Suggested by Shaker queenb850, who notes the question was "inspired by hanging around on YouTube the other day listening to all of the 90s R&B from my teenage years": If you could put together a play list of 10 songs from your favorite music decade, what songs would be on it and what decade would they be from?
Daily Dose o' Cute
For anyone who can't view the videos Deeky posted for me earlier... Normally, as you know, I publish them at Daily Motion, too, which tends to be more accessible for international Shakers, but Daily Motion rejected these videos based on the songs I used. Sorry. So here's a snapshot instead.
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig streeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
Love Story
So. There were two stories I read last week on which I wanted to comment. One was the NYT piece about eroding Roe on the state level, and the other was the separation of Al and Tipper Gore.
Actually, I don't want to comment on the separation itself, but on the coverage of the announcement. I saw a lot of headlines categorizing the likely end of their 40-year marriage as "shocking," which I found rather amusing, as one must have some intimate knowledge of a marriage to be genuinely shocked by its demise, unless of course some scandalous betrayal has been made public, in which case it's only "shocking" if the couple stays together (see: the Clintons).
Many of the articles discussing the "shock" of the split referenced the Gores' passionate kiss at the 2000 Democratic convention, as though justification for the astonishment. Yes, how positively baffling that a couple who made out very publicly a decade ago could be contemplating divorce today!
The abundant invocation of the Gores' convention kiss pointedly underlined the flimsy silliness of what we think we know about other people's lives, and why we think we know it—and the collective "surprise" itself was an interesting commentary on how we feel both privy and entitled to the inner workings of public figures' relationships. Or, really, others' relationships, whether famous or not.
I was married once upon a time to a lovely guy who was a great friend. We divorced because we never should have been married in the first place; we'd mistaken a wonderful friendship and a charming affair for something bigger—and a divorce was really just our way of setting things right again. We seemed like a happy couple, and, in some ways, we were. So when we divorced, it was "shocking" to some of our friends and family. Well. The creeping feeling that you aren't suited to love another person that way for the rest of your life isn't something that one easily articulates to oneself, no less shares with people who are inclined, quite understandably, to say, "What the fuck are you thinking? Your marriage is great."
But the truth of a marriage lies between two people alone (or any long-term partnership, between whatever number of people)—and parts of what holds it together, or tears it apart, reside secretly in individual hearts, bindings or fissures that are unknowable, or indescribable, even to the person in whom they reside.
No one knows everything about any relationship, even the people in them. Which is what makes loving another person terrifying, and what makes it exhilarating.
The very thing that makes love precious also makes it a breathing thing, with ebbs and crescendos and, sometimes, an end—which may mean that love taking a different shape, like friendship. Its mutable nature, its lack of any guarantee, means that love doesn't always last forever, looking like it once did—which is seemingly what happened to the love Al and Tipper Gore had for one another. This was described in different places, as a "failure."
"They were an odd couple from the start," wrote Howard Fineman, "a teenage romance that tried—and, after 40 years, failed—to bridge the divides that were inherent in it from the start."
To which Matt Yglesias responded, "Life in a modern-day developed economy is quite long. If two people can be happy together for 38 years, during which time they raise a few kids, and then maybe be unhappy for two years and wind up realizing they want to get divorced is that really such a 'failure'? It sounds okay to me. … Failure is relative."
Indeed so.
I do not describe my previous marriage, which lasted only 1/10th the time the Gores' did, as a "failed marriage." The failure would have been to stay, to hold on and hang in and obstinately stay, to honor some idea of love that actually didn't exist between us. It was just a marriage. No qualifications required.
By any realistic measure, the Gores had a successful marriage—an accomplishment no one would deny them if one of them had died in a terrible accident last month. But because they are both still alive, and still determined to live in the best way for them, even if that way is "apart," their marriage is deemed a failure.
That's too bad. Because letting go can be an act of love, too.
And perhaps if we had a cultural narrative about marriage—or any kind of partnership—that also honored the relationships which end in letting go in life, the love stories that are journeys with destinations other than death, perhaps we would be less inclined to view two people taking steps in different directions, after some time together, as failures, and instead view them as people who know how to do love right.
This week, Iain and I will celebrate our 8th anniversary. I hope we make it to 40 years, or however long we've got together. I want, right now, to be with him for the rest of my life—and he wants the same. But if that ever changes, for either of us, I hope we can "fail" as gracefully as the Gores seem to have done.
Best wishes, and love, to Al and Tipper Gore.
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Wake Up, Fauxgressive Dudez
[I'm posting this quickly, while Blogger is giving me access, because I'm not sure how long I'll have it...!]
Me, during the election, once of a zillion times making the same point:
Using Roe as a cudgel to batter feminists/womanists (FWs) into line is becoming increasingly futile because the Democrats have been weak on protecting choice—and, hence, women's autonomy—for years. Yes, Roe is still in place, but the GOP has successfully chipped away at abortion rights on the federal and state levels for two decades. The point is, certainly the Democrats will nominate and approve justices who will protect Roe, but if they aren't willing to protect it from being rendered an impotent and largely symbolic statute because it's been hollowed out by "partial-birth abortion bans" and "parental consent laws" and state legislatures that refuse to fund clinics offering abortions, what does it really matter if they protect Roe?Last week, I read this piece, titled "Abortion Foes Advance Cause at State Level," in the New York Times, which begins: "At least 11 states have passed laws this year regulating or restricting abortion, giving opponents of abortion what partisans on both sides of the issue say is an unusually high number of victories. In four additional states, bills have passed at least one house of the legislature."
FWs who are paying attention to what's happened to practical choice in this country know that the Roe card is already functionally meaningless at this point in large swaths of the country—and that's about the national Democratic Party as a whole, not just about its nominee in this election. The Dems are falling down on the job of serving their FW constituents in general and women specifically.
And the argument about appointing pro-Roe justices is designed, in part, to mask that failure. Not all of the restrictions on abortion rights have been decided in the court; many (if not most) are proposed and passed in state legislatures—and only those challenged n court depend on judicial appointments. Federal, state, and local funding of clinics has nothing to do with whom Democrats appoint to the bench. Fights over zoning laws and gifted property to build new clinics may also find their way to court, but oftentimes never make it that far. Anyone who still thinks that every encroachment on reproductive rights is being decided in a courtroom has some catching up to do.
A lot of progressives treat legal abortion like an on-off switch, but it's not remotely that simple. Legal abortion is only worth as much as the number of women who have reasonable and affordable and unencumbered access to it. That number is dwindling; IIRC, as of the year 2000, less than a third of the incorporated counties in the US had abortion clinics. That's not just inconvenience—between travel expenses and time off work along, the cost of securing an abortion can become an undue burden.
Realistically, if you're a woman who already has to drive three hours and across state lines to get an abortion, how much is "we'll protect Roe" actually supposed to mean to you?
Those making the Roe argument seriously need to consider what it sounds like to one of those women when she's told how her right to choose is best supported by someone who treats Roe as a magical abortion access password.
I'm surprised (ahem) at the cavernous void of outrage across the progressive blogosphere at this affront to women. You'd think the male-authored blogs at which protecting Roe is such a huge issue during elections would be prominently featuring coverage of this assault on women's basic bodily autonomy.
