What movie do you love that everyone else (with whom you usually agree about movies) seems to hate?
I love The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (The '05 version. Wow, was it really that long ago?)
I understand that many people dislike this movie because it deviates quite a bit from the book. And I totally get that. I just don't care, in this case. Even Douglas Adams considered the book unfilmable, and as he wrote the screenplay to make it more "movie friendly," that satisfies me. If it's got his stamp of approval, who am I to argue? Besides, it's just so much fun. I thought the casting was absolutely brilliant; could Martin Freeman be more perfect as Arthur? I also really liked the outside-the-box casting of Mos Def. And Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast? OMG, I wish he was in the whole movie. I even love the added bits with John Malkovich. Alan freaking Rickman!
I thought the design of the film was fantastic. I loved the look of the Heart of Gold. When Deep Thought first appeared on screen, the Spudsband and I burst out laughing. And the creatures on line waiting through Vogon bureaucracy... brilliantly done, especially the Lucha Libre monster and the white, fuzzy, horned thing.
Lastly, the Vogons. The Vogons were so 100% accurate as to how I always pictured them in my head, it was absolutely uncanny. (And bless them for using practical effects, rather than CGI!) Not only did they look fantastic, and this may be my bias as a performer/voiceover artist, but the vocal casting for the Vogons was spot on. Not only did the voices match the character's role perfectly, but physically, if that makes any sense. Watch any scene with a Vogon; you know that's how it would really sound.
Like I said, I understand why many people dislike or were disappointed by this movie. I love it.
Howzaboutyou?
Question of the Day
Imagine That.
Third-graders in Tramway Elementary School (Sanford, NC) engaged in a civic exercise and wrote letters to elected officials requesting that they do not slash the education budget--as deep cuts are expected as gov't officials hash out the state's budget.
One state legislator, Mike Stone (R-Of Course) is very upset about this. Very upset. Why? Because one of the letters he received came from his very own daughter:
"I was extremely disappointed, but I tried not to show that in front of my daughter," Stone said. "I don't know that at any time we should use our third-grade students as lobbyists."The education system is turning her against you, you say? ORLY?
The teacher outlined what students should include in the letter, he said, noting his daughter mentioned the loss of two teaching assistants, field trips and science experiments and more difficulty in learning multiplication and reading comprehension.
She ended her letter, "Please put the budget higher dad."
"As I read through this (letter), anger completely shot through me, and I was trying to hold myself together," he said. "(It's unconscionable) to know any education system would use a daughter against her father."
Superintendent Jeff Moss said letters were also sent from students in other local schools to their representatives and to Gov. Beverly Perdue. Letters weren't written to "Mike Stone, the father" but to "Mike Stone, the representative," he said.It seems for Rep Stone that he's afraid of the chickens coming home to roost:
"If you're not interested in receiving letters from people in your district, don't run for public office," Moss said.
He said he doesn't see a problem with a writing exercise that has students supporting public education.
Stone said he fears his daughter's classmates will blame her if the teaching assistants lose their jobs.Well, hello Action. I'd like you to meet Consequence. This is what happens when you are an elected official: you are held responsible for the votes you cast for various pieces of legislation and the repercussions of those votes in your community.
[ETA: I feel I should clarify the above because it was admittedly phrased poorly, to a degree, and has caused no small amount of confusion--and it's distressing to me that anyone would think I'd want a child bullied. My point to do with Stone potentially being held accountable within his community that he represents. Via this exercise (more) people will be aware of him and how he votes (esp. now that he went to the media!)--and to show that he is aware that people will be aware is why the quoted is there. Well, it made sense to me when I was typing the post at the time. But, anyway, it really didn't have anything to do with his daughter. I am sorry about the confusion.]
Photo of the Day
[Click to embiggen.]
First of all, I love that there's a German news story comparing German Chancellor Angela Merkel's and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's midsections, in order to point out they both wear pantsuits and position their hands in a similar fashion while standing.
Secondly, I love that there's an American news story about Merkel presenting Clinton with a framed copy of the German news story, before a state dinner.
Thirdly, I love that Merkel and Clinton are laughing their tits off about it.
[Via @scatx.]
Number of the Day
$7.8 trillion: The cost of GOP presidential wannabe Tim Pawlenty's proposed tax plan, which is triple the size of the Bush tax cuts.
Great idea!
True Fact: Tim Pawlenty is not only the former governor of Minnesota, but is also the current Professor Emeritus of Smartology at Genius University.
A Thought
I believe there is a place in which the Weiner story can be discussed as neither THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY EVAR IN THE HISTORY OF EVARYTHANG!!!!!1!!!eleventy!! nor a story of no conceivable consequence at all.
