Ever since I read “Not Just A Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry” by Stacy Malkin, I’ve slowly started to change the way I purchase and use cosmetics. I frequently consult the Skin Deep Database at The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. I don’t have any hard and fast rules, but I try to purchase products that are at least one of the following: fragrance free, have organic ingredients and/or do not contain phthalates or parabens.

I will be reviewing some of the brands of natural cosmetics that I use regularly. To see all of the posts in this series, click here.

Burt’s Bees

This is the quintessential granola cosmetics brand, and they don’t just sell lip balm anymore. My favorite of their products is the pomegranate lip balm, although I know the original has a somewhat fanatic following. The Honey scented one does nothing for me, and kind of smells like talc to in my opinion. I’ve used their lip shimmer, available in a wide variety of colors and it gives you the same minty feeling as the original balm. I am currently using their Carrot Day Creme as my daytime moisturizer. It smells heavenly, like a carrot cake. But it is very thick and should be applied sparingly. It hasn’t clogged my pores or caused a breakout but it can get greasy or make you look strange because of it’s yellow color if you put too much on. I have mixed feelings about their moisturizers and body washes. They do the job but the “Milk and Honey” scent smells more like buttermilk or sour cream to me.

Dr. Bronner’s

I couldn’t write a series about natural cosmetics without mentioning the father of all that is crunchy about ablations. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Pure Castile liquid soaps are a wonderful alternative to mass market body washes that contain harmful carcinogens, and I highly recommend them. My favorite is the almond, because I can use it every day. The peppermint and lavender, rose and citrus are wonderful too but made with the real oils and as my eyes are very sensitive I have to be careful with them. The bottle claims you can use it to clean anything but I stick to using it as a body, hand and face wash. The one time I used it as shampoo in a pinch was not very pleasant.

They also make a line of lip glosses, shaving creams and other personal care products which are worth a try.

Alba Botanica

I picked up the coconut lip balm when it was on sale at my local drug store. I loved the texture and scent, but it was difficult to find. On another shopping trip, I found the Terra Tints and they are the perfect mix of moisturizing balm and colored gloss. Try these if you can find them.

No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power – Tools For Leading An Unlimited Life
by Gloria Feldt

After hearing Gloria Feldt on the RH Reality Check podcast I decided to read this book. It’s not a typical feminist book, not theory, history or biography – Feldt lays out a solid plan for women to make their feminist values a part of their lives.

It has been said that reading gives women dangerous ideas, and this book certainly gave me a few. I’ve been telling people that “No Excuses” is my motto for 2011.

Very early in the book, Feldt tackles one of my favorite questions – why don’t more women run for office?The reasons are complicated and can easily be applied to any number of questions about why women have not achieved equality in a given field. But there are ways to work around whatever these obstacles are – be they lack of resources, or internalized sexism and self doubt. Women involved in Emily’s Listor The White House Project often say that given a man and a woman of equal qualifications, the man is more likely to take the initiative and run for office and the woman is more likely to say that she is unqualified. However, a survey of women politicans shows that women are more likely to run if someone asks them to than to spontaneously decide for themselves. Thus was born She Should Run a website where anyone can nominate and encourage women they know to run for office.

It’s interesting to speculate what the future would look like if more women took on positions of power in government and business. A study reported in Politico reported that women are more effective legislators than men. Feldt often references the 30% threshold – this is thought to be the number of women necessary in a leadership role in an organization when they can have a substantial impact. The US Congress is far away from this at 17% but many corporate boardrooms, and even the Supreme Court are trending in that direction.

Feldt also encourages women to apply these principles to their marriages and personal relationships with men if they feel they are being treated unfairly.

A lot of Feldt’s argument relies on a belief that all women share common goals and should work together to achieve them.

It’s heartbreaking to me that in our half-finished feminist revolution, women still tend to isolate themselves, to think that their problems are individual concerns that they must solve alone. We feel our lack of power to make change, because when one person tries to fight the system alone, she is, in fact, relatively powerless. It’s when we just think of ourselves as individuals rather than reaching out to our sisters and brothers that things are likely to stay the same for the next women that comes along. More than that, if we fail to recognize how our choices influence the world – either by reinforcing the status quo or challenging it – we’re doomed to live lives of diminished possibilities.

