The Balanescu Quartet perform Kraftwerk's 'Das Modell' from the cd Possessed. (Audio Only)
Below, Kraftwerk's original version and David Byrne performing 'Das Modell' with the Balanescu Quartet.
(Cross-posted at Petulant Rumblings)
Midnight Serenade- Balanescu Quartet
Below, Kraftwerk's original version and David Byrne performing 'Das Modell' with the Balanescu Quartet.
(Cross-posted at Petulant Rumblings)
Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also, if you will accompany him into his suspiciously sexy kitchen, show you the proper way to toss a salad.
Question of the Day
Continuing on the theme, and suggested by Shaker Heather...
What TV shows are you most excited about seeing new episodes of in the new year?
I shall answer this question by posting the promo Petulant just sent me via email:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST!!!!!!!
14 days. Pant, pant.
Quote of the Day
"People who are against gay marriage do not understand the very freedoms that they themselves are enjoying."—Brad Pitt, in an interview with W magazine.
You may recall, as Mustang Bobby reported, that Pitt donated $100,000 to fight California's Proposition 8.
My love affair with the Jolie-Pitts continues unabated.
Daily Kitteh
There is nothing more adorable than a sleeping kitten.
Just don't wake them with a flash.
Dashiell- King of Pillows
Mister Dagny loves his red sheets.
Miss Delia covers her face to the evil paparazzi.
Yo, Seattle: Celebrate, Feed the Homeless, and Support Muntadhir Al-Zaidi
by Shaker BGK
On Jan 20th, 2009 Barack Obama will deliver his inaugural address, becoming the 44th President of the United States of America. He will also become the first President of the United States to be a Person of Color. His speech and ball will hopefully be a party for our nation.
Unfortunately, not everyone on Jan. 20th will have the same ability to celebrate.
For many across the nation, January is a hard time to make ends meet. Here in Seattle, Northwest Harvest reports heavy demand on our foodbank.
Half a world away, Muntadhir Al-Zaidi awaits trial for expressing his anger at 43rd President of the United States George Bush. Everyone can understand that frustration and anger. Now that he's held at Camp Cropper, there are some reports that Al-Zaidi has suffered injuries and brutality. Clearly, he should not be tortured for his crime of shoe-throwing.
The combination of these three events has spawned a local event here in Seattle.
One of my local pubs, The Red Line Bar & Grill, will host an inauguration party. The TV screens will show the news feed of the inauguration party for all to watch. It's my hope that we will have great conversations happening inside as we watch this moment in US history.
On the back patio, you can donate 3 non-perishable food stuffs or $5 to the Northwest Harvest, helping to feed the needy of Washington State and Oregon. In exchange for your donation, you will be given the opportunity to take Al-Zaidi's place and try to hit President Bush with a pair of size 10 loafers. Just like our outgoing President, he's dodgy. If you manage to hit the president with both shoes, you will win a coveted and rare Redline t-shirt. There will also be excellent drink specials all night! (Manny's beer to name one.)
All in all, there will be good fun, good food, good conversation, a new president, and a healthy donation to Northwest Harvest to feed the needy in this area. Please consider this an open invitation to any Shakers. If you have questions or need directions, please contact me (Shaker BGK) at shoesatbush@gmail.com.
Thanks!
My Meeting with Eisenstadt
After a chase that went through three continents, several countries, and countless blog posts - and despite his recently announced book deal - I can't say I was overly impressed with the infamous Martin Eisenstadt.
--WKW
Crossposted at Williamkwolfrum.com
As if You Needed Another Reason
Rick Warren continues to show that he was a horrible choice for Obama's Inaugural Invocation. This might be old news to some of you, but this was the first time I had heard of this little gem. According to Warren, women do not have the "right" to divorce abusive husbands.
Yeah.Warren, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to deliver the Inaugural Invocation, instructs his parishioners that the Bible says physical abuse is no excuse for getting a divorce. Warren explains:
I definitely suggest following the first link and reading the entire post. As Nina the author puts it, this "gives abusive husbands another tool to control their victims: the Bible." Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse, there's something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.
"God," Warren says, "hates divorce." This teaching is posted in the "Bible Questions and Answers" section of the Saddleback Family website (#32, "What should I do when abuse is happening in my marriage?").As he puts it:
Apparently, it's not only possible at Saddleback to pray away the gay, it's possible to pray away the abuse. An abusive marriage is a "situation." A separation will heal all wounds and fix all problems. You might want to keep this little tidbit in mind the next time someone tells you "It's just a prayer, what's the big deal?" if you're speaking about Warren's campaign against LGBTQI persons. There's quite a few eye-openers on the Saddleback website, if you can stomach listening to the files.I want to tell you the advice that we give in our counseling ministries. First of all if you are in this kind of a situation, I strongly recommend that you take advantage of our lay counseling ministry. Go in and talk to someone and let them minister to you. And the advice that we give is not divorce but separation.
Warren omits mention of contacting the police, seeking medical attention, or obtaining legal assistance to secure orders of protection for yourself and your children.
Warren was a terrible, terrible choice.
(Energy dome tip to NMMNB, via Alternative Invocation.)
Assvertising
Part Thirty-Five in an ongoing series…
Heineken, not quite outdoing its keg-as-uterus advert:
I'd just like to point out that some wankjob advertising firm made big money coming up with the extraordinarily sophisticated and cutting-edge concept "Girls Like Shoes; Boys Like Beer."
What I like best about it is the subtle messaging about women: When the women scream, nada from the men; when the men scream, the women stop their own celebration and go see what's up with the dudez.
Because the women's reactions are not overtly revealed, it can play into your favorite stereotype—either women are submissive nurturers who stop their own celebration to make sure the guys are okay, or women are henpecking harpies who can't enjoy themselves if "their men" are having any fun. Wheeeeeee!
[Via Sociological Images. Assvertising: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four.]
Wednesday Blogaround
hey your big gay blogaround's bevis is fat
Recommended Reading:
Andy: Animal Rights Activist Nathan Runkle in Brutal Anti-Gay Assault
nojojojo: S.O.S., Different Year
Elle: Labor Pains
Shayera: Already loved him, now I ADORE (Heads up, Izzard fans!)
BAC: A President Forgotten but Not Gone
Marcella: Understanding and Misunderstanding Genuine Consent
And update your blogrolls! Shaker Redstar, aka Leigh Graham, is blogging Poverty in America at Change.org.
Leave your links in comments...
No Big Thing. Right.
Following up on 'Liss' post.
When Shaker BGK sent me this article about the letters sent to 11 gay bars, I was struck by the first paragraph, and the last (seems to be a thing for me lately):
The article starts out:
"Eleven gay bars in Seattle were sent letters Tuesday threatening ricin attacks — in what some are describing as a hate crime." (emp mine)and it ends:
"Stranger editorial director Dan Savage said he didn't take the threat too seriously: "I get a death threat a day with Savage Love," he said, referring to a sex column he writes.WTF? "What some are calling a hate crime"?!?!?!?