It's almost like certain gentlemen ostensibly on the Left side of the aisle only care about Roe as a bargaining chip, and not as a fundamental right of women. Huh.
Texting! With Liss and Deeky!
[For those missing Liss during her Blogger exile.]
Liss: ARGH. Fucking Blogger. I am literally watching "The Boyfriend School" with Steve Guttenberg right now.
Deeky: WTF?
Liss: LOLOLOL! I love u, Encore.
Deeky: What year was that made?
Liss: 1990.
Deeky: What???
Liss: I know, right?! LOL.
Deeky: There is something terribly, terribly wrong with the world.
Liss: I swear when this movie came out, it was called "Don't Tell Her It's Me."
Deeky: According to IMDb, that is true.
Liss: I am The Lint Trap. Hear me roar.
Deeky: Oh jebus. That's the one with the really bad wig, isn't it?
Liss: Yes! Where he pretends to be from New Zealand.
Deeky: Tell me his accent is brilliant.
Liss: Brilliant…and Australian.
Deeky: LOL.
Liss: We should start a blog about Steve Guttenberg. Just all Steve Guttenberg, all the time.
Deeky: LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Totes.
Liss: "I hear they're remaking 'Police Academy.' They'd better give Hollywood Legend Steve Guttenberg a cameo in that shit, or there will be HELL TO PAY! He MADE that franchise!" Just like that. All day, every day. Wall-to-wall Guttenberg.
Deeky: Genius. We'll double-handedly revive his career.
Liss: How dare you. He is still a star.
Deeky: Btw, I saw two minutes of "Big Bang Theory" the other day. Vom.
Liss: Totes. That show blowzzz.
Deeky: The premise of the joke was one of the dudes liked "Sex and the City." So, obviously: FAG.
Liss: HAHAHA FAGS R SO FUNNAY!!!!!!
Deeky: You do laugh at me all the time.
Liss: That's true. But it's because you're a buttfor, not because you're a homo.
Deeky: LOL! Shut it.
Liss: TLC, aka The Learning Channel, has a new show called "Mall Cops." Because, y'know, everyone needs to learn about blartology.
Deeky: How does that show even exist?
Liss: I have no fucking idea. "Have you hugged your MALL COP today?"
Deeky: Hey, remember when Billy Idol did that concept album called "Cyberpunk"?
Liss: What was I—dead in the '90s? Of course I remember it.
Deeky: LOL! I dunno. Maybe you were busy being a hobag or something.
Liss: If I stopped being aware of musicians' fuckwit vanity projects because of hobaggery, I wouldn't know shit about shit since the Traveling Wilburys.
Deeky: LOLOLOLOLOL!!! There's nothing like a Traveling Wilburys reference.
Liss: OMFG I HATE BLOGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deeky: It still won't let you in??????
Liss: No! I am getting really fucking irritated.
Deeky: You know why? Someone put a "no fat chicks" sticker on it. So you're out of luck.
Liss: That made me LOL 4 realz.
Deeky: You know what else sucks? That "Rock Me Amadeus" was originally written and recorded in German, but when the song was released in America, all the verses were cut out and replaced with that dumbass narration. So Falco's biggest hit, his only hit really, features virtually no Falco! How sad for him.
Liss: Also: Tom Hulce, who played Amadeus, should have had a better career than he did. I blame Steve Guttenberg.
Deeky: What the fuck did Steve Guttenberg ever do to Tom Hulce?
Liss: Look like him and star in poop.
Deeky: LOL! You think people were getting them confused?
Liss: Not getting them confused—but you know how when there are two stars who kinda look alike, they sorta cross-contaminate each other's careers? No one wants the Gutenberg Taint.
Deeky: "The Guttenberg Taint." Now there's an image I don't need.
Liss: That should be the name of our all-Guttenberg all-the-time blog.
Deeky: LOL! No, no it shouldn't.
Liss: Linky.
Deeky: LOL! You're such an asshole.
Liss: LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beautiful Day
[Note: The following is from Liss, which I am posting on her behalf.]
I still can't get into Blogger to post anything (and neither can Spudsy, so it might be effectively a regional blackout, and the tech serving our area is still down for some reason), so here are a couple of videos from our holiday-at-home last week, starring the kittehs and puppeh of Shakes Manor, with whom we power-lounged during our time off. Suffice it to say, there was lots o' cuddling.
The first is just a montage of ridiculous levels of cuteness from throughout the week, set to U2's "Beautiful Day." Featuring a Deeky cameo!
The second one is mostly Dudz at the dog park, where everyone loves Dudz and wants to play with him, as well as a few snippets of him with the girls, still hesitantly making friends. Yesterday was his birthday—he turned 2 and is now all growed up!
The second video is "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out," by Cat Stevens.
"You Can't Use People As Laboratories"
Ah, but you can, providing you have sufficient power and are untroubled by ethical considerations. And it seems we have. So say Physicians for Human Rights, who today issued a white paper entitled Experiments in Torture: Evidence of Human Subject Research and Experimentation in the "Enhanced" Interrogation Program. From that document's Executive Summary:
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration initiated new human intelligence collection programs. To that end, it detained and questioned an unknown number of people suspected of having links to terrorist organizations. As part of these programs, the Bush administration redefined acts, such as waterboarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, stress positions and prolonged isolation, that had previously been recognized as illegal, to be “safe, legal and effective” “enhanced” interrogation techniques (EITs).Pish and tosh, says the CIA.
Bush administration lawyers at the Department of Justice’s (DoJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) accomplished this redefinition by establishing legal thresholds for torture, which required medical monitoring of every application of “enhanced” interrogation. Medical personnel were ostensibly responsible for ensuring that the legal threshold for “severe physical and mental pain” was not crossed by interrogators, but their presence and complicity in intentionally harmful interrogation practices were not only apparently intended to enable the routine practice of torture, but also to serve as a potential legal defense against criminal liability for torture.
Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides evidence indicating that the Bush administration, in the period after Sept. 11, conducted human research and experimentation on prisoners in US custody as part of this monitoring role. Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected and analyzed the results of those interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to subsequent interrogations. Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners, which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law. These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
“The report is just wrong,” said Paul Gimigliano, an agency spokesman. “The C.I.A. did not, as part of its past detention program, conduct human subject research on any detainee or group of detainees. The entire detention effort has been the subject of multiple, comprehensive reviews within our government, including by the Department of Justice.”The CIA here, however, seems to have redefined the word "entire" – and possibly the words "did" and "not" – to complement its unconventional redefinition of the words "safe", "legal", and "effective". Specifically, there has been no government investigation of medical personnel involved in the interrogation of detainees. The New York Times quotes Dr. Steven H. Miles of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota "and an expert on the role of medical professionals in torture", saying:
There are countries that, over the years, have condemned medical complicity in torture in principle, but which haven’t really been willing to investigate medical professionals or hold them accountable. That group of countries includes the United States.Aren't we special. I wonder who else is included? I'm sure we're in good company.
The PHR report doesn't present new information about what was done during
It's true that the research being done on these subjects was not the purpose of the torture. It is difficult to see, however, how the fact that the abhorrent practice of medical experimentation on captives was done, not as an end in itself, but only secondarily to the primary purpose of torture, somehow resolves all ethical difficulties.