I can agree with that on paper. But sadly the feminist movement does have some history of racism, homophobia and classism in it’s past. Feldt does include women from a diversity of backgrounds as examples in her book. But I’m not sure what she would make of women who align themselves with all of the goals of feminism but refuse to take the label because of past wrongdoing. I do agree that some policies – equal pay, reproductive justice, and better daycare for example would benefit all women. But that has more to do with the systemic sexism/injustices (Patriarchy/Kyriarchy) that remain in our society than any inherent similarities that all women share. To argue otherwise would be arguing for a type of gender essentialism that I cannot accept.

Nevertheless, I really did enjoy this book, and I have been recommending it to women that I know. I had never thought about power before. When my Political Science professors would mention it, my eyes would glaze over. It was too theoretical a concept for me to be bothered with. I am a pragmatist at heart and this book does compliment that tendency. Feldt takes great care to explain exactly what she means by power, and calls her definition “power to.” As in the power to make change – in opposition to “power over” which is about hierarchy. Even so, there were a few instances of woo I could have done without. For example, I still do not understand what Feldt means by “live unlimited.” Unlimited from what? Patriarchy? Internalized sexism? Generic self-doubt? Gravity? Thetans?

Without a basic understanding of the concepts of modern day feminism, the book does sound more like the Law of Attraction than a way to put theory into practice. Take for example the idea that “power must be claimed.” I understand it to mean that if I want to start a blog or a new business or run for Senate, no one will do it for me but myself. Anyone familiar with Feldt’s amazing record of activism will know what she means. Without this background, the concepts are much more nebulous. It is also for these reasons that I prefer the more specific terms autonomy and intention (which are used in the book sometimes) than power and live unlimited.

This book is fundamentally liberal. In that I mean that it takes the position that women can take actions to improve their lives and the lives of other women. This philosophy is one I am firmly on the side of, and I admire the steps Feldt has taken on twitter and via other media to reach out to younger feminists to spread her ideas.

“No Excuses” is extremely valuable because many women struggle with the idea that they are powerful or have autonomy I wonder how much has to do with the kinds of stereotype threat described in Delusions of Gender. It’s something I struggle with and is much easier to confront when thinking of it as a part of feminist activism that most women struggle with than a unique personal insecurity.

Feldt summed it up best when she wrote:

Today our challenge is to value ourselves and demand that others do, too.

Crisis pregnancy centers claim they exist to provide alternatives to abortion. At best, they can provide an adoption referral or offer a teddy bear and a few packs of diapers and formula for a pregnant woman too poor to afford them. At worst, they lie to make women think they aren’t as far along as they are – so they can run out the clock on how much time a woman has before she cannot have an abortion. Abortions get more expensive as time goes on, and it becomes more difficult to find a provider. They spread other misinformation like claiming there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, or that it often causes infertility or mental health problems.

If these organizations exist to convince people to “choose life” why would they advertise themselves to confuse people into thinking that they are an abortion provider? Many call themselves “clinics” when there are no doctors or nurses on staff, and some will list their centers under “Abortion Services” in the telephone book. Several states and local governments have passed ordinances like the agreement reached in New York, where centers are obligated to inform clients that the center does not provide abortion or birth control, that it is not a licensed medical facility, and that the pregnancy tests it provides are over-the-counter. Other centers have been forced to do the same via court order.

H.R. 5652, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act would put an end to these unfair practices. It’s sponsored by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and has 36 co-sponsors.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the bill:

Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to: (1) promulgate rules prohibiting, as unfair and deceptive acts or practices, persons from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such persons provide abortion services if such persons do not provide such services; and (2) enforce violations of such rules as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve continued to think about President Obama’s words on Wednesday night. I almost didn’t publish my post on continuting to criticize Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle for their refusal to tone down their discourse.

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These rights are often used together. For example blogging is both freedom of speech and of the press. Religious freedoms are also tied to freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

I saw Amanda use the phrase “First Amendment Solutions” and thought it was brilliant. Not only as a rebuttal to Ms Angle but as an update to the slogan that “the solution to bad speech is better speech.” And so I’m going to try an use that phrase more often. Whether it’s Rebecca Drysdale’s awesome new video for the “It Gets Better Project” or Speaker of the House John Boehner following in Nancy Pelosi’s email addresss by setting up a direct email address – let’s call out these First Amendment Solutions where we see them for the positive attention they deserve.

Valentine’s day is a month away, and if you are thinking about what to buy your significant other, we are hoping you will consider the environment when doing your shopping. Here are some suggestions of how to green the more traditional gifts given this time of year.