Savage said the letters didn't contain any religious references, making him wonder whether the author was an embittered gay person. He said that if the threat were designed to ruin business for gay bars, it may backfire. Staffers from The Stranger made a point of visiting gay bars Tuesday night to show their support, he said, and others may be inspired to do the same."
See, it doesn't matter who sent the letters -- this is terrorism, pure and simple -- and it is terrorism targeted at a specific oppressed population, which is, by definition, a fucking hate crime.
And hey, Dan Savage -- good for you for dealing with your fear in the face of death threat letters sent to The Stranger, but you know, when the police and the FBI are taking it seriously, you might want to join in and get off your pleasure cruise down that river in Egypt.
Because even if the author of the letter doesn't follow through on the threat, the threat itself is still an issue, in my mind -- it's designed to stimulate fear in an already-threatened population, and as I cruised around the blogosphere looking at responses from queers, I noticed that I had that uh-oh feeling again:
"Like most gay people, I've been getting death threats since grade school, so bring it on."
"They collected the letter and that's about it. I don't think it's anything to worry about it." Roland admitted to being unnerved by the letter at first. "But after the initial 'what?', it's like whatever."Which is sad, to me. We're so used to being despised. We're accustomed to watching our backs and being vigilant.
Don't get me wrong -- I understand it --we almost have to make it "no big thing", because if we responded to every potential threat against us, that's just about all we'd do every day.
I've been in the majority of those 11 bars, at one point or another, and in some sense, the author of the letter has been effective, no matter what happens next -- because the next time I walk through the door of one of them, I'll think of that letter -- it will be one more piece of vigilance I carry with me, when my armor is already feeling a bit weighty.
I was trying to imagine, though, what the response would have been if the same letter were received by, say, eleven churches of a specific denomination. I'm guessing the members of that community would not be saying things like: "Well, we get a death threat a day", or "well, whatever", and I'm guessing that next Sunday, there would be a strong police presence in the neighborhood of each of those churches.
I think it's important for queers to maintain their mental health in terms of this stuff -- these are the ways we cope sometimes -- by calming ourselves and going on with our lives, even in the face of threats and malice -- but I also think it's important for us to remember that, in a just society, those threats and that malice would not be an accepted reality, but rather, a very rare experience.
It's important that we remember this, lest we become like a battered spouse who just gets "used to it", because we all know where that goes.
No Terrorism Since 9/11
Since there hasn't been any terrorism on Bush's watch since 9/11—certainly none here, nor here, nor here, nor here, nor here, nor here, nor here, nor here, nor here, nor here, anyway—it's good that Bush can go out without any more terrorism here, either:
Eleven gay bars in Seattle were sent letters Tuesday threatening ricin attacks — in what some are describing as a hate crime.Let us all take a moment to note, appreciate, and summarily despise the bitter irony that the GOP made gay-hating a centerpiece of the 2004 Bush reelection campaign in a desperate bid to put their boy back into office because it is only the GOP who can protect us from the terrorists.
The anonymous letters say, "I have in my possession approximately 67 grams of ricin with which I will indiscriminately target at least five of your clients. ... I expect them to die painfully while in hospital."
A 12th letter was sent to the alternative weekly The Stranger, according to its Web site. That letter says the paper should be "prepared to announce the deaths of approximately 55 individuals."
...In a statement, the Seattle Police Department said it takes the threat seriously. It has seized the letters and is processing them and is coordinating efforts with the FBI and other federal agencies.
More on Gupta
I don't have a problem with Gupta's qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don't have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore "fudged his facts", when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.Avedon:
What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he's uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It's sort of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered less "serious" than people who waited until it was fashionable to reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it's a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way.
Anyone who can utter that many conservative lies and talking points about single-payer/"socialized" medicine is, to put it generously, the wrong choice - and looks an awful lot like a signal from Obama that he doesn't give a damn about one of the most vital issues facing us. It's not bad enough that he said before that he doesn't support single-payer, but he clearly hasn't learned anything of value in his long period of running for president. Another "Up yours!" to the people who voted for him thinking he had to be better than this.In good news, he does disagree with the recent HHS rule change regarding conscience clauses that allows healthcare professionals to opt out of providing drugs/treatments and performing procedures which they find morally repugnant.
...I don't consider Gupta an honest voice in the healthcare discussion, and I don't think anyone should. As a medical journalist, he's not really that good - he's on TV because he says things The Villagers like, which means conservative bull.
Change I Can Believe In
In its new package of rule changes, the House has finally decided to make its official language gender neutral, recognizing the growing representation of women in Congress (including as Speaker of the House). Gone are references to "he," "chairman," and phrases such as "his duties."Using "male" as the universal for all humankind is one of the most pernicious narratives of institutional sexism, diametrically opposite in its gravity from the seriousness with which it's usually treated. Objections to, for example, the substitution of "mankind" for "humankind" are perhaps the most likely to elicit knee-jerk reactions of the exasperated eye-rolling sort, frequently even from generally feminist men and women, who might insist that there are more important things about which to worry.
But an inevitable effect of regarding "male" as the Norm is regarding "female" as the Other. Every time we engage in the little, unimportant thing of male-universal language, we are reinforcing the very foundation of inequality upon which the entire structure of institutional sexism rests.
I can think of few things more important to worry about than that.
I grew up in a world in which the default human was not like me. I was a girl who was part of "mankind," a girl who read "him" and "his" when it was meant to refer to me, a girl who saw human beings generically represented on everything from street signs to "How to Perform the Heimlich Maneuver" pamphlets with exclusively male forms, a girl who, in the first grade, asked her teacher why she called a woman a "policeman" because the dissonance piqued me, a girl to whom sexism was transmitted early and repeatedly as I saw women doing "-man" jobs—policeman, fireman, mailman, repairman, businessman, congressman, councilman, spokesman, chairman, fisherman, tradesman—communicating to me at an early age that I was less than, even as the inharmonious language arose in me a feeling of anger and unfairness I couldn't yet articulate; the jobs were now open to women, but their titles were reflecting that they were still regarded as the province of men.
And now, here I am at 34 years old, and as the representatives of my country are finally acknowledging that maybe something's wrong with all that, I glance (foolishly) at the comments at Think Progress and see that the long overdue progress is being met with the same vexing accusations of language policing and wasting time on insignificant things. I am meant to believe my equality is not attached to language, and yet the moment the language comes to me at long last, it is an outrage, while the 34 years I've spent trying to carve out a space for myself in language that did not provide one for me hasn't evoked so much as a modicum of the same indignation.