Says Jonathan D. Moreno, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania:
There was no therapeutic purpose or intent to monitor and collect this data. You can’t use people as laboratories.But the question seems to be: can you do it, in the United States, with impunity for all those complicit - the President who authorized it, the C.I.A. personnel who set it up, and the medical personnel who used their training to monitor torture and refine its conduct with scientific precision?
A couple other questions suggest themselves when contemplating the extensive role played by medical professionals in crafting methods of interrogation designed both to satisfy the CIA's and the White House's desire to inflict torture on detainees, and their desire to do it in a way which would support their effort to avoid legal penalty for doing so:
Who among all those responsible, in addition to the torturer-in-chief, would do it again?
And given a desire to do it again among politicians, spies, and even health care professionals, what is to stop them, in the absence of any legal penalties being imposed on those who are known to have done it?
PHR has a form here for emailing President Obama to urge that he instruct the Attorney General to investigate this matter, and prosecute anyone found to have committed a crime.
The PHR white paper can be downloaded here: The Torture Papers.
Prescott to Bigots: We Have Shiny Teaspoons, Look!
Shaker maatnofret commented to the Note to Racist Jackhole post, that the people of Prescott Unified School District had held a big old-fashioned community teaspoon-raising on Saturday (blub warning; also, for Maude's sake, stay out of the comments, on pain of contact with memetic toxic sludge):
PRESCOTT - Prescott Unified School District administrators announced to a cheering crowd Saturday morning that the Mural Mice will restore the original design of the 'Go on Green' mural at Miller Valley Elementary School.That's the way you do it. It takes a village, indeed.
District Superintendent Kevin Kapp and school Principal Jeff Lane also admitted they erred for instructing the Mural Mice to lighten the faces on some of the children depicted in the mural that adorns the district's most ethnically diverse campus.
Monday Blogaround
[Note: Blogger is still being a jerk, and Liss can't post at all at the moment, so she asked me to put this up in her stead.]
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Dudley's Cute Juice, a 100% satisfaction guaranteed elixir for improving your cuteness. Made from organic cute.
Rachel: The Down Under Feminists Carnival
Veronica: I'm still not White, but am I American Indian?
Resistance: Water Still Wet
Beth: Dear Ms. Obama: Promote healthy food options, but please don't promote discrimination
Melanie: Secretary Clinton Announces $1 Million for Women and Girls
Angry Asian Man: Anamika Veeramani Wins 2010 Scripps National Spelling Bee
Andy: Gay Exorcisms Fail to Deliver
Leave your links in comments…
The Sign Post Up Ahead
Residents and travelers in Oxfordshire UK have been advised to think of the local fauna population and slow their driving just a bit.
A local citizen has posted a sign instructing "For Fox Sake Slow Down." I hope everyone takes it to heart.
For the foxes.
Blog Note
Just FYI, Blogger is being a bit pissy this morning. We may be a little light on posting until they get their issues resolved. Thanks for your patience.
UPDATE: Blogger is still acting wonky (I originally typed that as "wanky," by the way), but some of us can post again. Thanks again for your patience.
Doctor Who Open Thread: S5E07: Amy's Choice
Time for another Doctor Who Open Thread, you Whopsters, and it's this week's (per the US/Canadian broadcast schedule) episode, Amy's Choice.
SPOILERS! This thread will contain spoilers for this episode, and possibly any episode which has come before it. Please be careful not to give spoilers from episodes beyond this point, as your thread host is a nasty cranky misanthrope when her shows get spoilt. :D
Have at it, Whopsters, what did you think of this episode? Didja find it...dreamy?
Soccer v HIV in Africa
Following up yesterday's horrid story about FIFA refusing to allow distribution of condoms at the upcoming World Cup in South Africa (a country with one of highest HIV infection rates in the world), Shaker rhiain dropped a link to a really wonderful organization, Grassroot Soccer.
Now, it's no surprise to many of you, I think, how much I love that game. I still play every week, nearing 44 and using a cane most of the time (but not while playing! - then, I just take a lot more pain pills), just because I enjoy it so much. So when I see a group who are using the game I adore to do good works, well, that's a time when Caitie gets all squeeful.
This group is using the love of the game, shared by so many people, to spread good HIV prevention, life skills education, and safer sex practices to people growing up in areas with very high infection rates - not just in Africa, but also in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, a little closer to home for most Shakers.
Anyway, they do a good thing, and like any group doing a good thing, they can always use more support. I'm going to be taking this information to my soccer team myself tomorrow, see if we can come up with fun ways to raise some money for the organization - maybe put together a marathon game or something.
I have no connection to the group at all - I just really like what they're doing, how they're doing it, and want to boost their profile here. They've got a great page listing ideas of how people can help them in their mission, beyond just giving money (although they can find uses for money too!).
If you're in a position to help, it'd be a great teaspoon to do so.
Tip of the CaitieCap to Shaker rhiain, for the awesome link.
Note to Racist Jackhole
Altered mural fuels racial debate
Local city councilman Steve Blair - a white cis man, apparently temporarily able-bodied and hetero - insists that wanting to whiten the depiction of some of the children in the mural - which have been the target of racial slurs for months, as the artists have - is totes not racist, dude:
He insists the controversy isn't about racism but says the mural is intended to create racial controversy where none existed before.So, your defense against charges that your response to the mural is racist is basically: it can't be, because there aren't any of those people 'round here?
"Personally, I think it's pathetic," he says. "You have changed the ambience of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn't exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I'm ashamed of that."
Anyone got bingo yet?
FIFA to Ban Distribution of Condoms at World Cup
This is just shameful, FIFA. Shameful. I've been playing our game since I was 3 - that's a little over 40 years - and this is one of the very few times I've been ashamed to be a lifetime supporter of the game.
South Africa has the world's largest number of (People living with AIDS), with an estimated 5.7 million people infected – about one in every five adults. There are around 1,400 new HIV infections every day and nearly 1,000 AIDS deaths.There can be no excuse for this most basic failure of common sense by FIFA.
ô,ôP Teaspoons up: FIFA can be contacted through this form, or by other means as listed here.
I'd Do It Again
Torture. War. Suffering and death on a massive scale. Traumatic disruption to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And the man who made it all happen is ready for more.
Speaking to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, MI, on Wednesday, Bush said:
Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'd do it again to save lives.There's no reason to doubt the sincerity of the first part of that declaration - Bush's willingness to torture more people - but the pious justification of the dependent clause doesn't hold up.
A group of retired U.S. admirals and generals working with Human Rights First to educate members of Congress and candidates on the importance to national security of treating detainees lawfully and humanely released this statement in response:
Waterboarding is torture and torture is a crime. It cannot be demonstrated that any use of it by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life. To the contrary, the misguided belief that torture saves lives has cost America dearly. It is shocking that former President George W. Bush said he would use waterboarding 'again to save lives.' When he authorized it the first time he sent America down the wrong road, battering our alliances, damaging counterinsurgency efforts, and increasing threats to our soldiers.Bush still thinks the war against Iraq was a good idea, too, because, "getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him."
And, despite Laura Bush's famous comment regarding watching TV coverage of the war that, "no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this, and certainly the commander in chief, who has asked our military to go into harm's way," it turns out that her husband found his father's loss of the Presidency much harder. Said Bush of that traumatic episode in his life:
Being a son of the president is a lot harder than being president.Because, I guess, the son of the president doesn't get to torture or kill anybody when his self-respect needs a little pumping up.
