanes, and thanks to decades of experience, we’re used to the cars. An abundance of cyclists, though, is a change that many in the city are not welcoming. Because of city cycling’s relatively recent surge in popularity, bikers are on much thinner ice than motorists. If the city decides the bike lanes were not a good idea, it’s as simple as laying down black paint on top of green paint for them to vanish. It’s as simple as cops being told to ticket cyclists as fervently as they go after parking violators. The city grants people a right to bike, and this could unravel at any moment.

Because of this uneasy situation, there is a fight over the future of the bicycle in New York City. The relationship between cyclists and the rest of the city needs to improve to keep things from backsliding. Unlike NYMag, though, which only seems to care about directing their massive klieg lights on the few people at the center of the debate, I’m interested in focusing on the problems on the street. It’s important to note, though, that these problems are not just the fault of stubborn drivers and sensitive pedestrians. The cyclists are as guilty as the rest of the populace, and I’ll be the first to admit it. Welcome to a special outside edition of Four Fails and a FTW: Cycles and The City.

Not what you'd call Respecting The Bike Lane - Credit: Brownstoner.com

FAIL #1: Taking out the trash, on top of the bike lanes.

Aside from cyclists themselves, the green paint and white bicyclist silhouettes need to be the only thing in the bike lanes, and every day we continue to be far from that rational reality. Anything and everything winds up in the bike lanes. Pedestrians, who are used to their right of way, routinely disregard the lines. Trash, both in bag and litter form, has always gone wherever is most convenient for the person who wants to get that stinky leaking bag out of their hands. And as you’ll see later, sometimes, people will fill potholes in bike lanes with trash cans, making a bad problem even worse.

Every time someone becomes a cyclist their instinct is to ride inside the green zones, like a child with their first coloring book. Once they begin to run afoul of trash bags, pedestrians, and cabs, they begin to realize that nobody else is following the rules. After encountering enough road hazards, the new cyclist starts moving faster than the hand of the trouble making kid who’s started coloring on the walls once he’s realized nobody’s watching him. People bike on the sidewalk, where there are no bike lanes. People go the wrong way on one lane bike paths.

The Fix: “Fuck! It’s The Police!” If random enforcement of the laws about the bike lanes, involving tickets for both cabs and cyclists alike, began, the news would spread faster than a speeding bike messenger. If green lanes were actually safe, the majority of cyclists—in my opinion—would stay inside the lines, because they’d have less of an excuse to leave that territory, and the expectation of a fine that nobody wants to pay.

FAIL #2: Joggers are Pedestrians 

Look at the sign in this photo. You’d think most joggers, since they’re moving slower than the cyclists and the skaters, would be able to read it. But no, they don’t. Most of the Hudson River bike path is clogged with joggers choosing to go left, when this sign says go right. The lanes may have previously been more for the jogger than for the cyclist, or cyclists may have not been as prevalent, but obviously, times have changed. One of the worst cases of this problem is the jogger/bicyclist combination. I don’t know if people think that, because someone is training someone else,  they both should be ignored and given gold medals for decency, but these people travel in a row, taking up more than a third of the entire bike path, and since the cyclist is going slow enough for the jogger, they always make things difficult on those around them.

What’s worse than the above are the parents with jogging strollers. While your child may seem like a burden on your life, it is not a suitable replacement for a workout weight. I’ve seen one or two of these ridiculous parents every week, and not only for the sake of the bicyclists around them, but the sake of the children these parents are using as human shields, this needs to be shut down by the police.

The Fix: Again, if people could just respect the signs, I wouldn’t need to keep saying law enforcement is the answer, but when police enforce signs that tell people when and where they can park their cars, the signage that directs traffic between bike and running lanes needs to be enforced as well. And this is a real problem, the intermingling of cyclists and joggers. An errant turn of a jogger instantly led to a horribly bloody collision for one of my best friends, right in the middle of beautiful Central Park.

Cyclists can do their part in this situation by calling attention to this fact calmly. When passing an out of place jogger, I’ll tend to say, in a non-combative tone, “The sign says no joggers! Thank you!” Sure, it’s patronizing, but it’s the only way that cyclists can let this not entirely well advertised bit of information be heard. Cyclists, in general, need to develop a less snarky and aggressive tone, at least unless someone is really jeopardizing the safety of those around them. A rule that surviving this city was built upon reads: Yelling Is Encouraged When Someone Almost Runs Into You. Aside from those rather rare moments, though, this is a developing relationship, and civility should be encouraged.

Fail #3: All That Space on Your Right Isn’t Going to Use Itself

Not to put the fix before the fail, but sometimes I think cyclists should be required to sit in on Driver’s Ed classes. While I’ve already said that NYC drivers are insane, this requirement could teach prospective cyclists a lesson about passing. A lot of the time on the path, you’ll come across someone going at their own pace in the middle of the path, on top of the yellow division line in some cases. You can’t stay in the middle, ever. You need to move to the side. One of my biggest gripes about other cyclists are pairs of cyclists, who always tend to float to close to the middle of the road, becoming a nuisance for all. Their problematic use of space is part of why I refuse to ride with any friends. Even though cyclists and joggers both make this mistake, it is the roller skaters that are the prime offenders. Whenever I pass a roller skater, I’m forced to go well into the opposite lane, thanks to their inability to stay off to the side.

The Fix: Start From When They Lace Them Up:

My first instinct on how to teach roller skaters that they need to do a better job about moving to the right is to pass them on the right. The one or two times I’ve done this were both tight fits, and as such, it does not keep in with my running theme of concessions from cyclists. A real fix for this should happen with stores that sell both roller skates and bicycles. If these communities could be more connected to each other, the odds of improved relations on the road increase. This Fail is the one least likely to be fixed, but I think this needs to be brought up.

FAIL #4: We Do Not Have Enough Bike Lanes

I see this shirt throughout the streets of New York, and always on passing cyclists. I’m not demanding a green lane in every street, though. The growth and presence of bike lanes needs to be done in a more patterned way, so that everybody involved can become more used to cyclists, so that drivers can do a better job of predicting where lanes will be. You can’t always predict where bikers will be, but a better layout of bike lanes will make people more used to cyclists.

If this can be accomplished, the delivery guys and daredevil cyclists going at 30 mph down Second Avenue can be policed a lot more easily.

For The WIN:

Casey Neistat, half of the Neistat Brothers filmmaking duo, made the following video after he was arrested for biking outside the green lanes. This whole piece was meant to lead up to here, where we see how a bicyclist can rationalize why confining one’s self to the bike lane would be dangerous. If the city can make the green lanes mean something, and the rest of the community can smarten up a bit, then cyclists won’t have to make snarky videos where they intentionally crash into the dangers of the city.

•   •   •

Henry Casey, currently Editor-in-Chief of The Busy Signal, thanks you for your continued visits to our web page. He has content going up all the time on Twitter and Tumblr — while Facebook and Google+ accounts also exist. He recommends that you see the A Tribe Called Quest documentary Beats, Rhymes, and Life, if it is playing in your area. Additionally, Busy Signal Conversation Contributor Collin Orcutt will have art featured in an upcoming exhibition, CGN Vision, through August 7th, in NYC.