What is your favorite song with a person's name in the title?
I'm tempted to use my same answer from yesterday, just because I can, but that probably wasn't even a good answer yesterday, either, lol. (I thought of "How Soon Is Now?" about five seconds after posting it.)
I'd have to think about this one for awhile, too, to come up with a definitive answer, but "Sheila, Take a Bow" comes immediately to mind as a strong contender.
Question of the Day
RIP Elizabeth Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards, healthcare advocate, ex-wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, and my former boss, has died after a long battle with breast cancer.
I'll have more later.
For now: My sincerest condolences to her family, friends, and colleagues.
Daily Dose o' Cute
Video Description: Sophie is all curled up in a ball next to me on the couch, with just the tip of her wee tail flicking while she naps. Naturally, I had to play with it and annoy her. Because turnabout is fair play. (She is, as I type, draped across my monitor obscuring part of the screen, as per usual, lol.)
Sometimes, Dudley comes through to the office (or just stands up, if he's napping in the office) and nudges me for a cuddle, which I am always happy to oblige. Earlier, he nudged me then indicated he wanted me to follow him; I thought he had to go out, but instead he sat in the middle of the living room floor, giving me the need-a-cuddle look. I sat down beside him, and he flopped against me, lying his head in the crook of my elbow. When he got too heavy to hold any longer, I laid down beside him, and Olivia came and laid with us, rubbing her head against my feet. After a few minutes, I got up and took the above picture.
(Aside: Iain and Deeky are constantly yelling at me to take a break and get away from the computer for 10 minutes during the day, because I work nonstop. And, in the end, it's Dudley who is successful at getting me to take a break, lol. Silly wee wonderful dog.)
I then went to the kitchen to make myself a turkey sandwich for lunch. As always, the little beggars followed me, except for Matilda, who couldn't be arsed getting up from her perch on the couch. I gave Dudley, Olivia, and Sophie some turkey in the kitchen, then went into the living room to give some to Tils. She ate most of it and left one little piece. Dudley, seeing there might be some leftovers on offer, went up to her and "sat," then looked at her plaintively. Cutest. Begging. Ever.
I just don't even know. She is too cute.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for classism and food/body policing.]
What I Was Able to Buy With Food Stamps.
Or: Why can't the poor just eat fucking bootstraps?!
The entire premise of this article is undiluted hogwash. It doesn't matter if one can buy luxury items with food stamps. The people who need their food stamp allotments to last an entire month—the people who aren't "non-poor college students who are gaming the system"—can't and don't use food stamps to purchase one extravagant meal and a bunch of candy.
But even if they did, it's no one else's business.
My rights end where yours begin. Look into it, buddy.
[H/T to Shaker arcessita.]
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
[Trigger warning for discussion of rape jokes.]
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.]
Men vs. Roe (Again)
[Trigger warning for misogyny, body policing, and reproductive coercion.]
Is it 2006 again? It sure as fuck feels like it.
Shaker Hammer Time sends along this article from Elle magazine (!) about MRA muckety-muck Mel Feit's newest posterboy Greg Bruell and his crusade against the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad double-standard that allows women to have autonomy over their own bodies.
Bruell is a particularly loathsome candidate, given that, by my reckoning, he's already committed reproductive coercion twice: First by convincing his (now ex-)wife into having children, and then by convincing his (now ex-)girlfriend to have an abortion.
What he really seems angry about is the fact that a woman finally refused to relinquish control of her reproductive processes to him. And thus enters the (erroneous) narrative that women are manipulative bitchez, despite the fact that Bruell, by his own admission, talked two women into reproductive choices, and his partner's birth control failed because of antibiotic dilution.
I'll just reiterate what I said last time Feit and Some Dude were running the same line and the media were inexplicably biting: The argument is that, after a man and woman create a pregnancy together, if the man doesn't want a child, he should be able to opt out of parenting responsibility, and the woman should assume sole parenting responsibilities. The flipside of this coin is that men's rights activists also believe if a woman doesn't want a child, she should be forced to carry it to term at the man's wishes.
(In the latter case, this is usually referred to as "fathers' rights," although they like to leave any reference to "fatherhood" out of the discussion of the former, for which the term "men's rights" is preferred; the use of language alone is informative as to how these men want it both ways.)
Men's rights activists complain that men aren't getting a "say" in reproductive rights, which is a mendacious argument of epic proportions. Men have plenty of "say" over reproductive decisions—but it all happens before the pregnancy. They have "say" in choosing the women with whom they choose to have sex. They have "say" over whether they choose to discuss in depth with a partner what they would do in the case of an unintended pregnancy—and what their partners would do. They have "say" in determining what kind of sex they have with a partner. They have "say" over whether they put a condom on, if they choose to engage in PIV sex.
Once a woman is pregnant, men's legal "say" ends. They don't have the right to demand abortion, and they don't have the right to demand carrying the fetus to term, because conferring those rights would allow them to exact control over another human's body, which is simply an untenable position.
That's why making wise decisions in the first place is key.
And if men's right activists don't like that, they need to take it up with the Almighty, or the Intelligent Designer, or Mother Nature, or whatever, which in its infinite wisdom decided that only some bodies (generally female bodies, but not always) should have the ability to get pregnant.
The fundamental fuckery of this "men should be allowed to opt-out" argument is underlined by basic math: Men are arguing that they want responsibility only if they want responsibility, that they should have a "consequences" option and a "no consequences" option.
It's an argument that is predicated on treating abortion as the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card, rather than a consequence of unwanted pregnancy.