Sure. Language doesn't matter.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: Telling a girl since birth that she is equal matters little if she travels within a culture that consistently sends signals contrary to that message. It's imperative to subvert the presumption that male is the default, the norm, the unique representative of humankind. And it's no little thing.
[H/T Oddjob.]
Read These Now or THE PILL Will Destroy the Mens
Howdy kittens! I return from the holidays and survived the Epiphany. Like myself, I hope everyone had a good time. I know I did on New Year's Eve. Me and a friend did our immaculate impersonation of Edina and Patsy. Falling down drunk were we. HA! My friend performed the Patsy role and helped Edina (ME) with a cumbersome cummerbund and those damn frog buttons on a gold silk Mandarin jacket. Damn those frog buttons closures! I had to borrow the cummerbund from my friend's partner because I was wearing a pair of tux pants that I thought still fit. My clothes were too big for once. Shocking! It was all fun though. Even the slapping match was fun. I didn't wake up with any strange men unless you count the gingerbread man that my friend placed on my passed-out body.
I could regale you with my antics, but some reading material is the purpose of this post.
Today's morning readings are brought to you by Autechre's Incunabula. Basscadet baby!
Another $70 billion for war.Gaza's day of carnage - 40 dead as Israelis bomb two UN schools. (Guardian)(Telegraph)Photos: Heartbreak in the Middle East. (Time)Our illustrious 111th Congress pledges to rescue the economy. Then the rest of the article deals with the ceremonial slapping of asses and who did what, where or who wasn't allowed to the party.CBN News' David Brody quotes a Pew Forum study of the religious breakdown of Congress. OMG! Only 54.7% are Protestant, "but the numbers continue to dwindle." Someone please help the Protestants.Obama wants a tax credit to stimulate the economy.Statement from the Icelandic Government Concerning Legal Proceedings Against UK Authorities.
A couple of weeks not reading bloody politics does the body good. All of this is so depressing.
A minor rant: If I have to see that damn Lee Ann Womack commercial for her new album one more time, I am going to throw a hissy fit. That damn commercial IS EVERYWHERE. I get it! She has a new album and I need to buy a Crosley jukebox. ARGHHHHH!Hmmm... Jumping in icy water to retrieve a cross ain't my thing.Playing golf can 'damage hearing.' (BBC)Anyone going to Gallifrey '09?Pink Inguanas!"Now an international research team led by Newcastle University has identified a new line of bacteria they believe add flavour to some of the world's most exclusive cheeses." (Eurekalert)
Mixing it up a little and now the morning readings are brought to you by Beyond the Wizard's Sleeve. "Do you talk to the plants, Percy?"Vatican Science: Pope Blames Male Infertility on…the Pill. (Discover)Black Holes Lead Galaxy Growth."Cult Couturier" Ziad Ghanem's Spring/Summer 09 Sartre-inspired collection for his ready to wear line Maiden Britain is laden with references. (Dazed Digital) His "Hell is paradise without other people" collection. HA!
"An 18-year-old hacker with a history of celebrity pranks has admitted to Monday's hijacking of multiple high-profile Twitter accounts, including President-Elect Barack Obama's, and the official feed for Fox News." (Wired) Bill O'Reilly is not gay. HA!R.I.P. Ron Asheton. (Arratik)
This post is cross-posted at the new and improved and FINALLY functioning again Petulant Rumblings. I also decided to play with my Twitter account. Huzzah for fragmented thought!
Question of the Day
Riffing off last night's: What film released in 2008 did you want to see but haven't seen yet, for whatever reason?
My #1 wannasee is Wendy and Lucy, because I adore Michelle Williams and it just sounds really interesting.
I am also desperate to see Kate Winslet's two new films, Revolutionary Road and The Reader, which I believe have only opened so far in NY and LA to qualify for the Oscars.
There are a bunch more I still want to see, too, but those top the list.
Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General
I want to say "Sounds Good!" just to keep the S.G. theme going, but, unfortunately, this selection doesn't sound that good, at least for some of us, because Dr. Gupta is an "obesity epidemic" guy who occasionally likes to mingle his fat-hating with misogyny.
For more on Gupta's Big Fat Problem, see Zuzu here, too, as well as Fillyjonk, Rachel, and FatFu.
And if you're not sure what the big deal is, check out Meowser's guest post about how fat-hating and bureaucracy is not good news for anyone, especially as we verge on creating a (partially) public health system.
It's Like Robin Hood, Except Totally Not
So, I don't even really know where to begin with this clusterfucktastrophe of an idea in which the unholy alliance of General Mills, purveyor of such food brands as Lucky Charms cereal and Häagen-Dazs ice cream, NBC's fat-hating diet game show "The Biggest Loser," and Feeding America (formerly known as Second Harvest), the largest domestic hunger-relief organization in the US, have joined forces under the banner of the Pound for Pound Challenge, in which American fatties are encouraged to lose weight to help feed their starving countrywo/men.
General Mills, NBC's The Biggest Loser and Feeding America today announced they are partnering to launch the Pound For Pound Challenge, an initiative that encourages Americans to lose weight and feed the hungry. For every pound dieters pledge to lose this new year, a pound of groceries will be delivered to a local food bank.Okay, let's stop right there for a moment. Right off the bat, there's a serious problem with speaking about fatties and "Americans at risk of hunger" as if they're mutually exclusive groups. Some of the most at-risk adults and children in America for hunger and/or malnutrition are fat, because poverty and lack of access to healthy food go hand in hand—something I'm guessing may have crossed the minds of the makers of Hamburger Helper (and related Helper items), some of which are as much as 48% fat per serving and all of which have been designed to provide a low-cost meal for an entire family.
…While 130 million people are overweight in the United States, 35 million Americans are at risk of hunger. The new Pound For Pound Challenge gives Americans the opportunity to fight the hunger crisis and help families in their neighborhoods by simply pledging to lose weight and get healthy.
Hamburger Helper (nor Lucky Charms, nor Häagen-Dazs) isn't the sort of product that General Mills is promoting via their participation in the Pound for Pound Challenge, however.
In addition to pledging to lose weight, Americans can donate directly at www.PFPChallenge.com and look for Pound For Pound lids and seals on specially-marked General Mills products. For each lid or seal mailed in, General Mills will donate 10 cents, enough to provide a pound of groceries, to Feeding America. General Mills brands carrying the lid or seal include Yoplait Light®, Cheerios®, Honey Nut Cheerios®, MultiGrain Cheerios®, Total®, Fiber One® (Cereal, Bars, Muffin Mix, Pancake Mix, and Yogurt), Green Giant® Valley Fresh Steamers(TM), Chex Mix® 100 Calorie, Warm Delights® Minis, Bisquick® Heart Health®, and Cascadian Farm® (Cereal and Bars).So the idea is that we should buy the specially-marked products (many of which happen to be weight-loss items—surprise!), and then spend a minimum of 42¢ sending them in so that GM can donate 10¢ to provide a pound of groceries, three pounds less than our first-class stamp would buy. Brilliant.