I am unhappy, though unsurprised, to discover how vanishingly few people agree with me.
Random YouTubery
A Canadian news segment in which an SPCA rep brings two older puppies to the studio for what was supposed to be a pretty typical adopt-a-pet piece (if seeing dogs jump on people bothers you, skip it):
Video Description: Two women, an anchor and an SPCA rep, introduce two dogs—one a young male German Shepherd and one a young female pitbull. The dogs, from an overcrowded shelter in which kennels can hold up to four dogs, are delighted to be out and about, and they get increasingly playful and affectionate with the two women, prompting the entire newsroom to erupt into laughter.
Honestly, this video just made me laugh so hard. It's when they cut back from the screen with the SPCA's contact information to the studio, and the anchor has just completely succumbed to Ginger the Pitbull in a heap of giggles—
—I just totally lose my shit.
I know not everyone likes to be jumped on and licked by big dogs, but clearly these ladies don't mind. And, possibly because I have such a calm dog at home myself, I don't mind, either. I'm always the lady at the dog park who's happy to be jumped and rubbed and drooled on by the biggest four-legged slobberchops in the vicinity.
[H/T to a friend at a local pitbull rescue.]
Two Facts
1. David Brooks has written yet another garbage column for the New York Times, called "Where Wisdom Lives."
2. Where Wisdom Lives is not in David Brooks' brainpan.
As usual, there are a lot of things wrong with Brooks' column, but this in particular struck me:
Some Democrats simply want to do nothing as Medicare careens toward bankruptcy. Last Sunday on "Face the Nation," for example, Nancy Pelosi said, "I could never support any arrangement that reduced benefits for Medicare."Why do Brooks' editors allow him to get away with this mendacious horseshit? A failure to support reduced Medicare benefits is not axiomatically synonymous with "wanting to do nothing." There are various ways of addressing the potential shortcomings of Medicare that don't involve a reduction in benefits—raising taxes and/or creating a socialized healthcare system, for example, both of which Representative Pelosi has been known, ahem, to support.
Fortunately, more responsible Democrats are looking for ways to save the system.
Glenn Beck TV!
Recovering quickly from being fired by those liberals over at Fox News, our good friend Glenn Beck is already on his way back to the top. Did he get his own network? Even better: He's getting his own Youtube channel. Which makes him as awesome as every fourteen-year-old out there. So... You go, Glenn!
This Fall (just in time for sweeps week!) Glenn Beck is launching GBTV, an internet-only subscription-based service.
For $4.95 a month fans and detractors alike (so long as they have a credit card! Paypal coming soon!) can watch Beck's new two-hour show. For another five bucks you also get access to a simulcast of his three hour radio show and a show about the Glenn Beck TV network.
And if you have five-plus hours a day and ten bucks a month to dedicate to watching Glenn Beck, more power to you!
I guess it remains to be seen if people are now willing to pay money to get what they used to get for free. But Beck is promising lots of good things:
Eventually, Mr. Beck said, his goal is to have an array of scripted and unscripted shows alongside his own daily show, which will simply be titled Glenn Beck and will run for two hours on weekday afternoons.
"If you're a fan of Jon Stewart, you're going to find something on GBTV that you're going to enjoy," Mr. Beck said. "If you're a fan of 24, you're going to find something on GBTV that you're going to enjoy."
Yay! I guess. I dunno.
If people are willing to pay for this crap, good on them. I think. Who is willing to pay for this crap? Someone, I am sure.
Maybe the same folks who'd buy the young adult novel Michael Vey: The Prisoner of Cell 25 from Beck's new imprint at Simon and Schuster. Also coming this fall, a new novel "by" Beck titled The Snow Angel. Just in time for Christmas. (And no, before you ask, I will not fucking read that thing.)
46 years
In November 1961 Estelle Griswold (left) partnered with Dr. C. Lee Buxton (of Yale's Medical School) to open a small clinic that would provide contraceptives. Mrs. Griswold was also the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. For two decades Planned Parenthood in CT worked mostly as a 'shuttle service' taking clients to states where contraception was legal (though in CT married women with private physicians might be able to get birth control but poor women--or women without connections--were SOL). Anyway, at their new clinic, they counseled married couples in regards to contraception and prescribed whatever would work best for that particular woman. This all sounds very normal today, almost boring. But then? It was revolutionary.
Connecticut had a law on the books, one that came about a result of Anthony Comstock, which said:
"Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."Ten days after their clinic was opened, Mrs. Griswold and Dr. Buxton were arrested, found guilty, and fined ($100 each). The case went to the Supreme Court (there were previous cases attempting to challenge the law but they did not make it to this point).
"Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
In its opinion, delivered by Justice Douglas, the Court said (in part):
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.The ruling was delivered 46 years ago today on June 7th, 1965.
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Reversed.
The case of Griswold v. Connecticut has gone on to influence many other cases, notably: 1972's Eisenstadt v. Baird (which extended the right of contraception to unmarried women), 1973's Roe v. Wade and 2003's Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down Texas's sodomy laws).
Mrs. Estelle Griswold's 111th birthday would be tomorrow. She passed away in 1981.
Another Weiner Thread
There are some new developments in the Weiner story re: his possible use of government resources to carry on his internet affairs. TMZ is reporting that he offered one of his internet girlfriends help from his PR team to construct a cover story about their relationship, though it isn't clear if he meant a private PR team (which would be fine from a legal perspective) or if the meant members of his Congressional staff (which would not be fine from a legal perspective). Radar is reporting that that Weiner had phone sex with another internet girlfriend on a Congressional line.
TMZ and Radar are not genuinely what I would consider reputable sources, but the media outlets appear to have been given access to private communications between the women and Weiner. (For a hefty sum, no doubt.)
If the reports are accurate, despite Weiner's claim during yesterday's press conference that he did nothing that should put his job in jeopardy, this could indeed cause major trouble for him, as the use of official resources for private dalliances is obviously a serious ethical violation.
This is the sort of stuff that the Congressional ethics inquiry will clear up, one way or another.
In any case, one thing is always certain: Chris Matthews is an asshole.
I Get Letters
[Trigger warning for rape culture.]
The latest from the Mixed-Up Files of Ms. Basil E. Trollcollector:
Just wanted to let you know I read your comment policy (even the part that said "Being banned from Shakesville is not an invitation to take your issues to the email inbox of Liss and/or any of the other contributors or mods.")Once again, I will note the irony of someone violating my comment policy and invading my personal space, despite an awareness of my request that my contact information not be used for such communications, to insist to me that he is not a rape apologist.
Not e-mailing to argue, and you have a "Contact" link...so not sure why this isn't an appropriate forum to explain myself.
Just wanted you to know that I was aware of your comment policy and didn't think that it was "rape apologia" to defend [the idea that women shouldn't drink if they don't want to be raped].
…I don't have a desire to continue posting on the site, but being immediately banned for something that didn't feel at all outside of your commenting regulations didn't leave me chance to defend the fact that I'm not a rape apologist, nor a troll who refused to read (or read and ignored) your comment policy.
For the edification of my correspondent, and anyone else who may be confused: The reason my inbox "isn't an appropriate forum to explain [your]self" is because I have said it isn't and explicitly detailed that it is unwelcome.
When someone sets up a boundary, they don't need to explain or justify it to you.
And when you ignore those boundaries, and someone's agency and right of self-determination to set and define those boundaries, you are an asshole who is hostile to the idea of consent.
That's it and that's all.
Blog Note
As many of you have noticed, Disqus is being wonky at the moment. It's taking comments awhile to appear on the page.
Please just be aware that this is happening, and you don't need to resend your comments multiple times. They'll show up in a couple of minutes.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for sexual violence; institutional doubt of survivors.]
"I am betting nine out of 10 times, when a woman asks for a female detective the story is going to be untrue."—Lt. Adam Lamboy, commander of the Manhattan Special Victims Squad, in a story about how the NYPD Special Victims Division does its job, explaining that if a woman who reports being raped requests a female detective, the request is "taken as a sign of possible deception" because the "operative theory is that women who are lying think female cops will be more receptive to their stories."
Terrifying.
It is absolutely horrendous to think that there have been women whose allegations have been dismissed out of hand because, in the aftermath of having been brutally violated by a man, they mustered up the gumption to request a female cop with whom they'd feel safer discussing that most intimate of crimes against them.
[H/T to Shaker Ellen.]
Right to Free Speech vs. Right to Privacy
[Trigger warning for invasion of privacy; harassment.]
Attention, ladies: Do not date Greg Fultz—unless you want your private medical history advertised on billboards:
A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.Seems to me that the same country puts a premium on privacy rights, and even has some additional specific considerations around privacy and healthcare. But who gives a fuck about that when a "jilted boyfriend" wants to have his say, right?
The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"
Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.
But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.
"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.
The decision will be appealed in District Court.
[H/T to KatherineSpins.]
The Dating Name
[Trigger warning for Christian supremacy.]
I've been seeing ads on cable TV for an on-line dating service called Christian Mingle. As you probably guessed, it's for Christians.