Bush does have one regret - not being able to snatch Social Security away from the elderly and disabled. Being unable to push Social Security reform through Congress was "his greatest disappointment" as President.
Excuse me while I go brush the vomit out of my teeth.
Thanks to Scott Madin for the tip.
The Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report - F100604
Time for another Teaspoon Report.
Leave comments here that describe an act of teaspooning you encountered or committed. They don't have to be big, world-shaking acts; by definition, a teaspoon is a small thing, but enough of them together can empty the ocean.
If you would like to discuss the teaspoons here reported, or even offer congratulations or your admiration to a fellow Shaker, we ask that you do so over here in the Discussion Thread for today's NQDTR.
Shaker bgk has been kind enough to get a Twitter-pated version out there for you young twittersnappers (and by the way, get off my lawn, you meddling kids! *shakes cane*). You can find the details about the Tweetspoons project right here. That runs all the time, as far as I'm aware (*grumblenewtechnologygrumble*), and we encourage you to let other people know that there's at least one tweetstream talking about just going out and doing good things for the human species.
Teaspoons up, let's hear 'em, Shakers!
ô,ôP
The NQDTR Discussion Thread - F100604
Hiya, Shakers, time for another Discussion Thread for the Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report!
This is the thread in which you may offer congratulations or admiration for a teaspoon or teaspooner. If you're posting with just congrats or admiration, though, do take a moment and check the thread to see whether other people have said so a number of times already. Remember that no one is required to read here just because they posted over there, so there's no guarantee you'll get a response to a given comment.
Blog note: Bread and Teaspoons
Not sure whether it's been much noticed, but I haven't made a B&T post in a few weeks. This is largely because it has seemed to me to be less and less attended, thus making me wonder if it is now past its time, but as with anything else to do with me, depression and physical pain and money stress* (poverty, in case it wasn't clear, sucks large rocks through small hoses) have had their roles to play as well.
I could start it up again, if people wanted, or make changes (maybe less often? maybe different posting guidelines? adding topics for discussion?), but I think as presently constituted, it's just not feeling easy to keep going.
Anyone got any thoughts, or do we just put it gracefully to bed as an idea that didn't quite work?
* It's hard not to feel somewhat irresponsible for putting time and effort into a labour of love (such as Shakesville is for me), when my business isn't making enough to live on as yet. This is tied into very old stuff for me, about my parents' narrative of me as selfish and irresponsible for transitioning.
Two Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Taylor Dayne: "I'll Be Your Shelter"
Bonus I'll Be Your Shelter Starring Jeremy Sisto As Jesus:
National Donut Day
Hey, guess what, Shakers! Today is National Donut Day! Woo hoo! Yes, a day dedicated to donuts of all variety: cream-filled or not! Yay! (And yes, every sentence in this post will end with an exclamation point!) If you love donuts as much as I do, you'll be out getting yours filled today! I mean "getting your fill today"! Woops! Some places are even giving away free donuts too! I bet you could google that and find a local donut perveyor that is celebrating National Donut Day like all good Americans!
So, run out, eat a donut now! It is the right thing to do!
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Deeky's splendid array of fine products for giant hands. All products in the Deeky line come with matching butt plugs. In honor of this consumer-friendly practice, today's blog links are offered in sets, except where not.
Womanist Musings: Calling Someone the N-Word Can get Expensive
- Renee notes that sometimes black folks find justice - but there's a hell of a lot more of it still missing.
Womanist Musings: Monstrous Musings: Is it better to be feared than loved? White ogre identity in Shrek 4
- Renee's guest poster, Natalie Wilson, muses on monsters and the curiously limited color spectrum explored in film animation.
Sociological Images: Learning How to Stand Like a Girl
- Stand up straight! No, not you, honey.
Sociological Images: Charting Welfare Numbers
- Lies, damned lies, and statistics: that third kind may be even more misleading in the form of charts, because they look so definitive.
Family Inequality: Behind the Gendered Workplace
- That 2nd post at Sociological Images led me to its author's blog, where more interesting stuff is to be found.
Mondoweiss: Blinding the Witnesses
- Naomi Klein on Emily Henochowicz, the young U.S. artist who lost an eye when she was shot in the face with a tear gas canister at a West Bank protest against the Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla.
Thirsty Pixels
- Emily Henochowicz's blog, with pictures of some of her work. Her most recent post is from May 30, the day before she was shot.
Pam's House Blend: O'Reilly: gay-themed French McDonald's ad equivalent to promoting Al Qaeda
- Bill O'Reilly doesn't think some folks should be coming at all, much less as they are.
Pam's House Blend: It's time for the Family Research Council to be classified as an official SPLC "hate group"
- Rep. Howard Berman introduced a sense-of-the-House resolution opposing proposed Ugandan kill-the-gays legislation. The Family Research Council lobbied Congress on it. Do you think they were for or against it?
Black Agenda Report: AFRICOM and the ICC: Enforcing international justice in Africa?
- The U.S. has refused to allow our citizens to be subject to the International Criminal Court, but we may be interested in becoming their Enforcer. How could that not work out well? Samar Al-Bulushi and Adam Branch will tell you.
Ta-Nehesi Coates: Especially the Blacks and the Irish
- They all look alike. Ta-Nehisi Coates reminds us to look to primary documents, and quotes Fanny Kemble.
Ta-Nehesi Coates: Especially the Blacks and the Irish, cont.
- Ta-Nehisi provides some further original images.
ETA: I forgot to add the invitation to drop in comments links to your blog posts or to others you'd like to share. But links, as always, welcome.
(Incredibly Racist) Quote of the Day
"We already got one raghead in the White House, we don’t need a raghead in the governor’s mansion."- Senator Jake Knotts (R(acist fuckneck)-SC), attacking Nikki Haley,* frontrunner in South Carolina's GOP gubernatorial race. Haley, raised in the Sikh faith, recently changed language on her website to "reflect a more Christian tone."
Countdown to "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" non-apology apology in 3..2..
UPDATE UPDATE: Whoops, got fooled. But yeah, as expected, it "was just a joke."
* (Trust me, don't read the comments at the Think Progress link. Apparently, the commenters there don't actually take the name of the site to heart.)
Question of the Day
We've done this one before several times, but it's always fun.
What's for dinner?
I've got some catfish fillets defrosted. I'm either going to braise them in a curry sauce and serve them over rice, or bread n' bake them with brussels sprouts.
Standard Operating Procedure
Yesterday my husband got an email about a sweepstakes being held by VersionOne, a large technology vendor. This sweepstakes is being called "Real Men of Agile Genius" and is supposed to be a parody of those beer commercials. Here is part of the FAQ from the emailed advert:
Notice their blurb about gender bias? Yeah.
Anyway, my husband, sent them an email about this that quoted that bit and said if you have to explain it, you probably should have thought before using it in the first place. Also,
If we were in a field where participation by women wasn't already an issue, maybe this wouldn't be as big of a deal; as it is,I consider this sweepstakes pretty harmful and insulting to both the women in our industry and anyone else who is working hard to build inclusive environments. I'm disappointed to see this kind of crap coming from a well-known vendor in the agile space.