That's not to suggest that abortion is a punishment. I regard elective and uncoerced abortion as a wholly morally neutral event. But it is a medical procedure (sometimes surgical) with a cost—an out-of-pocket cost for most women, many of whom have to take time off work and travel increasingly long distances even to secure the legal medical procedure. Which is to say nothing of the potential emotional cost of being required to jump through absurd hoops like 24-hour waiting periods and state-mandated ultrasounds.
The reality is that, in the event of a pregnancy, a woman will always have consequences. She doesn't get an opt-out choice.
In the case that it is an unwanted pregnancy by both parties, she has the sole responsibility of termination. In the case that it is unwanted by her, she has the responsibility of termination, as well as whatever bullshit a coercive partner puts her through to try to get her to see the pregnancy through to term. In the case that it is unwanted by him, she has the responsibility of assuming sole financial responsibility herself, or relinquishing the child for adoption if she can't support a child on her own, or suing for financial support.
And, in the event that her partner successfully coerces her against her will to not terminate an unwanted pregnancy, she's not only charged with a financial and parenting burden she doesn't want (which is the most a man faces, in the reverse), but also the additional burden of a pregnancy and delivery, and all the health risks, costs, and personal inconvenience (to put it lightly) such entails, including the very real possibility of missing work for an extended period or losing her job altogether.
No matter from which angle the argument is made, there's no justifying giving a man control over a woman's reproductive choice in order that he may have a consequence-free option.
And all of this nonsense is based on the faulty premise that women can force men to be parents against their wills, but men can't do the same in return. In fact, men can and do force women to be parents against their wills, by sabotaging birth control and using threats of abandonment or violence, or actual violence, to prevent terminations (thus creating a permanent connection to a woman one wants to control).
The MRA parenting narrative is just another narrative of projection, an argument with no basis in reality, made my men who fear that, given half a chance, women will treat them just as badly as they treat women.
The Boy Crisis (Again)
[Trigger warning for misogyny and gender essentialism.]
For the Boys' Sake, Don't Kill the SAT. Here's just a little taste of this gem:
For whatever reason, during the past 30 years, our society has seen girls outperforming boys at every level of education.Oy. Where to begin. Shaker JMonkey sent me this garbage disaster of a column, which ran in his local paper as an editorial last weekend, with the note (which I am sharing with his permission):
...Something is going on. It may be the significant attention the educational establishment has lavished on girls, the lure of video games, the lack of fathers in so many homes, the fact that boys mature more slowly than girls, or maybe none of those. But we do know that whatever may be inhibiting them from excelling in high school as much as girls, boys do score proportionately better on the SATs.
...Scrapping one of the few remaining avenues for talented boys to show, yes, their aptitude, seems unwise.
Pretty transparent that she wants to keep the SAT to maintain male privilege since she seems to agree with Charles Murray (another red flag) that:Indeed. I've nothing to add which I haven't already said here and here. Charen is right that "something is going on." But what is going on is not video games or absentee fathers or, but the erosion of white male privilege, meaning that young white men are having to rely on something more than a birthright to achieve some measure of proportional individual success.
• "... SATs contributed little to predicting a student's success in college, whereas achievement tests and high school grades were more reliable"
• ... [W]hereas the SAT was originally designed to flag kids who might otherwise have been missed by college admissions committees, it has today become a "corrosive symbol of privilege."
I suspect that, if she had her druthers, Charen would prefer that colleges give men preferential treatment in admissions just because they're men. But she knows that's not acceptable. So, even though (and more likely, because) she knows the SAT actually measures little more than privilege and does not predict college achievement, she supports the test even more strongly.
I've seen few articles more transparently advocate for privilege than this one.
Which she knows intuitively, if not explicitly. Hence her argument in defense of a tradition that helps confer undeserved privilege upon young white men.
[Previously in The Boy Crisis: The Trouble with Boys, Boy Sues Because Schools Are "Designed to the Disadvantage of Males", The Boy Crisis and Tales from the DOD, "Boy Crisis" Overstated, Put Those Breasts Away, Young Lady!, Separate But Equal, What's Sex Got to Do with It?, Not a Zero Sum Game, But What About the Men?!, OMGWTFLOL WHUT?!, The Worst Thing You'll Read Today.]
Rape is Hilarious, Part 56
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape jokes.]
Last night, Iain and I caught a few minutes of Conan O'Brien's new show. His guest during the segment we saw was Charlie Day (an actor I don't know) from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (a show I've never seen). They were talking about the show, and how Day and the other writers get Danny DeVito (who's also on the show) to do all sorts of wild things, when O'Brien asked Day: "Has he ever said no to anything?"
I knew right at that moment a rape joke was coming. I would have bet every last thing I own on it.
And wow. It was some fucking rape joke. (Start video at 5:16.)
[Transcript of relevant portion starting at 5:16 below.]
Now, the thing about these shows is that the guests don't walk out on stage and have a totally unscripted conversation with the hosts. The guests go through pre-interviews, where they establish with the host what the topics of conversation will be. The pre-interview ensures that the on-camera interview will go as smoothly as possible, and it also allows the host and/or his production team to vet the on-air material.
Conan O'Brien considered this appropriate subject matter for his show. Conan O'Brien thinks rape is funny. I can't put it any more plainly than that.
Contact TBS and politely ask them why they think sexual violence is a laughing matter.O'Brien: Let me ask you very quickly—Danny DeVito's on the show, and he intrigues me; he's a very funny performer; he's very funny on the show, but it almost seems to me, as just an outsider, that you guys are writing ridiculous premises for Danny DeVito to almost see what you can get away with, what you can get him to do. [audience laughter][Rape is Hilarious: 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.]
Day: Yeah, yeah.
O'Brien: Is that—am I right about that?