The site shows a nice young white couple -- a man and a woman -- on a beach and smiling happily. The tag line is "Find God's match for you," probably working on the premise that while God is the one who is supposed to bring people together, they help. For a fee.
I have no problem whatsoever with on-line dating services, and I have no problem whatsoever with an on-line dating service geared toward a particular group, be it Christians or whatever. There's a dating service called JDates for Jewish people, for example, and I am sure there are plenty of sites geared toward every ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation you can come up with, and probably a few you didn't know were out there, too. Ah, the beauty of the internet.
Christian Mingle looks like a very nice place; you can find your soulmate and exchange your favorite bible passages and thereby see if you're compatible -- "Into long walks on the beach, loaves and fishes, and reading from The Song of Solomon." If that's what you're looking for, then I wish you all the best. But Christian Mingle also limits your choices: you can be a man looking for a woman, or a woman looking for a man, but that's it. No "Man seeking man" or "Woman seeking woman." (JDate, by the way, does offer same-sex selection. Mazel tov.) The people who run Christian Mingle have determined that you cannot be Christian and be anything other than straight.
That's okay; it's their site, and they can set the rules for it, and far be it from me to stomp in there and demand that they provide dating services for non-straight people. What I find objectionable is that they have hijacked the word "Christian" and defined it in their own terms. There are a goodly number of Christian denominations that are open to same-sex couples, and they, along with a number of Unitarian congregations and Quaker meetings, perform and celebrate same-sex marriage where it is legal, and even in places where it's not yet. Since when did these people at Christian Mingle get to decide the rules for other Christians?
So if I may be allowed to offer a little Friendly advice to Christian Mingle: You can call yourself "Christian Mingle" only if you're truly open to all people who call themselves Christian. If not, then change it to something else like "Uptight Religious Zealots Looking for Same (as long as it's the opposite sex, of course)."
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
And When Will Andrew Breitbart Apologize?
[Trigger warning for sexual harassment and coercion.]
Leaving aside for a moment the infuriating possibility that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Ipfuck) may or may not have sexually harassed women by sending them unsolicited images of his body (he asserts the internet liaisons were consensual exchanges with women above the age of consent; none of the recipients have come forward to assert otherwise at this point), I am incredibly angry that what motivated Weiner to come clean today was the fact that Andrew Breitbart published* additional photos of the congressman this morning, in which he is barechested, and then announced (screencap): "We will be updating BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com throughout the day with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details. However, we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature."
Even despite his promise to withhold some of the more graphic material, a subjective threshold arbitrarily defined in a way Rep. Weiner could not magically discern, Breitbart quite literally coerced Weiner into a public confession of sexual behavior.
The Politico, as but one example, calmly reported this fact, without so much as a raised eyebrow at another media outlet sexually coercing a sitting Congressman:
Early Monday morning, Breitbart wrote that he planned to release "photographs, chats, and emails" throughout the day that would show that Weiner engaged in sexual behavior over the internet. The unidentified woman — who Breitbart says is not Cordova — says that Weiner sent them to her as they flirted online. Another photo that the site has chosen not to publish is titled "ready.JPG" and, Breitbart says, is "extremely graphic" and "leaves nothing to the imagination."Certainly, the threat of making public "compromising" information is not new in politics (and just because it's old as dirt doesn't make it right), but literally threatening to publish sexually graphic private photos is not merely a new low—it's sexual coercion.
And the fact that Weiner fucked up, even if what he did was indeed criminal, does not justify exposing that fact via the threat to make public private images of his body in a state of undress.
I note that this idea would be fairly self-evident if Rep. Weiner were a woman.
No doubt it would still be considered acceptable by our disgusting media and most of its consumers, but the idea that it's a profound invasion of privacy would not be quite so controversial.
I'm pissed like a wild thing at Weiner right now, but no one deserves to be exploited and coerced like that. No one.
---------------------
* I am not providing a direct link for what I trust are evident reasons, but his garbage site is easy enough to find, if you're so inclined.
Weiner Admits Inappropriate Relationships with Women
Rep. Anthony Weiner is holding a press conference right now, which you can watch live here, during which he has admitted having inappropriate relationships with women online over the past several years. He also admits having lied about the photo; says he sent it as a "joke."
Says he's not resigning, nor getting divorced.
UPDATE: Weiner: "To be clear, the picture was of me, and I sent it."
At the moment, I quite honestly can't decide whether I'm more angry that yet another progressive male politician who was a good ally to women turns out to be having "inappropriate relationships" with women and lying about it, or the fact that he's actually helped unethical rightwing attack dog Andrew Breitbart's credibility.
