Comic book and animation writer Steve Gerber — most famous for creating “Howard the Duck” — died yesterday at the age of 60.

I loved “Howard the Duck” when I was a kid (I’m talking about the comic book Howard, the real Howard, not the awful movie that was made in the mid-80s).

But what makes Gerber especially notable for a political blog like “Alas” is the essential role his struggle for ownership of “Howard the Duck” played in changing how comic book creators in the US viewed issues of copyright and creative rights. The character of “Howard” was created as a walk-on gag character in an issue of “Man-Thing” Gerber wrote. It was thus “work for hire,” and the legal creator and owner of “Howard” was Marvel Comics.

Gerber found that he was able to express himself effectively though “Howard the Duck” in a way that was both satisfying to himself and resonant with an audience; soon Gerber was writing both a “Howard the Duck” daily newspaper strip and a “Howard the Duck” comic book. But Marvel Comics fired him from writing the “Howard” newspaper strip and then, when Gerber announced he was going to contest Marvel’s ownership of “Howard,” fired him from writing the comic book. A series of replacement writers proved unable to make “Howard” concept work, and the newspaper strip and then the comic book were canceled.

From The Comics Reporter:

“What disgusts me even more, though, is that I think the writers and artists have largely brought this on themselves,” [Gerber wrote] in 1978. “They don’t want to know about the business end of comics. They prefer to remain ignorant. They’ve allowed the publishers to convince them that they’re a bunch of no-talent bums surviving on the goodwill of the companies. Very few people in this industry really believe that their work has any artistic merit, or that it’s sale-able elsewhere. Or that they deserve more than they’re getting. You will actually hear them defend the publishers’ ownership of their creations, the low page rates, the cowardice of the companies to explore new markets. That’s why it’s startling when someone like Gil Kane or Neal Adams or Don McGregor or Barry Smith — or Steve Gerber — shoots his mouth off. People in the industry find it disturbing that one of their number might actually take his work seriously, take pride not only in being fast and dependable, but in the work itself.”

Steve Gerber did not win back Howard the Duck. He settled with Marvel and even returned to the company by the mid-1980s, although not in as devoted or prolific a fashion. Although the terms of the settlement were sealed, he told Art Cover in 1985 that, “It’s no secret how mad I was during and before the lawsuit. The terms of the settlement are such that I am no longer angry.” [...]

The notions that Marvel would take a character away from a creator, even the one best suited to it, and that a creator might fight back, became powerful ideas among a growing tide of younger creators asserting a series of creators’ rights in regards to their work with big, mainstream comic book companies or their moves to smaller companies or self-publishing where rights might be attained. One element of the cautionary story was that Marvel was more interested in keeping and controlling the character than it was in fostering a relationship with the creator, even when the benefits were obvious to both. Also, the fact that Gerber had created Howard in an offhand manner but that the character had come to be a valuable mouthpiece for the creator became a key part of the thinking of a lot of creators rights advocates, and spoke as a powerful counter to an argument often expressed that some characters you created for the big companies and some characters you kept for yourself. As many have cautioned in a thousand hushed conversations since, you never know.

And from a 1986 panel discussion with Gerber, Mark Evanier (whose obituary of Gerber is here), Frank Miller, and Jack Kirby:

EVANIER: One of the reasons Steve settled when he did - he’s too modest to mention this - is that the comics industry at the close of the suit was not the same as at the beginning of the suit. One of the things that prompted Steve’s suit in the first place was that at one point he wanted to try and work out a settlement with Marvel on parts of his contract that had been left dangling. I sent him to an agent of mine, and the agent phoned the appropriate people at Marvel, and they said, “We’re not going to deal with you.” They didn’t recognize the rights of people to speak on behalf of artists and writers.

MILLER: We’re talking about an industry that until maybe ten years ago, a contract could not be negotiated in the office of the publisher of a major comic book company, because the writer showed up with his attorney. The publisher just got up and walked out. This is a true story; I know the writer, I know the attorney, and I know the publisher. We’re talking about the Dark Ages here.

EVANIER: It was 1978, I believe. (laughter) Largely because of Steve’s lawsuit, and because of other people who said, “We’re not going to take it anymore,” the comic book companies grew up a little. They have yet to make proper redress on all of the old offenses, but they’re now dealing in a more mature manner. They will talk to attorneys, and they will draw up legitimate contracts. They now realize they can not conduct major comic book company business like a lemonade stand. Steve’s lawsuit was one of the main reasons for that.