"More and more people need help getting food on the table in these troubling economic times, but the Pound For Pound Challenge is helping to meet the demand for donations in a big way," said Vicki B. Escarra, president and CEO, Feeding America. "By providing more food resources for Americans, individuals and families can spend their money on other equally important basic necessities like rent or mortgage, utilities and transportation."And even easier by going to the grocery store and just buying some shit for your local food pantry! But, I will admit, that lacks the particular je ne sais quoi of making food donations contingent upon fatties' desire and ability to lose the poundage, a construction positively reeking with the implicit suggestion that their personal gluttony is somehow directly responsible for others' hunger.
…Food banks across the nation are facing unprecedented demand for food, and help is needed to keep this crisis from worsening. Becoming a part of the hunger crisis solution, however, is easy to do with the Pound For Pound Challenge.
Never mind if you're fat for some other reason besides wanton excess—like, say, having been living on mac n' cheese for a year just to sustain yourself and your kids, or because you can't afford your thyroid medication or that hip transplant you desperately need to stay active. And, as always, never mind if you're fat and healthy. Fuck your reality.
In America, there are unhealthy gluttonous fatties, period. And anyone above a size 8 or 32 waist obviously doesn't need a pound of groceries—they need to lose a pound and help some people who really need it. And stop being so
I've seen some cynical fucking ploys in my day, but this one really takes the motherfucking cake.
Pun intended.
[H/T to Shaker Jessika.]
Bad Idea of the Day
President-elect Barack Obama is resurrecting an idea that fell short of enactment twice in 2008: allowing companies a speedier recovery of their current losses through refunds of taxes they paid on earnings in previous years.The whole story is here. While reading it, this line struck me: "Republican leaders have said that they are more likely to support a stimulus bill that contains GOP ideas." Huh? Really? You don't say. Wevs.
The extension of net operating loss carryback from two years to five, which is favored by Republicans, would provide instant refunds to some of the firms that have been hit hardest by the recession, including large portions of the financial services and real estate industries.
Okay, this may or may not be a good idea. (Probably not, but I'll leave that to our resident economists to debate.) But you know what is not a good idea? Giving in to those fucks in the Republican Party.
Mr. President-Elect, remember that spanking they got in November? That landslide victory you and your party claimed? That was practically a mandate not to give them anything, for fuck's sake. Screw those guys. The country has seen their work these last eight years and is fed the fuck up with their bullshit ideas. Let's try something else.
Mommy! My Golden Parachute is Broken!
I will just say from the start that I always tend to cringe whenever I read an article that starts with something like this:
"Let me begin with the caveats: I like men."Don't get me wrong -- it’s not a horrible awful no good very bad article -- there are some good assessments and important points, like:
“. . . as the financial debacle unfolds, I can't help noticing that all the perpetrators of the greatest economic mess in eight decades are, well, men. Specifically, they are rich, white, middle-aged guys, same as the ones who brought us Watergate in the 1970s, the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s and, presumably, the fall of Rome.”I don’t know exactly when I started getting that little “uh-oh” feeling about this article, but I do know when the “uh-oh” turned into an “oh no”.
“Although the Y-chromosome is undeniably overrepresented along all tiers of finance, it is particularly overrepresented at the highest levels of power and in those sectors most deeply implicated in the current crisis. A Catalyst Research study last year found that women make up almost 60 percent of the workforce at Fortune 500 finance and insurance companies but account for only 17.9 percent of corporate officer positions and none of the chief executive positions.”
It was when I read this part:
“We need women in leadership positions not only because they can manage as well as men but because they manage differently than men; because they tend -- over time and in the aggregate -- to make different kinds of decisions and to accept and avoid different kinds of risk. We need women who will say no to bad decisions based on male-dominated rivalries and clubby golf course confidences. We need women to blow the whistle when risks explode and to challenge the presumptions that too many men, clustered too closely together and sharing a common worldview, can easily indulge." (emp. mine)First sentence, not so bad, but as the paragraph commenced, I found myself feeling all oh-no-ish. When I considered what set off my bells, I found that my response was not exactly simple:
First of all, I’ve never been a fan of the Venusian-Women/Martian-Men binary.
Yeah, sure, there actually might be some innate, hormonally-driven differences between those in biologically male bodies and those in biologically female bodies, but in my opinion, any such differences are so entangled with cultural entrainment that we will probably never truly know what’s what in that regard – so I always chafe when people bring up shit like University studies that “prove” that men are bigger risk-takers because (wait for it!) -- It’s the testosterone, stupid.
And secondly -- of course we need women who will say no and who will blow whistles . . . . . but we need that when anyone is making bad decisions -- not just men.
But that isn’t my biggest beef.
My biggest beef is that, if women are placed in positions of power so that they can say no to bad decisions based on male-dominated rivalries and blow the whistle when testosterone-driven risks explode, this, in my humble opinion, is just another casting of women in the Mommy role.
"Oh, did the boys make a mess again? Well hustle right in there, little lady, and clean it up!"
The notion of women as the mop-up crew or hall-monitor squad for men who just can’t help themselves when too many of them get packed into a boardroom does not, in my view, change diddly-shit about Patriarchy – it puts women right back into the role of the Eternal Maternal, while simultaneously infantilizing men.
I see institutionalized oppression, at its core, as a skewed distribution of power and responsibility (the group on top gets all the power, while the group on the bottom gets all the responsibility/consequences), and because of this, I don’t believe that putting more women in power will, by itself, shatter institutionalized sexism/misogyny.
In my view, in order for any system to be balanced, the responsibility/consequence has to live where the power is, and vice-versa.
That would mean that men step up and accept responsibility for the consequences of the power they’ve wielded for millennia, in addition to moving the fuck over when women step up to claim their share of the power (for which they’ve suffered the consequences for millennia, anyway).
The closing line of the article --
"As the constant wail from Wall Street should remind us, diversity isn't just nice in theory. It makes for better business."-- brings to my mind the picture of the Big Baby Men crying for Mommy, who will put things right because of her innate ability to nurture and protect.
In other words: Same old, same old. No thanks.
Prop 8 Challenges Mount
Good:
Another wave of legal arguments hit the California Supreme Court on Monday in the battle over Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.Rock.
Local governments, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, filed their latest opposition papers to Proposition 8, describing the voter-approved initiative as a "dark moment'' in California history. The brief is an attempt to refute the legal arguments of Proposition 8 backers as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from government officials, civil rights groups and same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry.