UPDATE 2: Weiner says all the interactions were consensual. Also says he's not making any excuses: "I'm not on drugs; I wasn't drinking; I just did a stupid thing for which I'm taking full responsibility; it's a personal failing." (Paraphrase.) Apologizes for the hurt he's caused to both his wife and the woman to whom the picture was sent, for dragging them into this.
UPDATE 3: "It is really true that the smarter, better thing is to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may." Says once he told the first lie, he just kept having to tell more. Also: "I engaged in inappropriate online conversations with people that included photographs, but I don't believe I did anything that violated the law." Also says that there was "a long list" of people he hurt, but the woman to whom he sent the picture is at the top of the list.
UPDATE 4: As Weiner walks away from the podium, someone from the press is screaming at him, "Sir, were you fully erect?" And now the lives of all the women with whom Weiner had interactions via Twitter and Facebook will be turned inside-out and upside-down by the same people who shout things like, "Sir, were you fully erect?" at a serious press conference.
UPDATE 5: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she's "deeply disappointed" in Weiner and requests an ethics investigation.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for misogyny; rape culture; gender essentialism.]
Actual Headline: Has equality destroyed your sex life?
Actual Subhead: "A controversial book claims feminism and the rise of 'new men' have killed off women's libidos."
Actual Excerpt from the Article:
Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.Of course.
...What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.
You know, if we didn't think of "women" as a faceless, amorphous monolith with a set of universally shared preferences, but instead as a collection of individual human beings who make individual choices based on their individual preferences, this article would be regarded as the useless piece of fetid garbage that it is and pop evo-psych would be kissing my ass instead of masquerading as responsible science.
[H/T to Shaker Catherine.]
Number of the Day
$4.3 billion: How much the state of Indiana stands to lose in Medicaid funding as a result of our new law that prohibits funding for Planned Parenthood.
From an AP article about this issue:
Is Indiana willing to risk $4.3 billion in Medicaid money to strike a blow for the right-to-life movement? ... Is the Obama administration actually willing to leave low-income families without health care to punish a defiant state?Wow.
"Like any game of chicken, it's about who blinks first," said Ed Haislmaier, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy, a conservative think-tank.
Let us make no mistake: It's not the Obama administration who will be leaving low-income Hoosiers without healthcare if they choose to hold Indiana accountable for its bullshit legislation. It's Mitch Daniels and his band of merry miscreants in the statehouse.
Yahoo Nooz Tweet Fail
[TW for all kinds of misogynist stuff.]
I saw this totally garbageful story on Yahoo earlier under the title "Malaysia 'Obedient Wives' Club: Good Sex Is A Duty". The piece can be summed up, more or less, by these quotes:
"Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said [new bride, 22-year-old Ummu Atirah] who wore a yellow headscarf.
"Sex is a taboo in Asian society. We have ignored it in our marriages but it's all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore ... to your husband?"
Yikes! Right? Lots to unpack there, I know. But that isn't why I am posting. No. When I saw the story I just had to tweet it to my legion of dedicated fans.
So I clicked on Yahoo's little sharing button. And this popped up as the twitter summary:
Obedient Wives Club in Malaysia promotes good sex - Yahoo! News http://yhoo.it/mct2v4
Ummmm.... No. Just no.
Anti-Choicers Make the Darnedest Films
[Trigger warning for violence, kidnapping, forced birth, misogyny.]
Below is the trailer for The Life Zone, a movie by Republican candidate for New Jersey State Senate Kenneth Del Vecchio, who also runs the conservative film production company Justice For All Productions. (Sure.) According to the press release [via] for the film, which was scheduled to premiere at the Hoboken International Film Festival in Teaneck this weekend: "The controversial premise of The Life Zone: three women have been kidnapped from abortion clinics and are being held for seven months—until they all give birth. The film, which appears to cut right down the middle, examining the topic from both sides, offers a powerful, anti-abortion climactic twist."
Sounds great. And looks even better! I wouldn't have figured that a "pro-life" movie would look like the latest installment in the Saw franchise, but all credit to Cecil B. Del Vecchio for the unintentional honesty of representing what a nightmare-scape forcible birth actually is.
A full description of the trailer, given my usual treatment, is below the fold on most browsers.
[H/T to Shaker BCL.]
Robert Loggia (WTF Robert Loggia?!) is in the shadows, with nothing but the magnificent shagginess of his eyebrow clearly visible to the naked heathen eye. He intones in his iconic gravelly voice, "You have all committed a terrible sin." Cue fun-house music-box music.
A would-be-creepy-if-it-weren't-totally-trite montage of poorly lit scenes of a dim makeshift hospital ward, a babydoll head, a bible with a rosary on it, saint cards of Jesus and Mary hung up next to a stark white cross, back to the hospital beds lined up beneath, OF COURSE, a flickering florescent light. LULZ.