Day: That's totally, exactly right. And he'll do pretty much anything. And we've got him—
O'Brien: Has he ever said no to anything? Has he ever said, "I will not do…"
Day: Well…you know what? Yes. We freaked him out one time pretty good—we played an April Fool's joke on him...?
O'Brien: Mm-hmm.
Day: And we took—we were writing a script, and we're like, all right, in the first scene, Danny's character will get arrested and go to jail—
O'Brien: Right.
Day: —and immediately get raped. [audience laughter; Day grins; O'Brien nods appreciatively] And, you know, we wrote very descriptive [laughs; audience laughter]—of, of what Danny was going to be doing. And, uh, you know, he gets raped by the black gang, and then he goes to the wh—and the next time you see him, he goes to the white gang members and he's like, "Hey, you guys gotta help me. These guys are raping me," and they're like, "All right, well, you gotta do this for us," and it cuts to him getting raped by them! [audience laughter' Day grins; O'Brien chuckles] And then later in the episode, ahh, later in the episode, he goes to the guards, and he's like, "Please, everyone here is raping me!" [audience laughter; Day laughs] and then, and then it cuts to all the guards are raping him! [audience laughs uproariously; Day grins; audience applauds; O'Brien is grinning and pretending to look uncomfortable] Which is good stuff!
O'Brien: Now this, this was, uh—obviously you had no intention of airing this episode.
Day: No.
O'Brien: What did he do? He saw the script and—?
Day: He called his lawyer! [O'Brien bursts into laughter; Day laughs; audience laughs] He called his lawyer, and he was like, "Listen, I love these guys, I'll do anything, but I think this is too far."
O'Brien: Yeah.
Day: And in the last line of the script, we wrote, "April Fool's!" So.
O'Brien: Oh, good, okay.
Day: He figured it out eventually.
O'Brien: He had to read—he didn't read the whole thing.
Day: No! By the third scene, he was on the phone with the lawyer. [Day grins; O'Brien laughs; audience laughter.]
Tax Cut Deal Round-Up: Huzzah Bipartisanship
Think Progress—Obama Agrees to Extend All Bush Tax Cuts and Cut Estate Tax in Deal with Republicans:
The White House just announced that it has settled on the details of the deal it has been cooking up with Congressional Republicans over the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. In return for a two-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts — including those for the richest two percent of Americans and those on capital gains and dividends — currently expired unemployment benefits will be extended for 13 months, there will be a two percent reduction in payroll taxes for one year, and both the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit enacted in the 2009 Recovery Act will be retained.Washington Post—Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax breaks: "The package would add more than $700 billion to the rising national debt, said congressional sources who were briefed on the deal. But with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent, the White House was focused on winning a compromise that could boost the fragile recovery while preventing the economic damage that could result from letting the expiring tax breaks affect paychecks next month."
The deal also includes reinstating the currently expired estate tax in a way proposed by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — 35 percent with a $5 million exemption (which means that $5 million can be passed on tax free).
...Now, many are arguing that this is a way for the Obama administration to bring in new stimulus spending through the back door, boosting the economy in the short-term. While this is true, conceding on the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax is a big price to pay in terms of perpetuating irresponsible and unaffordable Republican tax policy.
New York Times—Tax Deal Suggests New Path for Obama: "The deal appeared to resolve the first major standoff since the midterm elections between the White House and newly empowered Republicans on Capitol Hill. But it also highlighted the strains Mr. Obama faces in his own party as he navigates between a desire to get things done and a retreat from his own positions and the principles of many liberals."
The Hill—Obama, GOP strike deal:
Obama repeatedly said that he opposes extending the high-end tax cuts, but he said it is "abundantly clear to everyone in this town that Republicans" would block an extension for only the middle-class cuts.Washington Post—Obama's tax cut extension part of strategy to show bipartisanship: "Although his liberal supporters are furious about the decision, President Obama's willingness to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts is part of what White House officials say is a deliberate strategy: to demonstrate his ability to compromise with Republicans and portray the president as the last reasonable man in a sharply partisan Washington. The move is based on a political calculation, drawn from his party's midterm defeat, that places a premium on winning back independent voters."
Obama said there is "no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year," which he said would have a "chilling effect" on the economic recovery.
"I am not willing to let that happen," Obama said.
The president acknowledged the anger of many Democrats who think Obama caved in to Republican demands, saying he is "sympathetic to those who prefer a fight over a compromise."
But Obama said a protracted battle would mean letting the tax cuts expire for all Americans, an outcome that he said would cost $3,000 per year for typical families and could cost more than 1 million jobs.
"The American people did not send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories," Obama said.
No word on whether the president is interested at all in winning back progressive voters.
"Don't worry, boys—we've always got protecting Roe to hit 'em with come 2012!"
Question of the Day
What's your favorite song whose title is a question?
(Here's a list to help you get started, if you need it.)
I'm extremely fond of REM's track "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" despite [TW for violence] the incident whence comes the title.
News from Shakes Manor
Saturday night. The living room. Dinnertime. Present are: Liss, Iain, Misty, Kenny Blogginz, Red Sonja, and Karate Monkey. We are having a conversation about the Sheen family.
Liss: Hey, remember when Emilio Estevez was married to Paula Abdul? Good times!
Everyone Else: No. What? When the fuck was that? Fucking lint trap! [And other variations on this theme. Everyone is laughing, and rightfully so.]
Iain: Emilio Estevez and Paula Abdul don't even remember that.
KBlogz: No one remembers that!
Liss: I do! I celebrate their anniversary every year. [Makes this face.]
Everyone Else: LOL!
These two people were totes married in the 90s.