Current comic creators — especially those who work for big, mainstream companies — owe a lot to Gerber’s work and activism.

Marvel has done a reprint of some of Gerber’s “Howard” comics, although unfortunately they expunged the ones with swear words and nudity. I read somewhere today that Image Comics is going to reprint “Destroyer Duck,” the protest/fundraising comic Gerber and Jack Kirby* created (Kirby, who co-created almost all the core Marvel comics characters, was also engaged in a nasty legal struggle with Marvel Comics).

The first is at Pandagon, where Amanda wrote about Huckabee:

McCain has the Republican nomination, but Huckabee’s continuing ability to win certain states is still a major story. Now that he can’t get the nomination and the schadenfreude pleasure is over, it’s time for us to very carefully examine why an out-and-out ayatollah is so fucking popular in this great, modern nation.

That’s saying, pretty explicitly, this Christian is so misogynist he’s a misogynist as a Muslim.

The other is at The F-Word, a British site. This one probably needs some background. A while back The Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Church of England, the official religion of Britain) gave a speech where he discussed the role that Sharia law could take within civil law in the British legal system. If you’re interested in what he said I’m guess it’s a good idea to read it, rather than a summary, because to say the British Press frothed at the mouth in response to what he said is a vast understatement.* I was shocked at the response on the F-Word. The author of the post said that she wasn’t going to comment, because she didn’t know much about Sharia law, and then said that she thought this anecdote was relevant:

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a ‘no-go area’ for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: ‘The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn’t want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don’t you people write about this?’

Posting that story, in the context that she did, implies that the central fact here, is the religion of those involved. It treats these sorts of events as a horror which only occur in another culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Families with connections to the medical establishment have been able to do all sorts of things to women by claiming they’re mad(a famous example is Rosemary Kennedy, but it’s not as if she’s alone). Why didn’t the f-word present this story in that context?

I think it’s offensive when white feminists create an ‘other’, which is the . I think it is a vile misuse of feminism when the other they chose serves imperialist goals, as islamophobia so clearly does.

But I also find it mystifying. Feminist bloggers stare down the vile misogyny of the culture that we live in everyday. I don’t understand why any feminist blogger would need to invent an ‘other’, or how she could escape from the fact that her culture hates her.

* I’m personally too lazy to read what he said. I can see the arguments in favour in allowing people to pick the framework they use to decide civil matters. But I think limiting those choices to frameworks based on different religions prioritises religion in a way that I believe is totally unacceptable. In Britain, (or the US, or NZ) it would also leave all those without religion still suck with a framework that is based on Christianity. I don’t think the solution to a legal framework based on one religion is to say ‘we’ll let other religions have an influence in some parts of that framework’. Although I’m willing to be convinced if people want to argue about that issue in the comments.

I have a friend who used to live as a homeless heroin addict on the streets of San Francisco when she was a teenager. Periodically, she writes about her experiences. People in workshops tend to respond by telling her that the experiences aren’t “realistic.”

So, it’s interesting: narratively, the fake homeless teens of our popular imagination seem to have grown stronger than the reality. Homeless teens look like they do in Charles de Lint, we think. When presented with the real thing, we balk.

Another friend of mine calls it the “tyranny of the middle class.” We have this narrative about what life is. Contrary data is discarded. The power of story, of the narratives we tell ourselves about the world, trumps lived experience from the world itself.

Would we recognize reality if we saw it?

Why do I write? I write to present the subaltern points of view. Why don’t I write realism? Because realism is only another set of formalized conventions, and subaltern life already seems unreal.

If you’re a fan of Rumi, this new anthology, on the poetry sections of which I collaborated with primary author John Moyne, is one you will want to get. A Bird In The Garden Of Angels is also a wonderful introduction to Rumi for those new to his work, or those who may know of him but don’t know much about him. Containing essays by Moyne on both Rumi’s life and Sufism, A Bird In The Garden Of Angels is further divided into five sections, one for each of the genres of poetry and prose that Rumi worked in. Some parts of each section have been translated into English for the first time; some of the poems were originally translated by John Moyne and Coleman Barks, but appear in this volume in new versions. You can order the book from Mazda Publishers’ website or any online bookstore. (It’s also on sale at the Metropolitan Museum of Art!) If you want to read some samples from the book, visit my website.