A blond white young woman (herein: Blondie) awakens in one of the beds and sits up in alarm. A dark-haired white young woman (herein: Brownie), occupying another bed, looks at her blood-covered hands and screams. There's a third white girl, whose hair is either light brown or strawberry blond, and I'm just going to say it's red because no doy (herein: Red). She won't wake up.
Blondie tries to comfort Brownie, telling her, "We will figure this out!" Robert Loggia, who's a priest (?), tells them, via video (?), "You will indeed figure this out, young ladies." Oh, Red's awake. Hi, Red! Father Bob continues, "I am...YOUR JAILER!"
Reminder: This is a movie that is supposed to convince you that the anti-choice position is awesome.
A garage door opens and in walks a white blond lady doctor, who shall henceforth be known as Dr. Leslie Exposition. Dr. Exposition says: "You were all on the operating table, all ready to commit murder." Cut to Blondie saying, "I was about to have an abortion." Sayeth Red: "Me, too." Cut back to Dr. Exposition: "Your babies will be given life." She looks at the ceiling. "Just as god planned."
"You're nuts," says Blondie. "You kidnapped us!" But Dr. Exposition is having none of it: "You will stay here, in this room, for the next seven months, until you all simultaneously give birth to your children."
Thank you, Dr. Exposition. Kudos to Blondie and Red for the assist. We now understand the colossally asinine premise of the film, in excruciating clarity. I don't want to say that the maker of this movie assumes his audience is very, very stupid, but the maker of this movie assumes his audience is very, very stupid.
"I'm after the legendary uptapped forced birther dipfuck demographic!"—Cecil B. Del Vecchio.
Anyway!
Blondie pounds on a door (but not too hard: "This stuff's rented!") and demands to be let out, even though I'm pretty sure Dr. Exposition made it clear that isn't going to happen. Blondie, what exactly about "you are going to stay in this room until you simultaneously give birth with two other kidnapped pregnant teens" don't you understand?! IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE!
Red whispers conspiratorially, "I can take out that silly church doctor." Something (probably the promise of a surprising end twist right in the press release for the film—great marketing!) tells me that M. Red Shyamalan is really the demented brains behind this whole operation!
"I have implanted small electronic devices in each of you," says Dr. Exposition. And because we've all already seen 9,000 movies in which small electronic devices have been planted to stop imprisoned people deviating from the elaborate plans of their evil captors, Dr. Exposition is left without anything else to do.
"You guys don't buy this electric fence nonsense, do you?" asks Red. Oh, she's so the mastermind.
"You'll all be freed once your babies have been born," exposits Dr. Exposition. Um, I'm pretty sure we've already established that, Leslie!
"I have a constitutional right to an abortion!" says Red, posing (or is she?!) as a straw-feminist saying things that anti-choice people imagine pro-choice feminists might say. "I have the right to choose!"
Dr. Exposition says the young women will never be hurt, and I guess except for that whole kidnapping, forced-birth, implanted with an explosive stuff, she's right!
While the girls sit around a table eating in their hospital-dungeon while wearing their super-unfashionable nightgowns, Red plots to end her pregnancy in its 7th month. "You're seven months pregnant, Stacy!" says Brownie. "Even you have to admit that you have a real baby now!"
"If something goes wrong with the pregnancy, I go home," says Red.
"That might be the only way you DON'T go home," says Blondie, confirming that none of these ladies has considered the possibility that the people who kidnapped them and held them in a windowless, airless, makeshift naughty girls ward in order to force them to give birth against their wills might be lying to them about letting them go home.
Cut to screaming. Red's on the floor. Dr. Exposition shouts, to no one, "Start preparing for an emergency delivery!" Over scenes of Red in labor, and Dr. Exposition screaming "PUSH!" at her (because no doy), Father Bob says, "You were told earlier that you are staying with Dr. Wise (lulz—ed.) until you give birth. And that will never change." Huh?
Credits. And I am depressed to note that I cannot remember the last time I saw a film advertised in which the first four names were female.
Fin.
Seriously, New York Times? Seriously?
[Trigger warning for sexual violence and rape apologia.]
Shaker Rennet emails this New York Times story about the rape allegations against former International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn, which invites reader comments with the note:
With no eyewitness or other direct evidence of a forcible attack, the case between Dominique Strauss-Kahn and prosecutors is shaping up to be a battle of she-said, he-said.I believe that may also have been the subhead on the article's main page until it started getting complaints from readers. Now it just sits at the top of the comments page, inviting people to weigh in with the most classic rape apologist trope, "he-said, she-said."