Do I need to give you all more than one guess at what the response was?
Anyone who guessed the "we're sorry you were offended" gets 100 shiny gold stars. This is the response:
We apologize if this sweepstakes has offended you. VersionOne has customers all over the world and some of them are not familiar with the popular ad campaign we are spoofing. This is why the explanation was given.Apologies: 2; Getting It: 0.
Again, please accept our apologies.
Anyone who is still wondering Why So Few?, needs to look no further than this sweepstakes right here. S.O.P. for a company's response; S.O.P. regarding women in technology. Yes, it's "just a sweepstakes"--it's always the little things, too.
Terrorism AGAINST Muslims - an Inherent Contradiction?
You'd certainly think so if you go by the mainstream media.
The link's a couple of weeks old, but refers to a pipe bomb attack on a mosque in Florida, which seems to have managed to escape the mainstream media's attention. It also seems to be very difficult for those parts of the MSM that did notice it (largely local media in Florida) to bring themselves to admit that white Americans can be terrorists, or that someone attacking Muslims with the intention of creating fear could be considered terrorism.
It sure is good that white Americans don't commit terrorist acts, huh?
Edit: D'oh! Shaker BlueRidge points out that Liss already posted about this. Sorry 'bout the repeat, folks.
Rue McClanahan RIP
Rue McClanahan, perhaps best known as Blanche Devereaux on The Golden Girls, died today after stroke. She was 76.
McClanahan had a diverse career, appearing in films like Starship Troopers, on TV in Mama's Family, and on Broadway in Wicked.
She will be missed.
RIP Rue McClanahan.
Gores to Separate After 40 Years
In an email to friends Tuesday, Al and Tipper Gore announced their separation.
"After a great deal of thought and discussion, we have decided to separate. This is very much a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together."
The Gores deny any infidelities, and say they've simply grown apart in recent years.
In a totally unrelated note, as I left McEwan Manor that very day, Liss was googling "Amtrak to Tennessee." I am sure that was just a coincidence.
Can Someone Please Explain This To Me?
Half-assed transcript:
Small group of women gathered around computer screen browsing the Zoosk dating site. One woman remarks how she'd totes like to bone one of the dudes. Cut to fantasy enactment of said boning. Man and woman bump into each other clumsily, knock over candles, break all kinds of stuff, man yells "ouch, my back!" Cut back to group of women gathered around computer screen. Woman says "let's just go to the movies instead."
Was that supposed to be funny? And if so, why? Is this the kind of thing that regularly happens on dates? I really don't get it. Maybe it is funny, but I haven't been on a date in so long that I just don't remember how hilarious and real this commercial is. Or not.
Any explanation would be appreciated.
[Cross-posted.]
Times blogger lurves Ray-cism
(TW for anti-immigrant racism, with a brief detour into combined contempt for, and erasure of the victimization of, undocumented women who are sexually trafficked.)
I found this inspiring bit of cultural criticism at the website of the NY Times. Unfortunately, what it is likely to inspire is either nausea or tears; possibly both. Dave Itzkoff commends to us a video by Ray Stevens of Stevens' song, Come to America, saying:
If there’s an upside to the polarized debate over illegal immigration in the United States, it’s that it has put Ray Stevens back in the limelight.I left this comment on Mr. Itzkoff's column
It's such a relief to learn that there is an upside to this "polarized debate"! I am a little disheartened to learn that it consists of a hack novelty-song writer putting brainless racism to music, though.That was all I could manage until I had a chance to recover after having the following piece of garbage slapped up against my brain. (transcript follows the video, beginning under the fold)
Stevens represents three "ethnic" characters in this video who are supposed to be illegal immigrants. One is clearly meant to be an Arab, one a Mexican, and the third, the one in the flowered shirt, I have interpreted as meant to represent a Cuban, owing to his "tropical" shirt, his being seen always with a cigar, the suggestion that he has arrived in this country by small boat across the ocean, and one scene in which he is represented as visiting his "home" which is illustrated, I believe, by Spanish Colonial architecture. The first two ethnicities are quite obvious; the third is my interpretation of the elements I just named.
Throughout the transcript, where I indicate that Stevens is singing, his voice is accompanied by a guitar. The song is kind of a bouncy, up-tempo ditty, with some tinkly piano in spots.
Be warned: this transcript is long. The video is just over three-and-a-quarter minutes, but there are very frequent changes of background.
[begin transcript]
Opening title: A Ray Stevens Production
(Music begins to play as a phone rings.)
(The scene changes to a very small office. Ray Stevens, who has a mustache and fairly short beard, and is 70 or 71 years old, according to Wikipedia, but looks younger than that here, is wearing a red check shirt, a bow tie, and what looks like a pork pie hat with the brim turned down. This character I refer to in the transcript as Bureaucrat Stevens. He is sitting between a filing cabinet and a desk, facing the camera. There is a globe at the left of the screen. Behind him is a window through which an office building is seen. Bureaucrat Stevens answers the phone.)
Bureaucrat Stevens (speaking): Hello. This is the I.I.A.P. . . .
(The scene changes to Stevens in a Navy baseball cap with some sort of insignia [it's roundish and gold around the outside, with some red, possibly red and white stripes, inside] an open-necked shirt, and a blue blazer with a red pocket square. He is listening to his cell phone, then pulling it away from his ear to stare at it in apparent disbelief. Behind him is a blue sky and [irony alert!] the Statue of Liberty.)
Bureaucrat Stevens (speaking): . . . the Illegal Immigration Assistance Program, a taxpayer-funded division of (inaudible).
(Back to the blue-blazered Stevens, who is supposed to be calling the I.I.A.P., and who sighs and rolls his eyes while listening to the list of languages)
Bureaucrat Stevens (speaking): For Spanish press 1, Portuguese 2, Arabic 3, Farsi 4 . . .
(Back to Bureaucrat Stevens at the I.I.A.P., who continues to list the language choices)
Bureaucrat Stevens (speaking): French 5, Swaa-HEE-li (exaggerated, drawn-out pronunciation of Swahili) 6, German 7, Italian 8 . . .
(brief cut to Stevens and Lady Liberty, then back to Stevens in the office)
Bureaucrat Stevens (speaking): . . . and if you insist on English, please stand by.
(The scene returns to blue-blazered Stevens in front of the Statue of Liberty. He begins to sing.)
Stevens (singing): If you're thinking about illegal immigration, be careful when you're choosin' a nation, 'cause breakin' the law in some countries is frowned upon.
(Stevens slaps the side of his face in disbelief)
Stevens (speaks): Imagine that!
(The scene changes to a background of hills and the Great Wall of China. In the foreground are Stevens in a flowered shirt of the kind referred to as "tropical", a straw hat and sunglasses, with a long cigar in his mouth, waving some people not seen toward him, while two men move past him with their heads down, one dressed in what looks like a white shirt and dark vest, and wearing what is meant to represent an Arab headdress, the other in a large sombrero and blue shirt. Both the men's headgear appears to be inauthentic, its cultural message directed at people who are not of the ethnicity being indicated.)
Stevens (singing voiceover): Sneak into China, they'll call you a spy . . .