Flowers

A romantic and traditional gift, it is unfortunate that so many flowers are grown on farms where the amount of pesticides sprayed does harm to not only the surrounding plants and animals but to the local water supply and to the workers of the farms. Give your sweetie a guilt free bouquet by opting for organic flowers or ones from a local farm. I would definitley recommend Organic Bouquet because I have used them many times for birthdays, holiday centerpieces and to send to friends and as get well soon gifts. If you live in New York City, give Gardenia Organic a try. They make gorgeous arrangements to order. This picture is of an arrangement they did for my wedding. Read the rest of this entry »

On Saturday, liberal blogger Atrios tweeted “The real victim today is Sarah Palin.” When I read Sarah Palin’s statement yesterday, at first I was relieved. She spoke about peaceful assembly, shaking hands and finding common ground. Over the past week I have heard calls for unity from people on the right – moderates that I know personally. But nothing from people with a lot of influence. Finally, someone in power on the right is stepping up. Palin, however seemed not to be able to help herself. She did not stop with simple condolences and a call to tone it down. Palin proved Atrios right when she compared criticism of her rhetoric and the idea that it might have played a part in Saturday’s violence in Arizona to “blood libel” – the anti-Semitic belief that Jews kill Christian children and use their blood to make matzoh for Passover. This is especially appalling, considering that Congresswoman Giffords is Jewish.

Sharon Angle issued a similar statement, denying that repeatedly calling for “Second Amendment remedies” would influence anyone to actually shoot someone. What else could she have been calling for?

I do not believe that Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle are guilty of the deaths or injuries of the people shot on Saturday. I think that the violent, hateful and eliminationist rhetoric of the American Right as a whole – including talk radio, television shows, internet forums blogs and comments, and the signs and slogans of the Tea Party did play a part. No one person saying or writing something inflammatory is to blame, but as a whole their impact on the political climate in America was significant. In addition there was the actions of the shooter, (hat tip) our insufficient mental health services, and the ease at which a person, a deeply troubled person no less can acquire weapons that can do so much harm so quickly. However, I stand by my statement that it’s dangerous to deny the role that our political climate plays in these things.

I’m not the only one. Several moderate Republicans have resigned this week because they have been receiving threats from Tea Party members. In addition, some Republicans are speaking out against the vitriol they see in their party. Mike DeMoss, a conservative Christian tried to get Governors and Members of Congress to sign a civility pledge. He has since given up

“The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn’t use in this phone call,” he said. “This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn’t hear from them.”

After listening to President Obama’s speech, I considered my point of view. I was deeply moved by his words and I liked that he was calling for unity. However, I must concur with Peter Daou:

Nothing contradictory about praising Obama’s speech and simultaneously warning that one side’s language of incitement risks more tragedies

Finally, this video from Media Matters founder David Brock on the subject should be re-posted everywhere.

I mailed this letter to Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) on December 28, 2010. I received this response (via email) on January 10. Kudos to him and his staff for keeping good records (I did not include my email address in my letter but I have sent him emails before on issues that included my home address as proof I was a constituent.)

I am posting this because I want to encourage others to write to their members of Congress – you might get a response! Also, I wanted to acknowledge Congressman Ackerman for his fast response and highlight his position on Net Neutrality.

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about government regulation of the internet. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important issue.

The internet has transformed the way we communicate and share knowledge; it has spread information, spurred innovation, and connected the world in ways that were inconceivable just over a decade ago. Like no other advancement in history, the internet has become an indispensible ingredient of our education, our culture, and our democracy.

To ensure continued access to, and increased content on, the internet, it is absolutely essential that the flow of information over the internet is kept free. Unfortunately, under current law, internet providers are able to restrict the flow of online content that competes with the other services they offer. For example, this past summer, one national company began charging their customers based on bandwidth usage, limiting users’ ability to stream videos. Another large provider was recently exposed for restricting the connection speed of any users engaging in file sharing.

Fortunately, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has proposed regulation codifying six principles of so-called “net neutrality” to ensure that the internet remains an open forum over which information and ideas are spread free of discrimination. The proposed regulation would forbid providers from giving preference to certain types of material and force them to disclose any restrictions they place on their customers’ online usage. I strongly support the administration’s continuing efforts to promote net neutrality and internet freedom and will continue to advocate for its implementation.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Of course, if I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

GARY L. ACKERMAN
Member of Congress

One thing that has been on my mind in the wake of the horrific shooting in Arizona on Saturday is the depth of the denial that exists left, right and center in the United States on the amount of violent and eliminationist rhetoric that is spouted every day. It’s not politicizing the tragedy to talk about this, a federal judge and a Congresswoman were shot at a political event. Assassinations and attempted assassinations are inherently political.