Daily Dose o' Cute
Video Description: Dudley experiences snow for the first time, looking around curiously and then spending part of his walk with me sniffing in footprints making sure the grass is still under there! Also footage of Iain and Dudley coming back from a walk. When Dudz is cold, he gets totes frisky and playful, and I've discovered his favorite cold weather activity is running around me in mad circles, partly to get warm and partly because OMG IT'S SO FUN!!! (Yes, he has a winter coat, care of Aunt RedSonja and Uncle KarateMoney, but will not do any poop business whilst wearing it.) Iain and I comment on how cold and cute he is, and Iain tells me that Dudley got excited as soon as he saw me. Dudley tries to "shake off the cold," while Iain knocks the snow off his shoes.
Olivia, lapsitting.
Dudley, couchnapping.
Matilda, copycatting.
Sophie, pianoperching.
Also Seen
Grafitto on the restroom wall at Red Emma's reading "Stop rape... Don't do it." Yeah, that sounds about right.
And More WikiLeaks
[Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault charges.]
United States Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier today that the US Justice Dept. will pursue "significant" legal action against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief.
"National security of the United States has been put at risk," Holder said. "The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can."Meanwhile, as regards the sexual assault charge Assange faces in Sweden, I'll direct you over to Jill, who's got a good post on the matter.
Also: CNN is reporting as breaking news that Assange's attorney says his client is "making arrangements to meet with British police regarding" the Swedish warrant.
Pulling these two stories together reminds me of something I've been meaning to note re: Assange. Although I've been broadly "on his side" in terms of the document leaking thus far, he strikes me as the kind of guy whose idea of boundaries is very different than mine, in many things. I frankly expect that it is only a matter of time before he goes too far, that it has been mostly coincidence I have not yet grimaced with dismay at his choices re: document leaking; thus, rightly or wrongly, am I reluctant to mount much of a vociferous defense on his behalf, as I fully expect I would come to regret it.
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.]
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the upcoming Misty O'Misty memoir Fuck, It's Cold!
Recommended Reading:
Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. See Veronica, Renee, and GimliGirl.
Andy: There's Now a Snowball's Chance in Hell 'DADT' Will be Repealed
Shark-Fu: You've got to be fucking kidding me...
[TW for violence, transphobia] Jonathan: Trans Woman Assaulted at Kohl's
[TW for racism] Resistance: What "Anti-Racist" Means
Leave your links in comments...
Dr. Drew: You May Be a Heroin Addict, But at Least You're Not FAT!
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, sexual violence, medical malfeasance.]
Have I ever mentioned that I hate Dr. Drew Pinsky…? Maybe once or twice. Anyway…
A new season of the truly loathsome Celebrity Rehab just started, and it was literally an instantaneous clusterfuck. In the first episode, Janice Dickinson was sexually harassed/groped by another patient, Jason Davis, and, as is typical of Celebrity Rehab, the perpetrator was not asked to leave.
And then there was world class fat-hater Dr. Drew, during Davis' intake session, effectively saying that it's better to be a heroin addict than to be fat (start at 1:04):
Pinsky: Jason, sir. How you feeling?There isn't enough NOPE in the world for this asshole.
Davis: Good.
Pinsky: Good, okay. So, Jason—you're diabetic, is that right?
Davis: Type 2.
Pinsky: Type 2. Have you lost some weight?
Davis: Hundred and fifty pounds.
Pinsky: You've lost a hundred and fifty pounds?! Good for you! How'd you lose the weight?
Davis: Heroin.
Pinsky: Heroin. [with a wry grin] I'm not so sure I'd recommend it, but I'm glad you lost the weight. [chuckles]
Meanwhile, Back in the States
After Francisco "Quico" Canseco beat Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tex.) as part of the Republican wave on Nov. 2, the tea party favorite declared: "It's going to be a new day in Washington."But, hey, IOKIYITTP (It's OK if You're in the Tea Party).
Two weeks later, Canseco was in the heart of Washington for a $1,000-a-head fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club. The event--hosted by Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.)--was aimed at paying off more than $1.1 million in campaign debts racked up by Canseco, much of it from his own pocket.
After winning election with an anti-Washington battle cry, Canseco and other incoming Republican freshmen have rapidly embraced the capital's culture of big-money fundraisers, according to new campaign-finance reports and other records.
Andrew Theodore, an Alexandria, Va., consultant who raises money for Benishek and nine other GOP freshmen, said the need to pay off debt is particularly acute this year. "This is the biggest freshman class we've had in a while, and as a result you just see more debt out there," he said.Same as it ever was.
Theodore also scoffed at the idea that accepting money from corporate PACs and lobbyists is at odds with the anti-Washington message of the 2010 class.
"These guys ran against Washington, but they ran against the bad parts of Washington--the bloated bureaucracy and Nancy Pelosi's agenda," he said. "That's not a contradiction to take money from a trade group or corporation that represents free-enterprise principles."
More WikiLeaks
The latest leaked document to garner outrage at WikiLeaks is a "long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security."
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says this is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation."An unhelpful development" is a really good way of describing it, IMO. The release of this list doesn't strike me as quite warranting profound alarm, if only because most of the sites on the list would be evident targets for disruption even if they hadn't been officially sanctioned by this document as important to US interests. And terrorists aren't stupid. "World Trade Center" didn't need to be on a list to be a target.
...The geographical range of the document on installations is extraordinary, our correspondent says.
If the US sees itself as waging a "global war on terror" then this represents a global directory of the key installations and facilities - many of them medical or industrial - that are seen as being of vital importance to Washington.
...The critical question is whether this really is a listing of potential targets that might be of use to a terrorist, our correspondent says.
The cable contains a simple listing. In many cases towns are noted as the location but not actual street addresses, although this is unlikely to stop anyone with access to the internet from locating them.
There are also no details of security measures at any of the listed sites.