I’ve loved Joss Whedon for going on ten years now. Sometimes my fangirl moments can be fickle and short lived, but my love for Joss Whedon has remained constant.

It’s helped that every so often Joss will surprise me by being far more awesome than I ever imagined (have you ever listened to the Innocence commentary? There’s a lot of awesome there). The first I remember was from the Onion AV Club, way back when I didn’t know that much about his politics:

don’t want it to have my name on it if it doesn’t reflect what I want to say. Because once you get to the position of actually getting to say something, which is a level most writers never even get to, and is a great blessing, you then have to worry about what it is you’re actually saying. I don’t want some crappy reactionary show under the Buffy name. If my name’s going to be on it, it should be mine. Now, the books I have nothing to do with, and I’ve never read them. They could be, “Buffy realized that abortion was wrong!” and I would have no idea. So, after my big, heartfelt, teary speech, I realize that I was once again lying. But I sort of drew the line. I was like, “I can’t possibly read these books!”

Joss has often suggested collective action as the solution for the big problems and recently that’s got a lot more overt (I’m thinking the Buffy series finale, and ‘The Chain’ comic)

But I still didn’t expect him to become a militant union activist. He’s just posted on United Hollywood. He said

Our negotiators have the specific task of forgetting the past and dealing only with the numbers before them. Their ability to do that impresses me greatly, but I maintain that it’s their job to treat the studios like business partners and it’s our job to remember who they really are. The studios are inefficient, power-hungry, thieving corporate giants who have made the life of the working writer harder from decade to decade. They are run by men so out of touch with basic humanity that they would see Rome burn before they would think about the concept of fair compensation. I maintain that they have never revealed their true agenda in the causing and handling of this strike, and to expect them to now is cock-eyed optimism of the most dangerous kind.

and

This is not over. Nor is it close. Until the moment it is over, it can never be close. Because if we see the finish line we will flag and they are absolutely counting on us to do that. In the room, reason. On the streets, on the net, I say reason is for the ‘moderates’. Remember what they’ve done. Remember what they’re trying to take from us. FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT.

I have been mugged an embarrassing number of times, even for a New Yorker. I’ve been yelled at and chased, beaten down and kicked, threatened with a gun and the only mugger who still hurts my gut is the one who made me shake his hand. Until there is a deal – the right deal, not the DGA deal – held out, let’s keep our hands in our pockets or on our signs. Let’s not be victims. Let’s never.

He also did a radio show on the strike, which is of similar stuff.

If you haven’t already, check out Leigh Dragoon’s cartoon series about “Nice Guys (TM)” (although she calls them “Nice Guys (R)”).

Last year, Leigh created three of these nifty cartoons: part one (pictured above, but the linked one is bigger), part two, and part three.

This year, Leigh’s doing a new two-pager in the series, written by Lisa Jonte. You can read page one here; I hope she’ll post page two soon.

Hey y’all,

I thought I’d post some recommended reading as my science fiction writing class and I work our way through it. This semester I’m only assigning work that can be found online so y’all can follow along, if you like.

This week, I assigned stories that are basal to their genres — meaning that they work within genre expectations to tell a good story.

I think some of these stories are better than others. In this group, “Flat Diane” is the standout in my opinion, and “Two Hearts” is not really to my taste. However, all the stories are worth reading.

Science fiction — “Sergeant Chip by Bradley Denton

Fantasy - “Two Hearts” by Peter Beagle

Horror - “Flat Diane” by Daniel Abraham (audio only)

Dave Sim is one of the greatest living cartoonists, and his work has been very influential on my own approach to cartooning. Over the decades he’s also become an extreme, extreme anti-feminist. In a recent discussion on the Sequential Tart website, Dave wrote:

The last I heard roughly 80% of the women in our society work outside the home at outside the home jobs…forty years ago only 20% of women worked — most of them in a period between graduating from high school and getting married and then getting pregnant. Sixty years ago maybe 6% worked.

Since the run-up from 20% to 80% was largely unimpeded…

The point about percentages is really my best attempt at the collapsing of what I have to say to white dwarf size. We are definitely plowing forward to 100% of one and 0% of the other … Used to be 6% became 20% is now 80%…where do you THINK we’re going? … I don’t think it’s a good idea and I don’t think we’re well served in not examining it.