The San Francisco brief sides with the unique argument raised in December by Attorney General Jerry Brown, who argues that voters did not have the authority to strip away a fundamental constitutional right when they approved Proposition 8 in November. Brown, who ordinarily would be forced to defend state law, argued in his December brief that the state Supreme Court's decision last spring striking down California's prior gay marriage ban established that fundamental right to marry.
You know, every once in awhile, and it happened again while I was reading the Prop 8 supporters' responses in this article, I experience a moment of overwhelming mystification that there are people who will fight so vociferously against something that has fuck-all to do with their lives. Their empty, boring, privileged lives.
Quote of the Day
"We have to do it in the Facebook, with the Twittering, the different technology that young people are using today."—Republican National Committee incumbent chairman Mike Duncan, on how the GOP can appeal to younger generations.
See what happens with Rick Santorum out of elected office? He's gone two years and already members of his party are talking about doing it in the Facebook. Unnatural!
[H/T to Shaker Kevin, by email. The whole article by Dana Milbank is totally fucking hilarious, btw.]
Kate Hudson, You Are Still Getting on My Last Good Nerve
Exhibit A: Bride Wars
Exhibit B: "I've made a conscious decision to try to stay single as long as possible."
Exhibit C: You have got to be fucking kidding me.
On the importance of keeping her man happy: "People think that you can put your sexual life on hold, but you have to find time for it. Without that relationship, our family is broken. My mom really implanted that in me when I was pregnant."I eagerly await for Kate Hudson's upcoming relationship guide co-written with Dennis Prager: Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Planet Make-Time-and-Put-a-Smile-on-Your-Goddamned-Face.
If this: "Without that relationship, our family is broken."—is in accurate statement about your relationship, it's broken already. There are likely going to be times when at least one person in a relationship doesn't want to have sex because of stress, exhaustion, grief, emotional or physical trauma, or just being in a weird-ass headspace with the relationship or with sex generally. There may be times when at least one person in a relationship is physically unable to have sex, because of natural changes in the body, disease, or illness. If the foundation of an entire family is built on a sexual relationship that can never be put on hold for any reason, that's a family in crisis right from the get-go.
And there's something particularly horrid to me about the suggestion that a new mother should ensure she makes time to screw her husband, lest she "break" not just their relationship, but their family.
Double the horror that the exhortation is delivered, as ever, via a(n allegedly) sexually liberated modern woman, a role model to young women, her presumed progressiveness implicit in her fashion-forwardness, her ubiquity, her popularity, her success, her dynamism. She's free and her mind is free, we are meant to think, as she tosses her hair. Surely it couldn't be that such an icon of youth and modernity would deliver the same old patriarchal messages that women must, above all else, sexually service their male partners...!
Sigh.
It's kind of amazing to me that Kate Hudson and Dane Cook haven't hooked up and spawned the Antichrist yet.
Not Defending the Defense of Marriage Act
One of the authors of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 was Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA). Mr. Barr, along with many of the bill's supporters, were freaked out by the possibility that same-sex marriage would become legal in some states -- specifically because of a pending court case in Hawaii -- and they rushed the law through to make sure that if gay marriage became legal in one state, it wasn't necessarily legal in the other 49. The bill was signed by President Clinton.
At the time the bill was passed, Mr. Barr was a regular fixture on such talk shows as Crossfire along with folks like Newt Gingrich and other guardians of morality who predicted dire consequences if people in love with other people got married without due regard to their gender, and he stood as the last bastion protecting "traditional marriage." Of course, Mr. Barr has a great deal of experience in "traditional marriage" -- he's been married several times, as has Mr. Gingrich.
Now, however, Mr. Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2008, has come out against DOMA and is pushing for its repeal. It's not that he's suddenly in favor of same-sex marriage per se, but in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, he says that the law violates the idea of libertarian federalism.In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
I suppose that if you are going to win over conservatives or those who are not inclined to accept the idea that two men or two women can undertake the legal obligations and privileges that marriage entails without bringing down fire, brimstone, and the wrath of Rick Santorum, the small-government argument is the way to go. One way or another, it is blatantly unfair to apply one standard of equality to one group and not to another, and whether or not the point is made on a legal or emotional basis doesn't matter.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.
In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
There will be a lot of resistance to the idea of repealing all or part of DOMA; the Religious Right will point to the passage of Prop 8 and Amendment 2 and say that the people have spoken, and they will use them and DOMA as the foundation for proposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, the attempt to amend the Constitution to define marriage as that between one man and one woman. But here's a novel idea; if DOMA can't be repealed, why don't we amend it to apply it equally? If a gay couple's marriage doesn't have to be recognized by another state, then a straight couple's divorce doesn't have to be recognized by other states as well. For example, if a man and woman get divorced in Ohio, the state of Florida or Nevada can prevent the ex's from getting re-married to other people because, according to DOMA, the state doesn't have to accept the divorce decree issued by a court in Toledo. I think that would make the point quite clearly to those serially-married defenders of "traditional marriage," which didn't used to include divorce, what equality is all about.
Cross-posted.
More Obamarama Transitionalicious-a-Go-Go
Leon Panetta, former congressman, Clinton White House chief of staff, and current head of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, has been nominated by Obama to lead the CIA.
Not all the Dems are thrilled; Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Rockefeller, current and outgoing heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have raised objections on the ostensible premise that they believe the agency needs to be led by an intelligence professional, although I suspect at least part of the issue is feeling as though the transition team did an end-run around them. As Steve Benen notes: "As the incoming chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Feinstein didn't expected to help make the choice, but she 'wanted the courtesy of knowing about it' before the selection made headlines. Panetta's name leaked, but word didn't come from the transition office."
Anyway, I've got no serious guff with Panetta. He seems fine to me. Given that he's firmly against the use of torture in any circumstances, he's certainly a step in the right direction from the dunderheads to which we've become accustomed over the last eight years.
In other news:
Brad Kiley has been named as the director of the Office of Management and Administration by President-elect Barack Obama. Kiley, who is openly gay, is currently the director of operations for the Obama-Biden Transition Project and was a former vice president at the Center for American Progress.Maybe if he's lucky, Rick Warren will pray for Jebus to save him from the cocksucking during the inaugural invocation.
Yeah, still bitter about that.
Question of the Day
What were the best and worst films you saw in 2008?
(Let's take that to mean films that were released in 2008, as opposed to films released in the '90s you're only now getting around to viewing.)
It seems like practically every movie I saw this year was a piece of crap, so it would be really hard to choose the worst, if I hadn't seen 20 minutes of 27 Dresses on cable. Holy Maude.
(And yet Bride Wars looks as though it has the capacity to make 27 Dresses look like a film adaptation of the S.C.U.M. manifesto.)
Best is probably The Dark Knight. Unless I can count Mongol, which only went into wide release in '08.
Offered With Barely Any Comment
Easy Does It, Ladies!