What the list might do is to prompt potential attackers to look at a broader range of targets, especially given that the US authorities classify them as being so important.
It is not perhaps a major security breach, but many governments may see it as an unhelpful development, our correspondent says.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem particularly necessary to hand this list to people who might be interested in causing maximum chaos and/or destruction, nor particularly scandalous if the document had been kept concealed.
So. Unhelpful development. Yeah.
Meanwhile, the New York Times has the latest on the campaign to keep WikiLeaks leakin'.
Newt vs. Krug
In the red corner, Newt Gingrich: Let the nation's foxes decide what to do with the henhouse.
In the blue corner, Paul Krugman: Let's NOT Make a Deal.
Ding!
Seen
"Have a blessed and safe holiday season."
You heard it here first, Shakers: Now even CHRISTIAN CHURCHES have declared War on Christmas!!!!
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for disablism, gender essentialism, gender policing.]
Six things men say that signal trouble.
I am particularly fond of the first "Story Highlight" bulletpoint (which you know I love anyway): "There's a limit to how much a woman can tolerate seemingly unmanly behaviors."
So much lolsob.
You Scratch Our Back, We'll Deign to Care about Unemployed Workers
The Senate is reportedly close to a deal that will extend expired unemployment benefits. Republicans negotiated a compromise that will garner their votes to keep unemployed workers from falling off the edge in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts, even to the wealthiest USians.
Democratic Senators first proposed excluding tax cuts for people making over $250,000, which Republicans shot down. They then proposed excluding tax cuts for people making over $1 million, which Republicans also shot down.
So in order to provide a safety net to working people, Democrats had to agree to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the nation, even as the national debt continues to explode.
Senator and former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called out this bullshit for what it is:
"I hope Americans will understand how craven and empty and hollow and contradictory the Republican position is," veteran Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, told CNN.In other news, 100,000 more workers just got laid off from the bootstrap factory.
..."What we've seen is a Republican Party that's absolutely prepared to deny unemployment insurance to people who have been laid off, who can't pay their bills, who want to, you know, put food on the table for their families," Kerry said. "They (Republicans) have said, "No, we're willing to hold that hostage so we can give the wealthiest people in the country a bonus tax cut."
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Quote of the Day
"We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work. Period."—Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on there being "no gray area" about how servicemembers should conduct themselves with regard to a repeal of DADT. I totally agree.
Also: Adm. Mullen rulez.
[Via scatx.]
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, official sponsor of power-lounging.
Recommended Reading:
Sady: On Jezebel's Apology for That Piece
Fannie: Women's Sports and the Lavendar Menace [TW for homophobia, Christian supremacy]
Echidne: How's That Bipartisanship Working for You?
Peter: The new Obama fault line on the left: 'He's a closet Republican' vs. 'He's an inept Dem'
Adrienne: This Is Just Wrong [TW for racism]
Andy: The Rapture is Coming on May 21, 2011; Noah's Ark in 2014
Leave your links in comments...
Unemployment Round-Up
Yikes. The monthly jobs report for November was Not Good.
New York Times—Disappointing Job Growth in U.S. as Jobless Rate Hits 9.8%:
In a jolting surprise to the economic recovery and market expectations, the United States economy added just 39,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, according to the Department of Labor.Wall Street Journal—Economy Added Fewer Jobs Than Expected in November: "The weaker-than-expected data caused the dollar to weaken against the yen and euro and other major currencies. Treasurys rallied on the report. The U.S. unemployment rate has now been above 9% since May 2009, or 19 months. That matches the longest stretch at such an elevated level since World War II."
November's numbers were far below the consensus forecast of close to 150,000 jobs added and an unchanged unemployment rate of 9.6 percent.
More than 15 million people remained out of work last month, and 6.3 million of them have been unemployed for six months or longer.
New York Times—Unemployed, and Likely to Stay That Way: "This country has some of the highest levels of long-term unemployment — out of work longer than six months — it has ever recorded."
Steve Benen: "The awful monthly jobs report should wake up Washington."
Blog Note
Misty is in town visiting for the weekend, so posting is going to be light from me today. (And from Misty, heh.) We have lots of sitting on the couch talking about stuff to do!
USA: Beacon of Stupid - Christine O'Donnell Gets a Book Deal
Sure:
NEW YORK (AP) — Christine O'Donnell has lost an election, but gained a book deal.The most valuable thing Christine O'Donnell could write—a feminist piece about being the target of a literal witch-hunt in the year 2010—is the last thing she'd actually write. It's just going to be a bunch more Tea Party nonsense, intended to show the supposed power of the Tea Party.
The Delaware Republican and Tea Party favorite, defeated in last month's voting for the U.S. Senate, will offer her take on the campaign and her "frustrations" with the political process, St. Martin's Press announced Thursday.
(Oops!)
St. Martin's Press is just hoping to capitalize on the fact that Tea Partiers are bound to buy something as unremarkable (and otherwise ignorable) just to show that the Tea Party can rank high in book sales. Which is a reason to publish a book, but I'm not sure it's a very good one.
Question of the Day
What is the best gift you've never gotten? By that I don't mean the most expensive, indulgent luxury item you can imagine, but some little thing that any old friend or lover could buy you without much trouble or unreasonable expense, which would be perfect for you, but no one's ever thought to buy it.
The first time we did this question, my answer was "a set of really good knives," which my mom has since bought for me and I love dearly. She also recently bought me a mandolin slicer that I adore.
I'm surprised no one's ever bought me a subscription to People magazine. It is, of course, a total garbage nightmare, but it's always in my bathroom, because it's perfect toilet reading: Mindless bullshit in short chunks. And I always get teased for buying it, but everyone loves reading it when they poop at my house!