Loughner may be mentally ill or he may not be. That is irrelevant when you consider the scope not only of the violence that has been perpetrated, but the scope of the threatening rants and vile hatred that are broadcast, not just on the internet, or radio or television – but by official candidates for Senate and other offices in the Republican party. One of the ideas that seems to be recurring lately is that any individual can soak up toxic ideas in the culture around him or her and they can manifest themselves in surprising and unpredictable ways. This is true.

To call for “both sides” to tone it down is meaningless. On the left, there is no talk of “second amendment remedies” for “domestic enemies in Congress.” No one dares suggest that “if ballots don’t work bullets will.” There have been no calls to “gather your armies” or “break their windows” (with subsequent broken windows, cut gas lines and threatening phone calls). Howard Dean, Bill Richardson or Kirsten Gillibrand – all Democrats who are also strong 2nd Amendment supporters have never ever held fundraisers where people shoot M-16’s to signal their enthusiasm.

A conservative acquaintance brought up the example of Congressman Manchin shooting a copy of the cap and trade bill in a commercial. But to me that proves my point. He was outdoors, with a rifle that looks more appropriate for hunting deer than armed insurrection, (Newt Gingrich however has said that the 2nd amendment is not for those tree hugging hunters-it’s for shooting the gubbermint) and Manchin wasn’t shooting Waxman and Markey – the people who introduced the bill – or any facsimile of their faces or bodies. He was destroying the actual piece of paper their ideas were on that he disagreed with.

In fact our leaders on the left take pride America for being a peaceful country. Nancy Pelosi pointed out how amazing a non-violent transfer of power was when she passed the gavel to John Boehner. Contrast this with the American Family Association claiming that we have sullied the Medal of Honor in recent years by giving it more often to service members who save lives than those who kill on the battlefield.

For anyone still insisting that somehow liberals are as violent as conservatives, how would you explain why Barack Obama has received an unprecedented number of death threats? George W Bush was thoroughly reviled on the left. Liberals broke Godwin’s Law every day. Any yet, there were no records broken with regards to actual violence.

I like Amanda Marcotte’s post about how pointing this out is hard to do, even when you know it’s important. She compares it to putting a cat in their carrier. But it must be done. If no one is calling out rhetoric that incites violence, people can go about their lives ignoring it. And when tragedy strikes, we think “oh that’s terrible” and then after a day or two we continue about our lives until the next time it happens. We must analyze these events together and alongside the causes. If no one is telling specific individuals that they need to take responsibility for what they say, their intensity and vitriol will grow – as will the number of people who take those messages to a twisted conclusion.

Sex at Dawn
The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha

I’ve been reading Dan Savage’s love and sex advice column for eleven years, since I was seventeen. At first I was shocked and titillated by the openness of his writing about sex. I had halfway decent sex education at home and in high school. But nothing my teenage classmates put into our Health teacher’s question box was like the letters printed in “Savage Love.” As I got older I came to appreciate Dan Savage on a different level. There are lots of websites with basic information about sex, but there’s something about a personal, yet public response from a knowledgeable person who will occasionally make fun of you that drives thousands of people to ask his advice every week.

I’d noticed that in the past 2 or 3 years Dan had started to question the premise of monogamy. He would often point out to a person grieving their partner’s infidelity, that so many people are bad at staying faithful and ask if a partner has extra marital sex once or twice in their entire life, is that really worth a messy breakup or divorce? In his book “Skipping Towards Gomorrah” Savage presents a picture of American swingers as very happy people with stable relationships. He often writes about this alternative in his column.

As some of you may know, I have recently gotten married, so monogamy has been at the forefront of my mind for most of the recent past. I freely admit to having a happy and healthy newlywed glow. Any criticism I have of “Sex at Dawn,” I have thought seriously about – I don’t want to fall into the trap of letting my current status poison my analysis. But in case I have failed, let the record show that I have admitted my bias freely.

Before deciding to marry I did think seriously about the concept of monogamy; if it were possible and if my partner and I were capable of it. Being young and in love, and at the beginning of a marriage is the wrong place to ask those questions however. It would be like asking all of the runners of a race at the starting line if they will finish. Surely some will sprain ankles or give up. But who would admit the possibility of failure when filled with the adrenaline and optimism of race day? Dan Savage’s advice to his readers gave me hope – he seemed to be saying that some people are just not cut out for monogamy. Just like some people are gay, or straight, or bisexual. If that was true, then I was good to go – monogamy feels as natural to me as my heterosexuality.