For my (barely any) comment,
I've been spending so much energy "keeping beautiful" lately, that all I can muster as commentary is this (apologies for any commercials):
From Crackle:
We're Not Feeling Her Pain
As you may have heard, John Travolta's and Kelly Preston's 16-year-old son, Jett, died over the weekend as a result of what appears to be a blow to the head received in the throes of a seizure.
This post isn't about the family, the circumstances of the death, Kawasaki disease vs. autism, Scientology, or conspiracy theories (and the comments thread shouldn't be, either)—so let's just leave all that mess aside.
What this post is about is something I've noticed about the coverage of the tragic event:
TMZ: John Travolta's Son Dies—"Rand Memorial Hospital in the Bahamas tells TMZ the son of John Travolta died today. We're told 16-year-old Jett was vacationing with Travolta and wife Kelly Preston."
AFP: John Travolta's teenage son dies in Bahamas—"The family of Oscar-nominated Hollywood superstar John Travolta took a devastating emotional blow when his teenage son died after a seizure while on a family vacation in the Bahamas, US media reported."
AP: John Travolta's 16-year-old son dies in Bahamas—"John Travolta's teenage son, Jett, died in the Bahamas after apparently suffering a seizure and hitting his head at his family's vacation home, authorities said Friday."
Reuters: Travolta "heartbroken" over son's death—"Actor John Travolta broke a two-day silence over the death of his 16-year-old son Jett on Sunday, saying he and his wife, actress Kelly Preston, were 'heartbroken' by their sudden loss."
ABC: Autopsy Today for John Travolta's Son—"On Sunday, John Travolta and his wife, Kelly Preston, issued their first public statement since Jett died Friday."
This one, care of Star magazine, really sums it up:
Headline: John Travolta's Son Dies
Image: Entire family.
Lede: "The son of John Travolta and Kelly Preston has died."
What?—there wasn't enough room for Kelly Preston's name in the headline, too? Oh, wait; there is:
Huh.
And this one, from the Daily Mail is great: 'My agony at losing my beloved boy': 'Heartbroken' John Travolta breaks silence over death of teenage son (original story headline since changed: "Tragedy for movie star John Travolta as 16-year-old son Jett dies on family holiday")—"John Travolta tonight revealed his agony at the sudden death of his teenage son Jett. In a statement on his website the Hollywood actor said he and his wife Kelly Preston, were 'heartbroken' by their sudden loss."
Wait—his wife is heartbroken, too? Amazing. Especially considering she's not just John Travolta's wife, but is Jett Travolta's mother, not that you'd know it from the news coverage of her son's death, in which she is repeatedly referred to (if at all) as "John Travolta's wife." I saw that in headlines and ledes so frequently over the past few days, I actually started to second-guess my thought that she was Jett's mom. (She is.)
And Kelly Preston is also pretty famous in her own right. (I know I'm kind of a walking IMDb, but I could name at least half a dozen of her films off the top of my head.) It's not like John Travolta is married to an investment banker; he's married to an actress whose name plenty of people would recognize, so the calculation seems to be she's just not famous enough to warrant her name in the headline, to warrant her grief being its own, beyond some collateral heartbreak of her husband's after losing "his" son.
It's rare I actually compliment CNN on sensitive coverage, but they got this one right: Actors' son Jett Travolta dies at 16—"The 16-year-old son of actors John Travolta and Kelly Preston died Friday morning after suffering a seizure while vacationing with his family in the Bahamas, Travolta's attorney told CNN."
Just moving that apostrophe from here—actor's—to here—actors'—makes all the difference. That's all it took, so simple, to avoid disappearing a mother and delivering a snide commentary on her career in the midst of a horrific personal crisis.
I'm sure some people would argue it doesn't matter—but I can think of few things more cruel than erasing the role of motherhood from a woman who's just lost her child, and I'm not sure it does any of us much good that we're so profoundly inured to such casual cruelty.
So…a little teaspoon of awareness never hurt anyone.
What Do You, the Viewers at Home Think?
A co-worker just brought this cartoon by my desk. (Note: the image above is only the final panel of the cartoon. Click through to see the whole thing.) My first reaction was "huh?" I couldn't see the joke. Then my next reaction was "Oh, so gay people are monsters; I get it. Gee, thanks" I might be reacting a little ultra-sensitively; my co-worker thinks it's an empowering thing that Frankenstein and his, ahem, "lover" are in the comic. Mainstream portrayal of gay couples and all that. Then I thought that maybe the joke is that the little green guy was upset because Frankenstein doesn't act like a monster; he's in a relationship and seems like a nice guy. Of course, they're stereotypical sissies and not monstrous, so maybe that's what's upsetting him, which isn't exactly the most empowering message, either. (For the record, the Frankensteins didn't return the next day, so they appear to be a one-off gag. This is the first time I've ever seen this particular comic strip, so I could be wrong.)
Anyway, I don't get it, my co-worker thinks I'm reading too much into it, and I'm beginning to feel like I'm running the Comics I Don't Understand page. It still looks like a joke at my expense, but what do I know; it looks like Fail to me. What do you think?
Update: I just found a few more comics with the Frankensteins, here, here, and here, so apparently they're not one-off characters. It looks more like the joke in the first one I saw comes from personality conflicts; the evil henchman monster is just put off by their "niceness," but I'm also seeing a lot of stereotyping.
Rar! Me humorless liberal!
I Write Letters
Dear Netflix,
I know about you. You can give it a rest with the pop-ups and pop-unders.
If I run into anyone who's just awoken from a decades-long coma or relocated from their last residence under a rock in uninhabited Siberia, I promise to tell them about you.
Love,
Liss
Quote of the Day
"He's a good man, Chris. He's a very good, strong man. I'd like to see him run, I'd like to see him be president someday, or maybe senator, whatever. I mean, right now is probably a bad time. We've had enough Bushes in there."—Papa George H.W. Bush, in an interview with Fox Fucknut Chris Wallace, on his desire to see son Jeb continue his political career.
He also noted, btw, that he understands if Jeb doesn't want to continue in politics because he "needs to make a living, support his wife and family." And who can do that on the paltry salary of a US Senator ($169,300) or US President ($400,000)?
Obamarama Transitionalicious-a-Go-Go Continues...
Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan will serve as Solicitor General for the Obama administration. Think Progress notes:
Kagan will be the first woman to serve permanently in this important post, which is tasked with conducting "all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts."Other key nominations to the Department of Justice include: David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General; Elena Kagan, Solicitor General; Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General; and Dawn Johnsen, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
Johnsen served as the legal director of NARAL from 1988 to 1993.
Ready for a Big Laugh?
Warning: Put down your coffee, or other beverage, before reading:
John Bolton and John Yoo have written an Op-Ed stating that we have to limit executive authority.