Today in Fat Hatred
by Shaker Esme, a law student at Washington University St. Louis, who is taking a short break from studying for finals to bring you this special message. She is both fat AND bisexual, and is sure that the combination of those two characteristics just blew your mind!
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, body policing, and homophobia.]
Via Facebook, Pam Spalding of Pam's House Blend shared this article from Mother Jones: Army Kicks Out More Gays Than Fat Soldiers. The article takes the tone that kicking gays, lesbians, and bisexuals out of the Army is somehow far worse than kicking someone out for being fat (ignoring, of course, the existence of GLB folk who are fat).
As Congress prepares—again—to debate Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Mother Jones has unearthed data showing the Army in recent years has been tougher on purging gays from the ranks than soldiers who are physically unfit for duty.”I completely agree that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a terrible thing, and something that should have ended a long time ago. It's absolutely ridiculous that it's still going on, in the face of all the evidence that it's a harmful, discriminatory policy. But fighting for LGBT rights doesn't give you carte blanche to get mad that the Army isn't discriminating enough against fat people. And make no mistake, this article is not about the Army needing to discharge soldiers for failure to pass fitness tests. This is an article about the Army needing to discharge fat people. For being fat.
But the Army's recent discharge statistics given to MoJo by a government source, suggest that the service has been far more concerned about its soldiers' sexual orientation than their waistlines, muscular endurance, or cardiovascular ability. In fiscal 2007 and 2008, the Army brass threw out 592 enlisted members for violating DADT—more soldiers than it ejected for excessive body fat or fitness-test failures combined. (emphasis original)Yeah! How dare the army not worry about soldiers' waist lines! I know that when my country needs defending, it's important to me what size pants my defenders are wearing.
The service's response was to ease its fitness standards and make it harder for commanders to discharge overweight or underperforming soldiers. (emphasis mine)That's an or right there. In other words, the author feels that someone who is overweight but not underperforming should be discharged. As in OH NOES THEY AREN'T KICKING OUT THE FATTIES WHO PERFORM UP TO THE STANDARD
And of course, what would a fat-hatin' article be without a little humor.
"In '08-09 it was so bad that I had a warrant officer who demanded we get him XXXL flight uniforms," one active Army officer tells Mother Jones. "He couldn't wear the new [camouflage] pattern ones because they didn't make them for a guy who was 313 lbs." The officer added, "Some people really are too big to fail, I guess."Yes, the officer demanded a uniform that fit. What an ungrateful asshole. It's almost like he wanted to be clothed while he does his job in service to our country. Silly fat people, clothing, respect, and honor are for skinny people!
Some people really are too big to fail, I guess.
This is the line that really pisses me off. This author is honestly comparing this officer's desire to serve his country with a massive bailout of corporations that have engaged in all kinds of reckless and awful behavior, and helping to drive our country into a recession. This guy's fatness is, apparently, equivalent to destroying the economy.
I hate crap like this. I hate that the liberal bastions that are supposedly a haven for us hate us, and will publish tripe like this, without so much as even considering the possibility that being fat doesn't necessarily preclude one from being in the military. And so, Mother Jones, I wish to inform you that skinny doesn't mean fit, and fat doesn't mean incompetent. I can heartily assure you that when I was in the “healthy” weight ranges of the BMI, I couldn't run a mile in under 15 minutes.
"If military bases and military schools become focal points for advancement of the gay agenda, we can expect serious repercussions among the families of the volunteers who make up our armed forces," the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins wrote in an op-ed Monday.Yes, we're not kicking fat people out of the army because of the fat agenda. You caught us. Here we are, wielding all this power in society, us fatties. It's a shame that hate groups like the FRC aren't hating on enough categories of people to satisfy Mother Jones.
His editorial never addressed the advancement of a fat agenda in the military.
The table of statistics is similarly awful.
Would Mother Jones be happier with Don't Ask Don't Tell if the Army was also kicking out more fat people for being fat? And people of color for not being white? And women for not being men? They are advocating discrimination, provided that the discrimination is against the right bogeyman for their tastes. This table shows that individuals are already being discharged from the military solely on the grounds that their body fat is too high, without evidence that they cannot meet fitness standards. The military is already kicking out fat people for the sake of fatness. But apparently, the Army is just not discriminating enough for Mother Jones. In fact, if one looks at the spreadsheet of all the statistics, the Army wasn't even keeping track of people kicked out for failing the fitness tests until 1994, only those kicked out on the basis of body fat.
To top all of this off, though, is the aggravation I get from reading the statistics included in the article. There's no information to indicate whether there are more people who can't meet fitness standards in the Army than there are gay people in the army. There are no statistics here, like if you're gay, you have a n% chance of being kicked out, and if you don't meet the fitness standards, you have a n-1% chance of being discharged. There's just raw numbers with none of the necessary context.
Trust me on this one, you don't want to read the comments. We're talking fat hate, homophobia, and all kinds of other assholery.
This post is not about comparing the oppression of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals and the treatment of fat individuals. This is entirely about Mother Jones' argument that fat necessarily disqualifies one from being considered capable.
Palin Pile-On
Sarah Palin is used to getting flack from the Democrats and liberals; she is counting on it for book sales and TV appearances. But now she's starting to get it from Republicans. First, Joe Scarborough, the former GOP Congressman from Florida and current MSNBC morning show host, told the GOP to, using her own phrase, "man up," and confront the former half-term governor of Alaska about her plans to destroy the GOP.
Palin is not a stupid woman. But like the current president, she still does not know what she does not know. And she does know how to make millions of dollars, even if she embarrasses herself while doing it.Now Ed Rollins, a former political adviser to Ronald Reagan and GOP big-wig, is throwing in his two cents and telling Ms. Palin to stop comparing herself to Ronald Reagan.