(The scene changes to low, jagged hills, in front of which are two versions of Stevens: fake-Cuban Stevens (the flowered shirt and straw hat guy), and fake-Mexican Stevens in the sombrero. Both have wide eyes and mouths open in apparent shock)
Stevens (singing voiceover): . . . ship ya to Mongolia 'til ya die . . .
(The scene changes to desert, with a camel lying down in front of low hills behind which the sun is setting. In the foreground is Stevens again, in the dress meant to represent generic Arabishness.)
Stevens (singing voiceover): . . . and in the SU-dan they'll hang you and the camel you rode in on.
(Stevens chuckles on the voice track, and the fake-Arab Stevens on screen does what is apparently his only bit of "acting", but livens it up by slapping both hands against his cheeks; more "Oh, no!" than shock this time.)
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens in front of Mt. Rushmore.)
Stevens (sings): Yeah, and don't go hiking and enter I-ran . . .
(Background behind blue-blazered, singing Stevens changes to a beautifully carved ivory-colored building, presumably in Iran, which is not identified, surrounded by a parking lot, several smaller buildings and signs, in front of which blue-blazered Stevens continues singing.)
Stevens (sings): . . . or you might never be heard from again, and in Mexico . . .
(Scene changes to Mexican official, who I think is the current President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, standing at a podium with an insignia on it, in front of a Mexican flag and a large sign or banner on which, in large block letters, are the words PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA. Again, blue-blazered Stevens is in the foreground singing)
Stevens (sings:) . . . you might face a firing squad.
(Scene changes to what appears to be an old painting of several soldiers in dark uniforms, white belts and small hats shooting, at close quarters, a black man in a white shirt and dark pants. A light-skinned man in a sombrero, long grey jacket and grey slacks, and a darker-skinned man with a beard, in a white shirt and dark pants, stand in front of the soldiers also, and are apparently also to be shot. At the back is a high, grey stone wall, and in the foreground, blue-blazered Stevens glances over his left sholder toward the painting and grimaces slightly.)
(The scene changes again as the sound of the "firing squad" is heard, to what might be a studio with faux-brick walls on the sides, a purple and silver wall behind, and on the left of the screen an inset of Kim Jong Il. In front, blue-blazered Stevens sings. As he does so, Kim Jong Il is replaced by fake-Mexican Stevens, fake-Cuban Stevens [holding a boat paddle], and fake-Arab Stevens, all nodding in agreement with blue-blazered singing Stevens.)
Stevens (sings): Yeah, forget all about goin' to North Korea, that's a great example of a bad idea. So when it comes down to it . . .
(The scene behind blue-blazered Stevens changes to a large map of the Southern U.S. and Northern Mexico, showing highways, and with the border traced in green. Multiple large, printed black arrows appear on it, beginning in Mexico and crossing the border into the U.S., pointing north.)
Stevens (speaks/sings): . . . there's only one option you got! Yeah! . . .
(The scene changes to an ocean with the sun setting in the background. In the foreground is fake-Cuban Stevens holding a boat paddle; this changes to sombreroed Stevens beside the rickety barbed-wire fence; then changes back to fake-Cuban Stevens making boat-paddling motions and motioning as if to others to join him; which changes back to sombreroed Stevens singing back-up phrases - "USA" and price to pay" and "if you get caught illegally immigratin' " to the voiceover of blue-blazered Stevens singing the main part.)
Stevens' voice (sings over those scene changes:) Yeah, come to the USA. There's no penalty to pay if you get caught illegally immigratin'.
(Fake-Mexican Stevens is now holding a small American flag on a stick, sort-of-dancing along as he sings.)
Fake-Mexican Stevens (sings): Come to the USA . . .
(Scene changes to fake-Arab Stevens standing in the foreground, with a commercial airplane parked behind him which says, "CLYDE AIR" on it. An airline worker is walking in front of the plane's engine, and an airline luggage truck and luggage handler are near the front of the plane; the ocean is in the distant background. Fake-Arab Stevens looks a bit furtively to the side, then pulls a U.S. flag on a stick from his clothing and waves it with an expression suggesting he is stoked about getting away with something.)
Stevens' voice (singing): . . . 's it will be your lucky day . . .
(Scene changes to an open landscape which is mostly blue sky, with a line of hills in the distance, and a large, blue sign at front right which says 'ARIZONA' in white block letters at the top; below a white line is a large pattern of alternating red and yellow blocks of color radiating out from a big white star; below another white line, in white block letters are the words: THE GRAND CANYON STATE WELCOMES YOU.)
Stevens' voice (singing):. . . 'cause if you get in there's lots of goodies waitin'.
(Fake-Mexican Stevens, then fake-Cuban Stevens, followed by fake-Arab Stevens pop up one by one in front of the Arizona sign singing wordless syllables to another couple of bars of the music.)
Stevens' voice (singing): Like health care, welfare . . .
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens standing in front of the U.S. Capitol building, singing.)
Stevens (sings): . . . free education, help with your voter registration, and . . .
(The scene changes to fake-Mexican Stevens beside the barbed-wire fence, smiling, his hand outstretched as someone off-camera puts money into it one bill at a time.)
Stevens' voice (sings:) . . . driver's license and credit cards and license plates for your car . . .
(Fake-Mexican Stevens turns to the camera with an expression of disbelief at the U.S. largesse which is being given him by the unseen hand.)
Stevens (sings): . . . and lots of jobs for you to do, and employers who'll turn . . .
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens in front of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., with the Washington Memorial in the distance, and behind that the Capitol building)
Stevens (sings): . . . a blind eye, too.
(Stevens looks upward and to the side, perhaps suggesting the employer looking away from the guilty knowledge of hir employee's being undocumented. The scene returns to fake-Mexican Stevens by the barbed-wire fence, waving his U.S. flag on a stick, moving from side to side in time with the music, and apparently miming singing along with the voiceover of Stevens singing, which continues.)
Stevens' voice (singing): Come to the USA.
Voices of female back-up singers (sing): USA
(The scene changes to the fake-Mexican Stevens standing beside the barbed-wire fence, now playing a red-and-white electric guitar for several seconds. He finishes with a smile as Stevens sings the next line in voiceover.)
Stevens' voice (singing): No need to worry 'bout the Constitution . . .
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens, singing. Behind him is a pretty lavender-painted Craftsman-style house with a windowed-dormer. It has a railed porch; several steps up to the porch are flanked by columns which are red-brick to the top of the porch-railing, then narrower, lavender-painted wood above. There is some greenery along the porch railing and along the side of the house, where a white picket fence can also be seen. A very large, white sign on the roof, in front of the dormer, is lettered in red, "CAT HOUSE".)
Stevens (sings): We'll help you start a house of prostitution, if that's the kind of work you wanna do. You see, those gringo . . .
(The scene changes to an old, worn-looking stucco or adobe building with a balcony supported by columns framing five arches, with a smaller outbuilding and fields behind. In front of that is bare dirt, with blue-blazered Stevens singing in the foreground.)
Stevens (sings): . . . infidels are crazy; they'll give citizenship . . .
(The scene changes to fake-Mexican Stevens beside the barbed-wire fence, cradling a light-skinned doll with long dark hair in his left arm, while holding the small flag in his right hand. He turns and mugs at the camera happily.)
Stevens' voice (sings): . . . to your new baby. So ya see there's really . . .