America needs to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, not to subordinate its policies, foreign or domestic, to international control. On a broad variety of issues — many of which sound more like domestic rather than foreign policy — the re-emergence of the benignly labeled “global governance” movement is well under way in the Obama transition.My sides!!! They actually used the word draconian!
Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?
Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.
(Energy dome tip to John Cole.)
Monday Blogaround
Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Bil: A1 Steak Sauce: Sexism Is That Important
Jehanzeb Dar: "Yes Man" Says Yes to Stereotypes
Steve: Rush and Burris and Reid—Oh My!
Kathy G: Unions: Good for Democrats (and democrats)
Kevin: There's This Literary Genre Called Fiction. Ever Hear of It?
Renee: I Am Sean Bell: A Mothers Lament
Leave your links in comments...
Random YouTubery: Mysterious Ways Edition
[Via Chris.]
Sad, Really
During the election, I remember there were those that idly wondered what had happened to Ann Coulter. As the media just lurves to trot her out for "outrageous" and "hilarious" quotes when something's going on politically, it seemed a little odd that Coulter was conspicuously absent. Some people felt that the Right was keeping her under wraps so she wouldn't embarrass them during the buildup to election day, but let's face it, when has that ever stopped her before?
Well apparently, Coulter has been busy slopping out a new book. Oh, joy. Now we can now look forward to her making the rounds on the shows, hawking her latest, which will no doubt be written with as much attention to accuracy as her other, ahem, creations. (Update: As oddjob points out in comments, the fact-checking has already begun.)
Of course, we'll have the usual outrage when she inevitably says something incredibly offensive, lefty bloggers will protest (and their commenters will tell them to "just ignore her"), righty bloggers will cheer (and their commenters will take Coulter's statements to higher extremes), and then the book will be remaindered. And then we'll all have a few months of peace until the next "book."
As I looked over the excerpts of the "hilarity" in the Media Matters article, I wasn't too surprised by anything that I saw. Actually, they were all pretty easy to predict. I expected vicious misogyny (Coulter just loves to hate women), and I got it. "Who's the biggest pussy?" Obama or Clinton? That's hysterical! She swipes at "Republican turncoats;" oooh, how edgy! She calls Scott McClellan "retarded." Stop, my sides! Obama, Halle Berry and Alicia Kyes (way to keep your thumb on those current events, Ann... Berry won her Oscar in, what, 2002?) would never have gotten to where they are without playing "the race card." Hey, don't get offended, she's just being funny! Really, it's just the usual Coulter Cry For Attention(tm) that we've all come to expect.
Except for one bit. I've got to admit, this surprised me; I really didn't think Coulter's barrel had any bottom left.Coulter calls children whose parents divorce "future strippers" in a chapter titled "Victim of a Crime? Thank a Single Mother":
I don't think Coulter has made such a desperate attempt to deliberately offend such a large group of people since she gave 9/11 widows the finger. Apparently, she doesn't think any of her readers (or potential readers) have ever been through a divorce. Or, more likely, she simply doesn't give a fuck. "In any event, divorced mothers should be called "divorced mothers," not "single mothers." We also have a term for the youngsters involved: "the children of divorce," or as I call them, "future strippers." It is a mark of how attractive it is to be a phony victim that divorcées will often claim to belong to the more disreputable category of "single mothers." [Page 36]
Later in the chapter, Coulter writes: "Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts." [Page 38]
At this point, I don't know who's the more desperate, pathetic book shill: Coulter or Jonah Goldberg.
(I'd like to respectfully request that we refrain from "tranny" ahem, "jokes," and "jokes" of a similar tone at Coulter's expense in comments. We have a zero tolerance policy for that here. Energy dome tip to Digby.)
In Case You Haven't Heard Already...
...Richardson's out and Franken's in.
Which means that there are serious questions about the Obama team's vetting process (James is right when he notes that stonewalling about the investigation should have left the nomination dead in the water), and that "Senator from Minnesota" is potentially the greatest SNL spin-off of all time.
Dark Lord Logic
If you didn't get impeached for it, it must have been legal!
Tune in next week for Part Two of Cheney's interview with Bob Schieffer, in which the outgoing veep explains how closing his eyes makes him invisible.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Bonus: Ozzie explains women to Rick
Ahh, the "good old days."
Sunday YouTubery
I love this. I love Alan Rickman to bitty bits and this (slightly redone) classic skit is so funny. The best part is how they crack each other up during it.
For a "making of" this skit with bits and info of the original:
The Doctor
Smith will first appear on TV screens as the 11th Doctor in 2010.Article & interview here
He was cast over Christmas and will begin filming for the fifth series of Doctor Who in the summer. Tennant is filming four specials in 2009.
Smith was named as Tennant's replacement in Saturday's edition of Doctor Who Confidential on BBC One.
He said: "I feel proud and honoured to have been given this opportunity to join a team of people that has worked so tirelessly to make the show so thrilling.
"David Tennant has made the role his own, brilliantly, with grace, talent and persistent dedication. I hope to learn from the standards set by him.
"The challenge for me is to do justice to the show's illustrious past, my predecessors, and most importantly, to those who watch it. I really cannot wait."
Friday YouTubery
More Neil Patrick Harris! My favorite song from Dr. Horrible. I belt this out while I'm driving. People stare but, hey, what's new? LOL
Shaker Gourmet: Cinnamon Rolls
An old family recipe to start the new year! This recipe comes from Shaker Ledasmom who says:
"I don't know who my great-grandmother had it from. These are not huge poofy cinnamon rolls, but little ones a couple of inches across. Traditionally, meaning this is the way I do it, they are eaten by unrolling them a bit at a time and spreading butter on the unrolled part until you get to the center, which is not easily unwound. It is an all-day recipe, or two-day recipe, but most of that is in the rising; the recipe can be fit in around whatever else you may have to do. Here is the recipe as my mother sent it, with my additions in parentheses."
Ledasmom adds: "Freezes well (It does. Right in the pan after cooling, with a good tight cover of foil; then you can pop 'em right in the oven to reheat). Can use brown sugar either inside or out. I can't guarantee that these are as delicious to everyone as they are to me, but they are well worth trying. The tops, bottoms and any sides that were against the sides of the pan get wonderfully brown and tasty."
A) 2 cups milk
2 packages dry yeast dissolved in 1/2 cup warm water
4-5 cups flour for a soft dough/thick batter
Let this rise to double - first rise
B) Cream 1/2 cup butter with 1 1/4 cup sugar. Add to dough from (A) with 1 egg and 1 teaspoon salt.
