Yesterday, President Obama nominated United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Few were surprised by the choice, as Kagan has long been viewed a frontrunner for the high court. While many observers have applauded Obama’s decision, others like myself were left with a lingering question.

Is this really the best we could do?

Let’s be clear, I am not questioning Kagan’s basic qualifications as a nominee. Unlike those who have questioned her “temperament” and “intellectual curiosity”—loaded queries that only seem to get raised in relation to women and minority candidates—I have little doubt about Kagan’s fitness for the job. Rather, I am concerned about Kagan’s ability to fill John Paul Stevens’ shoes as the progressive anchor of the Supreme Court.

Although she undoubtedly shares the same political persuasion as Justice Stevens, Kagan is considerably less progressive on major issues of the day. While Stevens has filed numerous dissents in an effort to challenge the Bush (and now Obama) doctrine of endless executive power, Kagan has dutifully argued in favor of policies that undermine the spirit and letter of the Constitution. For example, during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, Kagan offered unequivocal support for the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists as well as the bizarre belief that the entire world is a battleground. On other issues, from gay marriage to civil rights, Kagan has done nothing to inspire confidence that she would continue Stevens’ tradition of principled and rigorous resistance.

For the rest of the piece, click here.

If you’ve been on the interwebs in the last week you’ve likely seen the following video where a small dance troupe of incredibly talented seven year olds completely dominates a performance of Beyonce’s Single Ladies. In case you haven’t had a chance to check it out, or just want another view:

Little Girls- Single Ladies

The first time I saw this video was when it was posted by a former student of mine who is a professional choreographer. She actually judged the girls’ performance at competition last week.  She remarked that when she saw them, they were even more polished. The comments added to the video post on this choreographer’s wall were largely of awe and amazement at the skill of the girls. The command of their entire bodies, their strength, agility, flexibility and rhythm are impressive, to say the least.

So that’s what dancers thought of this dance performance. But what about the rest of the internet?

-“Were there no adults around to tell them to do something suitable for 7-year-olds instead of doing this? Yikes.”- Buzzfeed post that garnered hundreds of comments from upset viewers who rated the video as “ew” and “trashy.”

-“Little Girls Tackle Single Ladies, make me extremely uncomfortable”- headline to article that goes on to remind us, “I’m glad these gals are “Single Ladies,” because seven is far too young to have a boyfriend.”

- “I feel like Beyonce had on more modest attire when she did this number. Who buys negligee for their kids?”- random (but oft repeated) sentiment on the Book of Face.

Even my partner responded by saying, “I feel like I just inadvertently committed a crime.”

I was aghast at this judgmental reaction. Here these little girls had just done something incredible, something I hope they are proud of for the rest of their lives and Jane and John Random, who would certainly never be able to full off such a feat at any age, met the video with tongue-wagging judgment about the costumes.

They reacted like someone had called the Modesty Police with the Bat Signal.

There’s no point in arguing that little girls wear swimsuits that cover less of the body. Or in pointing out that dance outfits must be form fitting to be functional. Or in reminding viewers that, as a dancer, I can tell you it’s a hell of a lot more comfortable to perform in a bare mid-drift top than in a constricting onesie that is about 20 degrees warmer under bright stage lights.

That’s far from the point. The point is that objectification and sexualization are relative. What makes your argument about these girls’ outfits any different than a conservative Imam who says women must be covered head to toe in order to protect them from the lustful gaze of men?

It’s not the girls who are being overtly sexual, it’s the adults who are projecting upon them. We worry about little kids being preyed upon, yes. So teach them not to get into vans with strangers. Don’t take away their freedom to dance in cute outfits. If the beauty of childhood is the freedom to be innocent, then let these kids be innocent. They’re just dancing. You’re judging it to be sexual.

A few weeks ago I met with an administrator who was concerned about introducing Flirty Girl fitness into my schedule at the gym. He expressed great concern about the objectification of the students who would attend such a class. I had to bite my tongue to avoid saying “simply because something is female and flirty doesn’t make it obscene or objectifying.”

bart everly's little girls

Females doing something physical that makes them happy is not the gateway to imprudence, no matter how many centuries of paternalistic virgin-whore dichotomy we’re force fed. Dancing is not a sin, wearing cute and frilly two-piece outfits will not cause anyone to become promiscuous and all your leaps to lump this performance in with a culture of prosti-tots will not take away the impressiveness that is this work of athletic art.

But I welcome your arguments to the contrary.

Questions? Comments? Violent Reactions? Email Timaree at sexwithtimaree@gmail.com See more at SexwithTimaree.com

On April 15, 1995 Timothy McVeigh, a U.S. army veteran and disgruntled citizen, detonated a truck bomb in downtown Oklahoma that killed 168 people, making it the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the nation’s history.

As we mark the fifteenth anniversary of the tragedy this week, we must not only remember the lives that were lost due to senseless violence, but also recommit ourselves to preventing similar acts of terrorism. To do this, we must pay careful attention to the rising tide of domestic extremism that threatens to replicate the tragic outcomes from fifteen years ago.

While it is tempting to dismiss McVeigh as a lone extremist, such a claim would be both counter-factual and dangerous. In reality, McVeigh was part of a small but dangerous minority of right-wing radicals who were angry at the direction in which the country was headed. Similar conditions exist today, as the election of President Obama and the current economic crisis have led to a rise in anti-immigrant vigilante groups, citizen militias, and other “Patriot” organizations— the same violent movements that inspired McVeigh in the 1990s.

Ironically, these extremist groups are comprised of poor and working class white males, like McVeigh, who largely benefit from the very policies to which they are vehemently and violently opposed. This has been a consistent trend throughout American history, as disadvantaged whites have supported everything from slavery to welfare reform, all of which undermine their own economic prosperity, in order to garner what W.E.B. Dubois called the “psychic wages of whiteness.” Rather than organizing in ways that reflect their economic interests, these individuals instead elect to close ranks around Whiteness by joining violent extremist groups, thereby promoting the interests of white elites.

For the rest of the story, click here.

Over the past month, New York State Senator Eric Adams has drawn national headlines by unveiling the “Stop Sagging” campaign, a series of billboards and viral web videos that decry the hip-hop fashion trend of wearing pants below the waist. Although Senator Adams is the most visible opponent of sagging, he is far from alone. In states like Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, politicians have taken the anti-sagging movement to the next level by passing laws that criminalize the fashion trend by creating public decency ordinances.

The outrage over sagging pants is rooted in a belief that the trend is an outgrowth of prison culture, where inmates are forced to sag their pants because they aren’t permitted to wear belts. Others argue that sagging pants are a sign of prison homosexuality, as gay inmates expose their buttocks to let others know that they are sexually available.

While the claims about prison culture may be true, there is little credible evidence that they provide the origins of the current hip-hop trend. There is even less evidence that the youth who wear this fashion are consciously or unconsciously attempted to mimic the practices of prisoners. Instead, these arguments are nothing more than red herrings that play on a cynical, unsophisticated, and reactionary vision of our youth.

By linking sagging pants to prison culture, opponents are able to scare the public into believing in a one-to-one relationship between fashion choices and social deviance. By connecting it to homosexuality, they are able to play on the homophobic myth that being gay is a social contagion that can be avoided through the use of a sturdy belt.

For the rest of the story, click here.