My response to Dave:¹

Dave, you’re basing your stated argument here on some factual errors. If your main concern is that we’ll be in trouble when we reach 100%, then I’ve got good news for you: It’ll never happen. In fact, we’ll never even reach 80%. Or 70%.

In the USA, about 59% of women are in the paid labor force, including both women actively looking for paid jobs, and those who currently have paid jobs.

Forty years ago, in 1968, about 40% of women were in the labor force, not 20% as you stated. Sixty years ago, in 1948, about 33% of women were in the labor force — not 6%.²

So, at least in the US, women didn’t used to do paid jobs as little as you’re claiming, and they don’t currently do paid jobs as often as you think. But can’t we say you’re correct about the overall direction of the trend, even though you’re mistaken about the specific numbers?

No, you’re mistaken about the trend too — because the percent of women in the paid labor force isn’t climbing anymore. It’s leveled out. Fifteen years ago, it was about 58%; in 2001, it peaked at 60%; and in 2005 (most recent year I’ve seen data for) it was at 59%. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics is predicting (based on demographic changes, economic changes, etc) that it’ll still be about the same in 2025. (That’s only a guess, of course, but it’s the most educated and well-founded guess anyone has at this point.)

So there’s no need to worry about what happens when 100% of women are in the paid laborforce. It will never happen. Nor is that news that disappoints feminists, as far as I can tell. In recent years, the approach among feminists is to work for not only equal access to all paid jobs, but also for more respect and economic security for people who do unpaid caring labor.

(By the way, did you know that men are working less than ever? In 1950, 86% of men had a paid job or were looking for one; today that’s gone down a bit, to 75%. The statisticians expect that number to keep dropping, to a predicted 69% in 2025. A bit of this change is due to a small, growing number of men having the freedom to stay home and take care of their kids, if that’s what they want).

* * *

You also wrote “Since the run-up from 20% to 80% was largely unimpeded…”

Women’s labor force participation was about 20% back in 1900. The run-up since then has not been unimpeded; indeed, the legal right for women to own their own paychecks had to be fought for. As recently as the 1970s, “help wanted” classified sections in many newspapers were still divided into “women” and “men” sections. Open discrimination against female workers was legal until new laws in the 70s and 80s, and a lot of less open discrimination still goes on today. (Just last year the Supreme Court of the US ruled that women who are systematically paid less than male co-workers for the same work can only sue within a few months of being hired or getting an unequal raise — after that, the employer’s discrimination is free and clear of legal repercussions.)

* * *

I don’t think that feminists want 100% of women (or men) in paid jobs. What is it feminists want?

Well, I’m a feminist. What I want is for people to have as much freedom as possible to choose a mix of home life and work life that suits them, without having to lose economic security, and regardless of if they’re female or male. I think very few people really want to be at the job 40-60 hours a week for 40 or 50 years (although there are some, but most of us don’t have interesting, creative jobs); and very few people really want a life that consists of nothing but their home and family. (For one thing, kids grow up, so that’s not really a whole-life plan.)

Over the last century, the lives of women and men have gotten a lot more similar; women have more access to paid jobs, including decently-paid jobs, than they used to (although it’s still not where it should be, especially for poor women and women of color). Men are spending less of their lifetimes at jobs, and they’re freer than they used to be to prioritize time with their families if that’s what they want (although there are still too many barriers). Wage discrimination against women, and safety discrimination against men (especially non-white and immigrant men), still exists — but it’s gone down.

I think those are all positive trends, and — speaking for this one feminist — I hope they continue.

1. I posted this response on Sequential Tart, then edited it a little before posting it here. (back)
2. Citations: You can find simple info about women’s labor force participation by clicking here. You can find a more complex essay discussing this stuff, including predictions for where labor trends are going, by reading this essay, but it’s a pdf file. (back)

From the mailbag:

bean wants you to visit ClickToEmpower.com and show your support for survivors of domestic violence. For every click received, $1 will be donated by the Allstate Foundation to the Education and Job Training Assistance Fund with a total donation up to $300,000.

It’s simple to do and every click counts! Click on the icon today and be sure to tell a friend!

Thanks for your support,

The Allstate Foundation

I have no idea how and if this sort of fund raising campaign works — but clicking is pretty damn effortless, so I recommend giving it a click.