That reality hardly makes Palin unique, but this is one Republican who would prefer that the former half-term governor promote her reality shows and hawk her books without demeaning the reputations of Presidents Reagan and Bush. These great men dedicated their lives to public service and are too good to be fodder for her gaudy circus sideshow.
If Republicans want to embrace Palin as a cultural icon whose anti-intellectualism fulfills a base political need, then have at it. I suppose it’s cheaper than therapy.
But if the party of Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio wants to return to the White House anytime soon, it’s time that Republican leaders started standing up and speaking the truth to Palin.
You're a media star and a great curiosity. You were plucked out of political obscurity because of the whim of presidential contender John McCain, who didn't know you and made you into an overnight sensation. You performed well for three weeks in the campaign, did better than expected against Joe Biden in the debate and then you self-destructed.Now far be it from me to come to the defense of Sarah Palin as a political contender or possible presidential candidate; she has heretofore shown as much depth of intellectual curiosity and understanding of real world issues as the thickness of a skin on the top of a cup of cafe con leche. But I can't help notice that both Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Rollins are being a just a tad misogynistic in their dismissive tone of Ms. Palin, as if to say "run along, little lady, the menfolk have some serious work to do here." It reinforces the point that the straight white men will not surrender the leadership of their party to someone who isn't just like them. After all, no one on the Republican side of the aisle delivered that sort of patronizing tsk-tsking about George W. Bush, who was as woefully dim about the issues as is Ms. Palin. Not only was his ineptitude not considered a disqualifying factor, but it was reframed as evidence of what a charming "everyman" he is. Mr. Bush became the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with for the same reason that Ms. Palin is told to go back to Alaska.
You clearly weren't ready for prime time, but neither was your running mate. After the election, you quit your day job as governor of Alaska with 18 months left in the term and went out and made a fortune making speeches and selling a book.
It was certainly your right, and you're not the first one to cash in on fame. Millions of Americans love you, and I am sure millions more hate you. Unfortunately, that's what happens in politics.
You can be a contender for the Republican nomination in 2012, but you're a long way from being the nominee. You're going to have to beat some very formidable candidates with way more experience and far superior knowledge on issues foreign and domestic. And to rate your chances today, I would put them at "possible" but not "probable." It's an all-uphill battle.
Right now, polls indicate you wouldn't carry your home state of Alaska.
[...]
Ms. Palin, serious stuff needs to be accomplished in Washington.
If you want to be a player, go to school and learn the issues. Put smart people around you and listen to them. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. You've already got your own forum. If you want to be a serious presidential candidate, get to work. If you want to be an imitator of Ronald Reagan, go learn something about him and respect his legacy.
If you want to be a gadfly, just keep doing what you're doing.
There are plenty of reasons to be against Sarah Palin on any number of points, but the fact that she's a woman shouldn't be one of them.
Daily Dose o' Cute
Video Description: A short video of us playing tag with Dudley at the dog park. I can only ever tape so much of this because I want to just pocket the camera and PLAY!
As always, still pix of all the behbehs below the fold...
Tall.
Sleepy.
Pouncy.
Still.
SCIENCE!
Two interesting stories worth a discussion...
Discovery Changes Estimations of Stars and Planets in Universe:
Astronomers have discovered that small, dim stars known as red dwarfs are much more prolific than previously thought—so much so that the total number of stars in the universe is likely three times bigger than realized.Discovery Changes Understanding of What Constitutes Life:
...In addition to boosting the total number of stars in the universe, the discovery also increases the number of planets orbiting those stars, which in turn elevates the number of planets that might harbor life, [Pieter van Dokkum, a Yale University astronomer who led the research] said. In fact, a recently discovered exoplanet that astronomers believe could potentially support life orbits a red dwarf star, called Gliese 581.
"There are possibly trillions of Earths orbiting these stars," van Dokkum said, adding that the red dwarfs they discovered, which are typically more than 10 billion years old, have been around long enough for complex life to evolve. "It's one reason why people are interested in this type of star."
Scientists said Thursday that they had trained a bacterium to eat and grow on a diet of arsenic, in place of phosphorus — one of six elements considered essential for life — opening up the possibility that organisms could exist elsewhere in the universe or even here on Earth using biochemical powers we have not yet dared to dream about.
The bacterium, scraped from the bottom of Mono Lake in California and grown for months in a lab mixture containing arsenic, gradually swapped out atoms of phosphorus in its little body for atoms of arsenic.
...Caleb Scharf, an astrobiologist at Columbia University who was not part of the research, said he was amazed. "It's like if you or I morphed into fully functioning cyborgs after being thrown into a room of electronic scrap with nothing to eat," he said.
...Phosphorus is one of six chemical elements that have long been thought to be essential for all Life As We Know It. The others are carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and sulfur.
While nature has been able to engineer substitutes for some of the other elements that exist in trace amounts for specialized purposes — like iron to carry oxygen — until now there has been no substitute for the basic six elements.
Quote of the Day
"I'm trying to catch my breath so I don't refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right? But this is nonsense!"—House Republican Leader John Boehner, spittin' mad at House Democrats for pulling a tricksy political gambit to move ahead with a vote on extending tax cuts only for those making $250,000 or less.
Top Chef Open Thread
Top Chef All-Stars premiered last night, bringing back all our favorite cheftestants, as well as Mike Isabella. I was very excited to see lots of my old favies, especially Carla, who I will allow to sum up my excitement at her return (meta!):
This episode will be thinly sliced and served with spoilers, so if you don't want to know what happened, please pack your knives and go.