Let rise - second rise
C) Add flour to make like a bread dough but not as stiff (dough should be quite pliable and workable; you are going to be rolling it out). Knead. Punch down once and let rise - third and fourth rises
D) Roll out thin (in batches, not all at once, unless you are very good with a rolling pin and have nothing on your table--I would say the piece of dough, after rolling out but before rolling up, is about 14 inches by, say, 16, giving the properly small rolls after they are cut) and cover liberally with melted butter; sprinkle with sugar and cinnamon. Roll up and let rise - fifth rise
E)You slice the rolled-up log of dough into pieces about one inch long, which are placed in your buttered pan on end, so they look like sugar-cinnamon pinwheels. They are placed so they are touching, but with little gaps between - when risen, the gaps fill in. We use glass pans a couple of inches deep, cake pans, etc. Let rise.
F)(when risen and puffy) Cover with butter and 1 teaspoon flour, sugar and cinnamon (Brush with melted butter, sprinkle with a bit of flour and a reasonable amount of sugar and cinnamon. This produced the characteristic deep-brown tops num num num). Bake at 375 for about 20 minutes.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com
Friday Blogaround
hey your gay blogaround
Recommended Reading:
Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 62
Mannion: Franklin Roosevelt, Barack Obama, and the American Okee-doke
Gwen: Proud Parents of an Adorable Racist
Blue Gal: Video for Alternative Invocation - No thanks, Rick Warren!
Pam: Kathy Griffin Drops the D-word on Live TV
Aunt B: Doing the Same Things Over and Over
Leave your links in comments...
Brand New Year
Officials ordered nine Muslim passengers, including three young children, off an AirTran flight headed to Orlando from Reagan National Airport yesterday afternoon after two other passengers overheard what they thought was a suspicious remark.Nice, eh? Pay for our fuckup! And in case you were wondering what the "suspicious remark" was:
Members of the party, all but one of them U.S.-born citizens who were headed to a religious retreat in Florida, were subsequently cleared for travel by FBI agents who characterized the incident as a misunderstanding, an airport official said. But the passengers said AirTran refused to rebook them, and they had to pay for seats on another carrier secured with help from the FBI.
Kashif Irfan, one of the removed passengers, said the incident began about 1 p.m. after his brother, Atif, and his brother's wife wondered aloud about the safest place to sit on an airplane.Okay, in all seriousness, who has flown in their lifetime that hasn't had this very conversation? I know I've joked with others that, after seeing Alive, there's no way I'm ever sitting in the back of the plane, and I've said that I hate window seats by the wing because I hate being able to see the engine; I've mentioned that sitting right by the wing makes me nervous for other reasons. Funny, I've never been booted or "detained" or refused entry on a flight. Wonder why that is?
"My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said. "The only thing my brother said was, 'Wow, the jets are right next to my window.' I think they were remarking about safety."
Anyway, here's the part that really made me angry: (emphasis mine)
"At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane, and other people heard them," Hutcheson said. "Other people heard them, misconstrued them. It just so happened these people were of Muslim faith and appearance. It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions."Why the hell would these comments be comments that "shouldn't have" been made? Why the hell is talking about the safest place to sit on an airplane "inappropriate?"
[...]
Ellen Howe, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, said the pilot acted appropriately.
"For us, it just highlights that security is everybody's responsibility," Howe said. "Someone heard something that was inappropriate, and then the airline decided to act on it. We certainly support [the pilot's] call to do that."
Oh, because they were made by scary brown people in even scarier clothing with shit-your-pants scary beards.
Good thing one of them didn't take their shoes off. They may have been shot.
Women Should Learn How to Defend Themselves
That's what we hear from both well-meaning people and rape apologists on a fairly regular basis during discussions of rape prevention. Women should learn how to defend themselves.
It's a dangerously simplistic exhortation I've taken on before, in "Five Reasons Why 'Teach Women Self-Defense' Isn't a Comprehensive Solution to Rape," reason #4 of which is "Women who deter assaults with violent means are often punished."
Unfortunately, Cara and Renee have written about yet another woman's experience which underlines that point: Charris Bowers, who bit her husband's penis after it was inserted into her mouth without her consent, has been charged with battery. Note that the police do not dispute her assertion that the act happened against her will, but "after the deputy saw Delou Bowers' injuries, he concluded charges were warranted."
In other words, even though she was being raped, she had no right to defend herself using any means necessary. As Cara notes, "a penis has more rights than a woman."
As I've said before, this is where the vastly different cultural standards by which men and women are judged begin to rear their ugly heads. Although MRAs would have us believe that women can kill a man in cold blood and use "he looked at me cross-eyed" as a defense to get off scot-free, reality is ever-so-slightly different, especially for women of color. Even in cases of self-defense against an abusive male partner/spouse—in which upwards of 80% of cases have previous calls to police—battered women who use violent means to defend themselves are being convicted or are accepting pleas at a rate of 75-83% nationwide.
Why do many women fare so poorly in what are clearly cases of self-defense? Well, it might have a little something to do with the cognitive dissonance between what we say we want women to do to take care of themselves, and what we actually want women to do to take care of themselves.
To wit: About a year ago, Jessica posted a picture of a German warning sign noting that men who harass and/or grope women risk a slap in the face—and that people who see men harassing women (along with disproportionately targeted "migrants, homeless people, transgender people, gays") should get involved to stop it. Go on and just guess what the comments were.
If you guessed "totally missing the point about men doing something to warrant getting slapped, in order to shame teh ladiez for celebrating violence against men," give yourself 1,000 points.
As Ginmar noted in regard to this post (emphasis mine):It's a common technique of whiny dipshits who are usually complaining about uppity women when they're not complaining about how women just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and fight rape: get a gun. To that, I offer this response: men whining about how you can't trust women because they'll actually defend themselves! With slaps! Oh, God, the horror! The sheer horror of it all!
Exactly right. Ginmar also pinpoints another problem with exhortations to women to utilize self-defense methods, and why we should be suspicious of them, noting that there are men who "make suggestions about women's self defense that they know are useless and hopeless, safe in the knowledge that women will always be resented for any act of self defense." Admonishing women to learn self-defense in a culture where a cheeky sign about women slapping harassers is greeted with outraged fury and charges of misandry is misguided at best and willfully disingenuous at worst.
Pay special attention, in the second link, to the guy who says: "Nice poster. Next time a woman annoys me, I'll smack her. Hard. Great message. I don't see what's to like."
Remember, this is giving men what they claim they think is a great idea: women defending themselves.
The whole idea that a woman can use self-defense to deter a man she presumes is intent on raping her is predicated on (as all rape scenarios are) a very specific set of circumstances—that she is capable of fighting back, that she successfully does fight back, and that she hurts the potential rapist only enough to get away, but not so much that he ends up in the hospital (or morgue), lest she face charges, and that all of this happens in front of witnesses who will corroborate her story, just in case. And even then, as the Jersey 4 case illustrates, that still doesn't mean she won't be convicted.
And again I note that self-defense doesn't seem like quite the cure-all it is repeatedly suggested to be.