If you missed last night’s Super Bowl, you missed a great game. I’ve gotten out of the habit of following sports since I moved to the east coast and could no longer follow my (original) home teams, but a few weeks ago, I decided to watch the NFL Conference championship between the Green Bay Packers and the New York Giants. What attracted me to that game was the weather. It was held outdoors in below zero degree temperatures, and I wanted to see how they were going to play in those inclement conditions. That game was great, and of course, I was rooting for the underdog New York Giants, not because I live in New York, but because I enjoy a comeback story.

Given the excitement of the Conference Championship game, I was looking forward to the Super Bowl. Again, I was routing for the underdog Giants. I used to like the Patriots, but there is something very unsettling about the win at any cost attitude that has driven the Patriots success over the past few years. The Patriots are cheaters (or at the very least, folks who are willing to bend the rules). They spied on other teams practices to steal signals, and the NFL punished them with the loss of a draft pick, a team fine of $250,000, and a fine of a half million dollars for the coach. The Patriots were also undefeated and favored to win by almost two touchdowns.

The game didn’t disappoint. It was exciting and culminated with a game winning, touchdown drive by the Giants in the remaining two and a half minutes. The Giants were known for coming from behind and winning on the road, and they appeared to revel in the underdog position. They also emphasized team play over star power, and the often ignored defense was the primary difference in the game. To me this win was a victory for sportsmanship.

Since I was hyped-up from the game and couldn’t sleep, my mind started wondering to of all thing–politics. I realized that the parallels between politics and sports are numerous. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, which is the Conference Championship of Presidential politics. On the eve of the contest, I figured a I’d share a few of my thoughts about Presidential politics and sports, focusing on the contradictory values that influence the ways Americans views sports and politics.

Religion

One of the more hilarious and dangerous commonalities with politicians and athletes is that they seem to think God is on their side. They pray before the contest, and thank God and Jesus after it. How many times have you heard people say, “Without God, this would not be possible?” I have a really hard time believing the God has a favorite sports team or politician. Do people lose because God is against them?

Underdog’s

The underdog is big in sports, and while I think it’s a little less popular in politics, it is still there. There is the old saying “throw the bums out,” but at the same time, most of us love the bums we elect. For example, right now the favorable rating for Congress is very low, but when you ask people about their own Congressperson, they are much more favorable. We are also willing to tolerate much more inappropriate behavior from our own bums than from other folks bums. Nevertheless, there are times, when we do want the underdog to get ahead. If the underdog makes us feel good about ourselves, if the underdog symbolizes change, if the underdog beats incredible odds to make it to the top, or if the underdog reaffirms our belief in the inherent fairness of the system, then the underdog can become a fan favorite. The problem with this is that every side has a few skeletons in their closets, and we often overestimate the extent to which the individual politician or team is really going to change the system.

Cheating and Dirty Tricks

Some people want to win at any cost. They smear their opponents; they lie, cheat; and steal. I’m not cynical enough to believe that everybody does this, but I am realistic enough to know that it is common place. My concern is that when we become too cynical we are all to willing to accept lying, cheating, and stealing as an acceptable part of competition.

Experience vs. New Blood

As a culture, Americans love both experience and new blood. During the Super Bowl, the announcers informed us every time a rookie made a great play. We also got to hear about the deserving veterans, who finally got their shot at victory. In politics, we have a love hate relationship with veterans. The career politician is loathed, and re-elected over and over because of name recognition and the power of incumbency. New blood politicians are treated a little better than rookies in the sporting arena. Many people associate new blood with lack of corruption, which is probably naive given the nature of campaigning and fund raising.

The Comeback Story

Rather than giving the comeback story too much time–I’ll refer to the discussions about Experience vs. New Blood and Underdogs. It seems that comeback stories combine both of these two sets of values.

Social Inequality

I think most people want to believe that just about everyone has a fair shot to make it sports and politics, and our level of denial about the realities of social inequalities (in particular those of race, class, gender, religion, disability, and sexuality) is almost humorous. This gets particularly absurd with race. In sports and politics, we can’t even talk about racism without somebody trying to shut down the discussion. You didn’t have to follow the Super Bowl closely to notice that both the quarterbacks were the classic white guy quarterbacks, both the coaches were classic white guy coaches, the defensive backs for both teams were all black, the offensive lines were nearly all white, and the defensive lines were nearly all black. I’m sure somebody is going to be mad at me for pointing this out. The person, who I anger, is going to note the exceptions to these patterns, and tell me to lighten up. The same is true for politics. We’re supposed to believe that two people Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prove that we are somehow above racism and sexism. Rather than clinging to the reality of politics where white, heterosexual, Christian, guys with money run the show, we are supposed to focus on the exceptions. What’s also funny is that if you really want to add nuance to the discussion by pointing out both Obama and Clinton are only disadvantaged on one of these forms of social inequality, many folks play dumb and can’t get it. Instead, we’re supposed to deny, deny, deny–”the system is fair and if we worked hard enough we all have the same chance. Don’t rain on our parade by telling us other wise.”