(The scene changes to fake-Cuban Stevens, with his paddle, in front of the ocean; he shrugs as Stevens' singing continues.)
Stevens' voice (sings): . . . one choice for you. Ha - ha!
(The scene changes back to fake-Mexican Stevens beside the barbed-wire fence. Fake-Mexican Stevens fake-sings along with the voiceover being sung by Stevens.)
Stevens' voice (sings): Come to the USA.
The scene changes to fake-Arab Stevens walking in front of the "CLYDE AIR" plane somewhat furtively, as he is hunched over with his head down, then he straightens up, turns around and waves as if to motion others behind him to come along.)
Stevens' and female singers voice's (sing): S' there's no penalty to pay . . .
Male singers voice's (sing): Why should there be?
(The scene changes back to fake-Mexican Stevens by the fence, with his American flag, singing along as Stevens sings in voiceover.)
Stevens' voice (sings): . . . if you get caught illegally immigratin'.
(Male back-up singers, or Stevens himself on a separate track, I can't tell, here sing a line that I can't understand most of.)
Male voice (sings): Treat me (inaudible) illegally immigratin'. I said, come to the USA . . .
(The scene changes to fake-Cuban Stevens, who waggles his cigar at the camera.)
Stevens (sings): . . . 'Cause it will be your lucky day, 'cause . . .
(The scene switches to fake-Mexican Stevens at the barbed-wire fence, waving his U.S. flag.)
Stevens' voice (sings): Cause if you get in there's lots of . . .
(The scene cuts to the big 'ARIZONA' sign again, and fake-Mexican Stevens appears in front of it, followed by fake-Cuban Stevens, then fake-Arab Stevens pops up between them. All three sing along in wordless syllables.)
Stevens' voice (sings): . . . goodies waitin'. Yeah, you can get public housin' . . .
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens standing in front of a giant TV satellite dish; behind that a building is partially visible.)
Stevens (sings): . . . and cable TV . . .
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens standing in front of a supermarket meat case, over which is hung some red-white-and-blue, stars-and-stripes paper bunting.)
Stevens sings: . . . and food stamps . . .
The scene changes again. Behind blue-blazered Stevens is now a giant wedge of yellow cheese with bright orange chunks in it.
Stevens (sings): . . . and even government cheese.
(The scene behind blue-blazered Stevens changes to a country field, with low hills in the distance. Immediately behind Stevens a muddy track leads through a wide-open gate in a low fence.
Stevens (sings): The borders are a swingin' door. Go home for a visit . . .
(The scene changes again. Fake-Cuban Stevens, still holding his paddle in his left hand and his cigar in his right, sort-of-dances in a street. On the left of the scene are trees and a light pole, on the right is a large, old building, in the Spanish Colonial style, with a regular series of arches on the ground floor and wrought-iron railings in front of the windows above.)
Stevens' voice (sings): . . . and come back for more.
(The scene changes to fake-Arab Stevens in front of a high, chain-link fence, behind which two men in what appears to be a form of Middle Eastern or North African dress - long, white shirts and white pants, with white skullcaps - stand in front of a doorway, while another man in khaki pants and a light-colored shirt leans against the fence. The place is suggestive of some kind of detention facility. Fake-Arab Stevens looks over his shoulder at the fence and sort of skulks away, as Stevens' sings the next line in voiceover.)
Stevens' voice (sings): There's sanctuary and amnesty.
(The scene changes to blue-blazered Stevens standing in front of a large yellow sign which says, in black, block letters across the top: CAUTION. Below that are the silhouettes of a running family, led by a [presumed] man in pants, followed by a [presumed] woman in a skirt, who is pulling by the hand a child with pigtails. It is the kind of sign which has been erected at places where there has been a significant incidence of people who have crossed the border illegally attempting to cross highways on foot, risking significant injury and death. Dry hills are behind him.
Stevens (sings): Bring the whole fam damily, eventually. Yeah.
(The scene changes back to fake-Mexican Stevens waving his flag-on-a-stick along the barbed wire fence. He sings along with the voice over.)
Stevens' voice, along with female back-up singers (sings): Come to the USA.
(Scene returns to the tiny office where it started, with Bureaucrat Stevens in red-checked shirt, glasses and pork pie hat on the telephone.)
Stevens (speaks): This has been a public service message sponsored by (inaudible). . .
(The scene returns to blue-blazered Stevens in front of the Statue of Liberty. He has Bureaucrat Stevens on his cell phone. He nods ruefully as Bureaucrat Stevens finishes speaking.)
Bureaucrat Stevens continues speaking: . . . dedicated to the col-lapse of the American way of life. Uh, ha, ha, ha - yeah.
(The scene returns to the three cheesy "immigrant" Stevens' in front of the 'ARIZONA' sign. They sing along in wordless syllables as the song ends, looking pretty pleased with themselves. Fake-Cuban Stevens waggles his cigar, while Fake-Mexican Stevens lifts his shoulders and turns out his hands in a shrug, ending by slapping his hands together in apparent delight.
The final screen is black, with these words in white lettering: This Video and Song are dedicated to the hard-working American citizens who were born in other countries and chose to "Come to the U.S.A." the right way!
www.RayStevens.com
[end transcript]
What isn't wrong with this piece of garbage? Starting where it ends, with that smarmy dedication to American citizens born elsewhere, which is nothing more than a lazy attempt to produce a "get out of racism free" card.
Stevens allows that immigrants who came here "the right way" are hard-working. Yet he's sure that those desperate enough to risk life and liberty coming here "the wrong way" to have their labor* exploited for long hours, low pay, and no benefits, by employers who manipulate them with the threat of deportation, have only showed up with their hands out for all that free cash (and cable TV!) that the government is handing out to those lazy bums. This despite the fact that most of the benefits mentioned in the song are not available to undocumented immigrants.
Stevens also informs us that undocumented immigrant women who are sex workers have entered into that work because that's just the kind of work they want to do, and further that "we" will set them up in comfortable homes from which to conduct this business. The facts, of course, are otherwise.
And while it's true that entering either Iran or North Korea illegally is ill-advised, I can think of no reason why we in the U.S. should want to emulate either of those countries in our treatment of either citizens or immigrants. The suggestion that being undocumented in Mexico might bring you before a firing squad is simply bizarre.
Mexico has no death penalty. Their civilian court system hasn't executed anyone in over seventy years. Conservatives like to charge that laws against being in the country illegally are stronger in Mexico than in the U.S, but Mexico decriminalized illegal entry several years ago. It's still illegal, but the penalties are minor.
What is even more disturbing to me than the existence of this song and video is the fact that someone who writes for the Times thinks it appropriate to promote this dishonest, inflammatory piece of rubbish. We all know the line, of course. It's satire. No, it isn't. Satire punctures the pretensions of the powerful; it mocks their depredations. It does not invent depredations by the powerless.
Say it with me now: "It's only a gag." "But it's fun-nee." Humor is subjective. What is objectively true is that this song and video perpetuate a series of lies about undocumented immigrants which foment and exploit resentment against them.
It is also objectively true that that resentment, on occasion, erupts in violence against someone perceived to be an undocumented immigrant - or just an immigrant, Mr. Stevens pious disclaimer notwithstanding. People who write for the New York Times should know that.