Then Dan Savage started raving about “Sex at Dawn.” I rolled my eyes. I have a really bad habit of lurking on MRA/PUA blogs until my mood is absolutely spoiled. Now I’m going to have to hear about how I’m made for hypergamy, incapable of love and should be dehumanized from Dan Savage too?!

I read the Salon review of the book, which piqued my interest.

I listened to the Savage Lovecast where Ryan said “It’s not that women are whores. It’s that they’re sluts.” And that’s when I knew I had to read the book. I had often wondered if there was an argument to be made about why and how so many cultures spend so much effort repressing female sexual desire if it did not exist, but did not know where to look. Sex at Dawn sounded like it would explore this question.

The thesis of the book is that human beings evolved in groups where men and women both had multiple sexual partners. Monogamy only came about when people adapted to agriculture. The evidence is vast, ranging from the behaviors of our chimp and bonobo cousins to specific features of the human reproductive system (Mark Twain said it best when he remarked that women should probably have harems and not men, since men could only satisfy one partner per night). What I found most convincing was the evidence that early hunter-gatherer tribes probably shared food and other resources equitably. There are different groups of people all over the world who most likely still live in the way that our early ancestors did. In those societies, some of whom have never had contact with the others, hoarding food or refusing to share is the greatest taboo. Things started to click in my mind before it was spelled out in the book. If a man must share the meat from his hunt with all of the children in the tribe, how could he possibly favor the ones that are biologically his? What purpose would it make to try and assure paternity if that knowledge could not be used? If our concept of possession and property did not extend to the very food we labored to acquire, how could we have been jealously guarding pair bonds of one man and one woman? The theory that humans were not monogamous for the vast majority of our history was becoming more difficult for me to simply dismiss.

Christopher Ryan has been careful to say that just because people did not evolve to form monogamous pairs doesn’t mean that they should not attempt it. He has famously compared it to being vegan – a worthy goal fraught with difficulty and lots of temptation.

The authors do come dangerously close to committing the fallacy that they so artfully dismantle. There is frequent reference to the “standard narrative” which both resembles the idealized version of 1950’s sexuality and the bleak perspective of those who insist that men and women must always be at war with one another because they have diametrically opposed reproductive strategies. They make the argument that women’s sex drives are powerful and capable of a lot more than any Western societies have been willing to admit. The authors dare to ask the question – if women are so naturally reserved, why are so many restrictions required of women? Would a truly asexual gender need them?

And yet their chapter about modern day marital infidelity only includes one case study of a man cheating on his wife. I will say that they did a very good job of skillfully and sensitively presenting the evidence of why a man with so much to lose would do such a thing, and making it clear that they do not mean to rub salt in the wounds of the wives who are so hurt. But there is no corresponding narrative of why a woman would cheat or why her husband should make an effort to understand her natural drives and hormonal confusion. Simply presenting evidence that men who have more partners have higher testosterone levels, and that low testosterone can lead to all sorts of issues up to an including death is sobering. But it doesn’t fiat away the fact that this does lend strength to the “standard narrative” that they are so opposed to. Instead of falling back on “Sorry honey, my sperm is cheap, her eggs are expensive and my secretary is young and fertile,” will it now become “Sorry honey my Testosterone was getting low so it was pretty much sex or death?”

I do love the fact that Sex at Dawn does acknowledge how complicated the human brain is. It has always frustrated me that so little popular Evolutionary Psychology narratives seem to address the higher brain functions performed by the neocortex. Human beings have a lot more grey matter than just our reptile brains. If we could master our environment enough to put a man on the moon couldn’t we also create an equally sophisticated view of gender roles? I had been taught that our large brains evolved because the ability to use language, solve problems systematically and build tools were tremendous advantages. Ryan and Jetha speculate that the neocortex evolved because of the complicated webs of human relationships that a large brain was required.

Another thing I appreciate about Sex at Dawn is the understanding the authors have of the context in which they are writing it. Christopher Ryan’s blog posts appear to acknowledge that many evolutionary psychology studies are used to uphold the status quo, justify sexism or just plain right wing politics (and he is unabashedly liberal.) I don’t think that scientists should self censor for fear of a particular political climate or backlash. But the way they present their work should be informed by an understanding of its consequences.

Dan Savage’s quote on the front cover of the book calls it, “The single most important book on human sexuality since Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior of the Human Male on the American Public in 1948.” Christopher Ryan has balked at this, and his modesty is very becoming. I’m not an expert on human sexuality so I can’t speak to the veracity of the claim, but it did make me more interested in evolutionary psychology than I had previously been.