Bringing It All Together

The irony of these values is that they often conflict with each other, and many folks are content with this, partly because they are wearing blinders and partly because many of our social norms require us to hold contradictory beliefs. I’m sure my own glee over the Giants wins is full of contradictions. Now, that the underdogs are on top, and I’m going to have to find another team that makes me feel that sports are fair.

Like most people I want to believe in meritocracy, even though I know it takes a lot more than merit to make it to the top. Even though I know that competition can bring out the worst in people, I want to believe that the “good guys” win in the end. Even the division of people into “good guys” and “bad guys” reflects an unrealistic dichotomy, but one that most of us use as a lens to view society. Nothing should remind people more of this sports and politics.

Damn, I love New York.

Please use this thread to discuss whatever you’d like, or to put in whatever links you like. Self-linking is encouraged.

* * *

I haven’t yet listened to the California Clinton/Obama debate, but I will be listening to it today as I draw; several people I’ve read have claimed it’s the most substantive debate of the primary so far, with a lot of focus on health care (an area where Clinton is better) and Iraq (an area where Obama is better). Part one is here, part two is here. (Or, if you prefer smaller chunks, it’s on youtube in 12 parts; part one is here.)

Via Fetch Me My Axe, this interesting article in Colorlines Magazine:

Trans people of color are finding that they have an extremely different relationship to gender transition than white people. London Dexter Ward, an LAPD cop who transitioned in 2004, sums it up this way: a white person who transitions to a male body “just became a man.” By contrast, he says, “I became a Black man. I became the enemy. “

In short, people of color know that racism works differently for men and women, and transgender people like Mitchell and Ward are getting to experience this from both sides of the gender equation. [...]

Louis Mitchell expected a lot of change when he began taking injections of hormones eight years ago to transition from a female body to a male one. He anticipated that he’d grow a beard, which he eventually did and enjoys now. He knew his voice would deepen and that his relationship with his partner, family and friends would change in subtle and, he hoped, good ways, all of which happened.

What he had not counted on was changing the way he drove.
Within months of starting male hormones, “I got pulled over 300 percent more than I had in the previous 23 years of driving, almost immediately. It was astounding,” says Mitchell, who is Black and transitioned while living in the San Francisco area and now resides in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Targeted for “driving while Black” was not new to Mitchell, who is 46 years old. For example, a few years before transitioning, he had been questioned by a cop for simply sitting in his own car late at night. But “he didn’t really sweat me too much once he came up to the car and divined that I was female,” Mitchell recalls.

Now in a Black male body, however, Mitchell has been pulled aside for small infractions. When he and his wife moved from California to the East Coast, Mitchell refused to let her drive on the cross-country trip. “She drives too fast,” he says, chuckling and adding, “I didn’t want to get pulled over. It took me a little bit longer [to drive cross country] ‘cause I had to drive like a Black man. I can’t be going 90 miles an hour down the highway. If I’m going 56, I need to be concerned.” As more people of color transition, Mitchell’s experience is becoming an increasingly common one…

The Washington Times reports:

The campaign went on to say that, as president, Mr. Obama “will review drug sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive sentencing of non-violent offenders, and revisit instances where drug rehabilitation may be more appropriate.” His campaign later stated that Mr. Obama “always” has supported decriminalizing marijuana.

Mr. Obama’s differing answers on marijuana are among a half-dozen conflicts between positions he took while running for Senate in 2004 and those he now articulates while running for president, a review of debate tapes shows. Other conflicts range from ending the embargo against Cuba to providing health care for illegal immigrants.

I wonder if, and how much, this story will hurt Obama in the election. It’s too bad that decriminalizing marijuana — a sensible policy favored by a huge number of Americans — is still a shocking position for a mainstream politician to take.

Curtsy: Shakesville.