Comments on the Times promotion of this drek can be left on the page where it is posted. Email, fax and snail mail info for letters to the editor is here.
*This link is to a page at the UFW.org website where individual farm workers talk about their working conditions. I have no reason to believe that any of the workers featured there are undocumented. I linked to that page as an illustration of the kinds of work and working conditions which many undocumented workers endure, because on that page workers are telling their own experiences in their own words.
Did Citibank Fire A Woman For Being "Too Attractive"?
From my e-mail box, a Shaker writes to point me to The Village Voice, and an article asking "Is This Woman Too Hot To Be A Banker?."
Now, before you rush over there, let me point out that the article uses some framing techniques that are fauxgressive at best, so be aware that this one may get to you on a couple of levels. For me, framing the entire aspect about the "hotness" of this victim of misogyny rings a fairly dissonant note. That note continues to clang along through the entire article, so it's not going to be an easy read.
But the issue itself is one of basic misogyny, and of a nearly breathtaking level of gall: Debrahlee Lorenzana, a woman who (per the article) identifies as part Puerto Rican- and part Italian-American, was fired because she was so attractive that her superiors at the bank couldn't work for the distraction. And not constructive dismissal, or any other sneaky method of firing someone for one thing and meaning another, oh no: that's what they told her they were firing her for.
Her bosses told her they couldn't concentrate on their work because her appearance was too distracting. They ordered her to stop wearing turtlenecks. She was also forbidden to wear pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or fitted business suits. Lorenzana, a 33-year-old single mom, pointed out female colleagues whose clothing was far more revealing than hers: "They said their body shapes were different from mine, and I drew too much attention," she says.I'm not sure whether Ms. Lorenzana identifies as a woman of colour, but I can't help but assert that it'd be foolish to imagine her externally-apparent ethnicity didn't play a part in this: bodies perceived as being of colour are incessantly hypersexualized in the kyriarchal culture, in particular those marginalized bodies which are viewed as most conforming to the white beauty standard, while retaining enough of their colour to be exoticizable.
As Lorenzana's lawsuit puts it, her bosses told her that "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear."
So, let's recap, shall we? This woman goes to work in a bank. She is constantly criticized for her appearance, ordered to cover herself more than other women in the bank, and eventually fired from her job so that the men whom she worked for could avoid having to control themselves.
It's the ultimate expression of the dudebro culture, the rape culture, the kyriarchy, the idea that a woman can be so attractive that no man should be expected to, y'know, not force his unwanted attention on her. And it's only a short step from there to can't be expected not to force himself on her.
It is one of the bitter aspects of the kyriarchy and how it treats women's bodies, and women in general, that even those women who succeed most visibly at meeting the kyriarchy's expectations of them will end up being punished for being women.
It's also a reminder of the incessant genital-essentialist position that "penis-bearing people are visually oriented in their sexual desire, and vagina-bearing people aren't".
ô.ôP
Teaspoon time: I couldn't find a directly-applicable place at Citibank to which to direct messages, but did find their US contact page. Remember that generally in activism, letters are better than e-mails are better than phone calls.
Note: Please remember to consider the Shakesville comment policy before commenting. Comments which discuss what Ms. Lorenzana is wearing in the photos, or her appearance in general, are off-topic. I hope Shakers don't need to be told why "Look at what she's wearing" is problematic in a feminist forum anyway, but note that the article explicitly points out that other women employees were allowed to wear more revealing clothing than Ms. Lorenzana without issue, so it is clear that it was not "just the clothing" causing the problem; it was her managers' inability to behave like respectful adults that caused the problem.
It is also good to recall that feminism involves choice for women, and that some women choose to present themselves in ways which conform with traditional expectations of feminine beauty, and that on an individual level, it is not very good feminism to be criticizing a woman for doing so. While a useful discussion can be had about where the pressure to conform comes from, and about how women can subvert or invert that pressure, and all sorts of things, they're not really relevant to this post, which is about the misogyny of the managers, not the choices of Ms. Lorenzana about whether or not to conform to the beauty standard.
Teal deer version: Be good
Tip of the CaitieCap to my good friend and fellow Shaker, Hel M.
* I changed this because it's less awkward-sounding than the "feminists or womanists" which I had wanted to change it to; my apologies to womanists who were excluded by my original statement. Per usual, for "modeling that fucking up isn't the end of the world" reasons, I am leaving the error marked (or going to try to, anyway, hoping that I can use the strike tag) but not erased. I would like to request that, if you're feeling like saying that my posting this edit is awesome, you please remember that the only way I get to be "awesome" in the way you're suggesting is by starting off othering people, not something for which I much want to be lauded. Thanks for understanding.
The OFFS Awards: Oil Spill Edition
According to Reuters "James Cameron took part in a brainstorming session with scientists, academics and Washington officials on Tuesday on how to contain the six week-old oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."
Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, and James Cameron met as "part of the federal government's ongoing efforts to hear from stakeholders, scientists and experts from academia, government and the private sector as we continue to respond to the BP oil spill."
Cameron has directed lots of movies about water, so he's clealy a "stakeholder." Good for him.
Question of the Day
Do you have any phobias (that you're willing to admit to publicly)?
Please note that a phobia is an irrational or excessive fear response, which necessarily has a subjective component.
So, being afraid of bees, if you're allergic to them, isn't necessarily a phobia.
Of course, in my case, it is. I am deathly allergic to bee stings (and those of hornets/wasps/other WMD*), which would mean hey, no phobia if I'm just sort of intelligently cautious: keep my injector near, inform people of where it is if I can't carry it and am outside (e.g., when I play soccer, my handfasting), don't hang out in flowery gardens, that kind of thing.
But when one responds as I do, typically with a great deal of literal flailing about and tossing of nearby objects and shrieking and frequently much running and jumping and throwing of self into bodies of water and requesting of police officers to please shoot shoot shoot into my car which I have abandoned in the middle of the Bloor Viaduct because there's OMM ONE OF THOSE @*(&@(*ING THINGS IN IT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT...well, what you've got there's a phobia, ma'am.
I literally sprayed the entire goal area of the soccer field I was playing on last year with some kind of keepaway spray, because there were a lot of bees around and I was standing in goal in a flourescent orange shirt with long sleeves and green highlights. And our backup keeper was even more scared than me. Never doubt my devotion to my teammates. :)
I like to call it apiphobia, because hanging out here, I'm clearly no melissophobe.
What's yours?
* Wingthings of Me Destruction.
Assvertising: McFail
I usually really, really dislike McDonald's advertisements. So when I first heard from a friend a few days ago about the new "gay ad" playing in France--as part of a "come as you are" campaign--I was skeptical but, well, one never knows, right? Here is the ad (it is subtitled/captioned in English):
My initial reaction was: "Huh, doesn't really seem very 'come as you are' what with the dad situation. WTF?". Rather seems like a fail on the whole theme there, McDonald's (which is why I put it in the Assvertising series). I thought it might be really positive but it just...wasn't.
I have read discussions that people hope this will be a narrative-series, not a stand alone ad. That may change the perspective entirely. What do you think of the ad?
[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, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty-Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One, Ninety-Two, Ninety-Three, Ninety-Four, Ninety-Five, Ninety-Six, Ninety-Seven, Ninety-Eight, Ninety-Nine, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107]