Ryan and Jetha criticize people who encourage married couples to get divorced simply because of infidelity, citing studies that children are better off when their parents are married and suggesting that many of those couples would be happier trying to work past it or changing their arrangement to allow sex with other people. It has become fashionable to say that people shouldn’t make promises that they cannot keep. It’s usually my response to celebrity infidelity scandals. However there are huge pressures to marry and it’s not wise to ignore those pressures when doling out advice.

If I could ask one question of the authors, it would be this: Is there any research on what characteristics or behaviors of people who are “good at monogamy” have in common? It might seem like wishful thinking. But I have applied social science research to my personal life before. When I was in graduate school, I was living away from my husband. I read this book by a psychologist who interviewed people in long distance relationships and reported on the behaviors and circumstances that the couples who stayed together and were the happiest had in common. The book was a great source of comfort to me and we did apply some of the suggestions to our relationship.

Another acquaintance of mine set her mind on a goal of losing weight – something 95% of the people who do fail. And yet Greta has been successful. She started by researching extensively the habits and methods of people who have done it before.

I know that Ryan and Jetha wanted their book to spark debate and conversations, but ones more along the lines of “knowing what we now know about human sexuality, how should we apply this to our relationships?” I think that’s an important discussion to have as well. I have no objection to polyamory for those who wish to partake in it. But just as they have convincingly rejected the “standard narrative” of human sexuality I’m not as eager to jump on the bandwagon of another. I reject the premise that failure is inevitable. If, as they report in the book, 38% of couples report being happily married – even if half of them are lying – the odds of being happily monogamous are still more than three times better than the odds of successfully losing weight. The message that love is possible without monogamy is a vital one that needs to be repeated. But I admit to wanting both.

As a supporter of Civil Liberties, a baseball fan, and an American with Latino heritage, I am very interested in the controversy over this years Major League Baseball All Star Game. It’s scheduled to take place in Phoenix, Arizona. Activists opposed to Arizona’s immigration law which requires people to prove they are not “illegal immigrants” have called for a boycott of the state. Thus began “Move The Game” an organization dedicated to convince baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to move the All Star Game out of Arizona.

The intersection of sports and politics has always fascinated me. Desegregation, the Olympics, the growing popularity of women’s sports and other events show that what’s happening in the world is often reflected on the field. I outright reject any argument that a boycott of the ASG should it not be moved, or other political actions are illegitimate simply because they have to so with sports.

There is a precedent for Arizona and sports impacting the broader political discussion. In 1987, after the newly-elected governor rescinded the Martin Luther King holiday for Arizona, the NFL voted to move the Super Bowl from Arizona to the Rose Bowl in California. After Arizona voted to restore MLK day as a holiday, the NFL finally chose to host the Super Bowl in Phoenix.

I do not know if this movement will be successful, their web-page has not been updated since September. However, Spring Training is on the horizon (less than a month!) and I hope that more will be done.

I will be sending the following letter to Bud Selig, at his office address:
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY Zip Code 10167

It is modified from the suggested letter on the Move the Game Website:

I have been a baseball fan since I was a little girl. My father taught me to play catch and all about the rules of baseball. It was one of the first things we bonded over and a love of the game is a special part of our relationship even now that I am an adult. He’s a proud American citizen, a veteran and also an immigrant. My dad came to this country as a child from Colombia.

I was shocked and angered when I heard that the state of Arizona passed SB 1070. I am opposed to racial profiling, especially that of American citizens like my father who, despite their service to our country might be singled out unfairly because of their appearance. It is for this reason that I fully support the Boycott Arizona movement and the Move the Game movement – to attempt to convince you, Mr. Commissioner to move the 2011 All Star Game anywhere outside of Arizona.

Arizona’s extreme immigration law is an invitation to racial profiling and harassment of Arizona residents and anybody who visits the state, including MLB players, an large number of whom are Latino or Black, their families and fans, an equally large number of whom are people of color and upstanding Americans.

Baseball is America’s National Pastime. It’s estimated the All-Star Game could bring as much as $60 million to the host region. Arizona doesn’t deserve to profit from discrimination and to host one of the great annual sporting events with your consent. Do what’s best for baseball and move the 2011 All-Star Game unless Arizona changes its harmful and hateful immigration law.

I have shared this letter on my blog, and via other social media on the internet and encouraged my friends, family and contacts to send you similar letters. I hope that we will convince you.