Number of the Day
$1,049,783,150: "Congressional earmarks have been one of the primary targets of the tea party, representing the nexus of the movement’s arch foes — government spending and Washington influence peddling. ... But it appears that tea party's self-proclaimed representatives in Washington haven't been putting their money where their mouths are. Hotline On Call reports today that members of House Tea Party Caucus, founded by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to 'represent the views of our constituents,' requested over $1 billion in earmarks during the last fiscal year."
Principles!
Next Stop, Menstruation Huts!
What the everloving fuck: "Female staffers at a company in Norway have been told to wear red bracelets when they have their periods – to clue in the boss that this is the reason for more frequent bathroom visits."
Blink.
[H/T to Shaker tereska13]
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Keeping Romance Alive in the Age of Female Empowerment.
It's hard to pick what my favorite passage is from that stinking garbage fart of an article, but I think I'm going to have to give my vote to: "The male ego can be a more fragile thing than the female ego, which is used to a regular battering and has hence developed a sense of humor!" Yikes.
Perhaps you'd like to contact the New York Times' public editor and politely inquire why it is that serious articles about women's/queer issues—like domestic violence, multigenerational parenting, homophobia's affect on children with gay parents, gender bias and sexual harassment, stalking, and rape—end up in the Style section, but articles like this piece of heteronormative, misogynist shit get filed in World News.
[H/T to Shaker Emily.]
Feel the Homomentum!
The Illinois Senate has passed a bill for civil unions.
Springfield, IL — Landmark civil unions legislation, giving committed long-term partners important legal protections afforded to other Illinois families, has cleared another hurdle as the Illinois Senate voted Wednesday to pass the bill.The legislation will probably be signed in the city of Chicago before the end of the year. I was watching the local news this morning and there's been a lot of spluttering from "family" organizations, but for the most part, the reaction has been very positive. Yay.
"There is electricity all around," The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) president Jacob Meister told ChicagoPride.com moments after the vote. "Today is a victory for our democracy and the fight for the civil rights of the LGBT community."
The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716) passed to cheers in the Senate by a 32-24-1 vote Wednesday. The bill passed the Illinois House by a 61-52 majority vote on Tuesday. (read full coverage of the House vote) The crucial piece of legislation now moves to Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who made a campaign promise to sign it into law.
What distinguishes this civil unions bill from others is that it adds visitation rights at hospitals and making end-of-life decisions to the couple.
And, of course:
State Sen. and Rev. James Meeks (D-Chicago), who is running for Chicago Mayor, was the only Democrat to cross party lines to vote against the bill. State Sen. Ira Silverstein (D-Chicago) is the only senator who voted present.I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!
LPGA Opens Its Ranks to Women Who Are Trans
The players have voted, and the requirement stipulating that members of the the women's professional golf association must be "female at birth" will be removed from the women's tour rules. The change should be final within a few weeks.
The change was prompted by a lawsuit filed by Lana Lawless, a woman who is trans and was disallowed from competing in this year's annual women's long-drive golf championship after the Long Drivers of America adopted the LPGA's transphobic policy. Once the players were asked to revisit the policy, they voted to change it.
Player Christine Kerr commented: "We certainly don't want to discriminate against anybody, that's not what the LPGA is about. And if she can qualify, she'll be able to play. We're like, the last sports organization to do it, it's just we've never really had to look at it before."
Quite obviously, the policy should have never been there in the first place, but it was, and inclusion moving forward is a great outcome.
[TW for non-consensual gender assignment] As an aside, "female at birth" rules are truly inane. What does it even mean to be "female at birth," really? It says "female" on my birth certificate, but I could be intersex and not even know it. It used to be routine (and still is, in many places) to assign infants as female after botched circumcisions or surgeries to "fix" atypical genitalia. Many (most?) people to whom this happens go through life never knowing about it. Nor would the LPGA, or anyone else who has "female at birth" rules. The idea that "female at birth" is protecting a sport (or whatever organization) from any women with an alleged (nope) advantage (nope) is predicated on disappearing all the women who are "female at birth" by virtue of a doctor's hand or the natural concealment of bits that might indicate otherwise to a culture who can't see intersex woman as a singular concept and not two mutually exclusive ones.
Point is, "female at birth" rules are pointless.
[H/Ts to Shakers cynical1 and koach. Commenting Guidelines: "B-b-but trans women have an unfair advantage!" and "Men will say they're trans just to compete against women!" will not be debated in this thread. Don't even go there.]
Blog Note, Part Deux
Thank you to everyone who sent well wishes, and thank you to everyone who kicked a little extra into the kitty this month. I can't even tell you how appreciative I am for the support and encouragement. Also my thanks to Kenny Blogginz, who drove with me this afternoon in case my car died and I needed a ride home.
I managed to get the car started and over to our mechanic's, only for them to tell me they can't figure out what needs fixed without looking at the car while it's having the problem. So. Iain and I have to make some decisions tonight about whether to leave the car there (provided it's willing to start again) and rent a car in the interim, or just keep driving it and pay for a tow when it dies again. Neither one is a particularly appealing option, lolsob.
Kind of a craptacular scenario really, the not knowing. But there it is. I wish I had more concrete news to share.
In any case, I'll probably be back tomorrow in some capacity. Now I have to go attend to Dudley, who managed to cut his leg on something (not seriously) and is bleeding on the couch. Raining...pouring!
Blog Note
Our car died this morning, and we have only the one car in a town with no public transportation, so that's a pretty big deal for us. Which means I'm going to be trying to sort out getting the car to the mechanic and hopefully getting it fixed today.
In the last few months, we've had to replace our water heater, our refrigerator, and our oven—and our kitchen faucet is currently leaking and needs to be replaced. This couldn't have come at a worse time. Fucking hell, I'm so ready for this year to be over.
I'll be back as soon as I can.