Share your thoughts.
I'll note that this piece, like several others we've recently discussed, including both articles about the NY police officers charged with and acquitted of rape, was authored by John Eligon. Maybe it's not the best idea to put a rape apologist on your rape beat, NYT.
Email the Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane and/or submit a Letter to the Editor.[Previously on the New York Times' appalling coverage of sexual violence: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.]
Well, It's Nice to Have Goals
Distinguishing himself from the other candidates in the GOP field, Rick Santorum told George Stephanopoulos this weekend that he is "it in to win." (Note: Video starts playing automatically at link.)
And with that another Republican challenger jumped into the 2012 race this morning on "GMA."No official announcement yet about Santorum having hired American Idol laureate Randy Jackson as his campaign manager:
"We're ready to announce that we are going to be in this race and we're in it to win," Rick Santorum told me.
[Video Description: Jackson saying "in it to win it" like nine million times.]
Sunday Shuffle
Now this song reminds me of being sixteen and driving around in the summertime with the windows rolled down and the music (particularly this song!) turned UP.
What's on your shuffle today?
Open Thread
This week's open threads have been brought to you by famous cats, real and animated.
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!
Breaking News: Romney Says Something Sensible!
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.Romney went on to say he thinks the US needs to "break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.". He also said that it's a global issue and other countries need to get on board this train. Ok, well, moderately sensible anyway. Much more sensible than anything else being said by GOPers. Lest we forget:
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.
"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."
At an event in Manchester last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also running for president, said that climate change is "the newest excuse to take control of lives" by "left-wing intellectuals."Which is much more in line with the current (House) GOP, what with their extreme loathing of the environment.
I wonder when Romney will apologize for his egregious remarks? /snort
Of course, he couldn't end on anything remotely resembling not toeing the line as he said, in a question regarding abortion, that "decisions on abortion law should be returned to state jurisdiction.". Barf.
The Brightest Light, Out of Darkness
[Trigger warning for trauma and self-harm.]
I have written before about what it means to me to be a survivor who has rescued a dog who is also a survivor, so it will probably come as no surprise that my heart has been utterly melted into a huge gooey puddle over this story about an air force veteran with PTSD who sought out a fighting dog as a companion for his anger, but found unconditional love and healing instead—and then went on to found an org dedicated to pairing other vets and dogs who have survived trauma. Megablub.
[Transcript below. Video via Time.]
David Sharpe, USAF veteran and founder of Pets to Vets: [over images of Sharpe playing with Cheyenne, a brown and white pitbull, and another dog] Cheyenne is my savior. She's the love of my life. She has always been there for me through thick and thin. My name is David Sharpe, and I served for six years in the United States Air Force, Security Forces.
[over images of Sharpe in the military, seguing into video of Sharpe playing with Cheyenne, then to footage of Sharpe talking directly into the camera] It all started after 9/11, when we got forward deployed again, to Uzbekistan, and a couple of our buddies didn't make it back, and so, I came back finally in March of 2002, and I pretty much segregated myself from my family and friends. My friends—we would go out, and they would say, "Hey, Dave, do you want a beer?" I'm like, "No, I'm gonna cruise around this bar," and the first guy who looks at me longer than two seconds, I'm gonna pop him. They said, "We can't hang out with you anymore, Dave; you're out of control." And I was like, "Fine, I don't need you anyway."
[over images of Sharpe walking through a shelter, interspersed with footage of Sharpe speaking to camera] So, my friend came over, and he said, "Let's check out this pitbull rescue." I said, "Hell, yeah—I'm a fighter; I want a fighting dog." I go down there, and there's this one puppy that's not paying me any mind, but all the others are all around me. And then I remember, she came over to me and she licked my hand, sniffed it, and then left. And then she just laid back down in the dirt in the opposite side of that pen, and I said, "I'm gonna get her."
[to dog, who's off-screen] Cheyenne, you remember that? Come here. Come here. You bum! You're a bum. You are a bum. [leans down and picks her up, holds her and cuddles her like a baby] She's a baby. This is a baby! Big baby. This is her.
[over images of Sharpe and Cheyenne playing on the bed] I brought her home, and, a couple weeks later, she witnessed me punching holes in the walls and beating up the refrigerator door—and this was normal for me during this time. I see this little tail, out of the corner of my eye, and I look down at her, and she's looking at me [cocks head back and forth like a curious dog], you know, doing this, waving her head back and forth, and I looked down at her, and I just picked her up, and took her back to my bed, and just started crying, and talking about everything that had happened—what I experienced, what I'm going through. And [deep sigh] it felt like a ten thousand pound weight was lifted off my chest. It literally did.
Staff Sergeant Bradley Fasnacht, who has been diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain injury: [over images of him with his dog, Zapper, a multi-colored blue heeler mix] When I first got back from my deployment, I remember we were sitting at a coffee shop, and I just felt like everything was closing in on me, and I just wheeled myself out of the coffee shop as soon as possible, and I just sat back and waited for it to blow up—I was having flashbacks, just, it was crazy.
I ended up picking up Zapper from the P2V foundation. There's, uh, there's certain things that, you know, I only talk to Zapper about. Not that I don't think my family understands or want to hear—it's just that, you know, you always have that thing, "Will they judge me over this or not?" You know, you just really don't want to tell your story to just anybody— You got these doctors who, you know, they've heard it; but they haven't seen it. You know, so you just talk to your dog, man. Talk to Zapper. He just lets me get it off my chest and lets me get it out there.
Sharpe: [over images of veterans and dogs] Eighteen veterans commit suicide, each day in this country. Eighteen. Also on the other end of this spectrum, there's four million animals, sheltered animals, killed in this country every year. So that's what we do. We take four million, and we pair 'em up with the 6,500 per year—it's kind of like a Match.com between a shelter pet and a veteran or emergency first responder.
[over images of a scarred pitbull puppy] This little guy was used for fighting—he was a toy for other dogs to beat up on. And they don't have a choice. [getting choked up while looking down at dog, who is looking back up at him] Sorry. What better companion to have than a veteran, like us, or a firefighter or police officer, to help this little guy out, right? [sniffs] He has the physical scars on the outside, but we have the mental scars on the inside, so that's where we heal each other and meet in the middle of the road, you know?
[over images of him wrasslin' with Cheyenne at home, and then of Cheyenne licking his face, and then the two of them cuddling] I can share anything and everything with her—unconditional love. And so, really, like, I got a good family that loves me, friends that love me, and I got her.
Film Corner!
What—did you think I wasn't going to do a Film Corner! about the upcoming summer box office smash and renowned preposition hog Rise of the Planet of the Apes, starring Professor James Franco? You're so weird.
SCIENCE! People in hazmat suits handling Important Tubes in sterile environments. In voiceover, Professor James Franco, CEO of ScienceCorp says, "We're talking about huge potential for millions of people!" Cut to ScienceCorp HQ, where Professor James Franco explains that the potion in the Important Tubes is called The Cure (no relation) and it "enables the brain to cure itself." Of WHAT?! He doesn't say. I bet The Cure enables the brain to cure itself of the need for sleep.
David Oyelowo tells Professor James Franco to start testing The Cure on chimpanzees. A baby monkey arrives in a box. (Note: It is a baby chimpanzee. Chimpanzees are not monkeys, they are apes, but I am going to be calling them monkeys throughout this post, much to the chagrin of pedants everywhere, because monkeys is both a funnier word than chimpanzee and easier to type. If it makes you feel any better, pedants, they aren't real chimpanzees, anyway. They're CGI monkeys.) His name is Caesar, no doy, because he's going to be a monkey emperor and shit.
Caesar is growing up. He's very smart! Looks like The Cure enables monkey brains to cure themselves of their monkosity, because Caesar is totes humany. I also notice that Caesar the CGI Monkey looks very much like Gollum with monkey fur, and I make a funny joke inside my head that Andy Serkis is playing Caesar. Then I look at the IMDb listing and see that Andy Serkis is playing Caesar. :( "You are very good at playing CGI humanoids!"—Hollywood (cc. New Zealand). Is that what actors want to hear? That's definitely what actors want to hear. Right? I hope that is what actors want to hear, because Andy Serkis is a very fine actor, and it would make me sad if he is not flattered by being given lots of work as a CGI humanoid.
"What was that? I can't hear you over the jets in my 24-carat hot tub filled with rubies and champagne!"—Andy Serkis. Good point, Andy Serkis.
Anyway!
Freida Pinto wonders where Caesar fits in. (Ladies are so nurtury and empathetic!) David Oyelowo says, "Caesar fits in REAL NICE in this cage I got right here!" (I'm paraphrasing.) Professor James Franco has angst. Someone should cast that guy as James Dean. Caesar is, care of the thespian talentry of Andy Serkis, angry about being locked up, and, as one would expect a monkey who's "smarter than his human counterpart" to do, picks the shit out of a lock on his cage. Probably looking for beer, he finds a mini-fridge full of The Cure. He gives it to all the other prisoners in monkey jail.
"They are contaminated!" says David Oyelowo. "Put those apes down!" Professor James Franco is having none of that shit. He doesn't actually say, "If by contaminated, you mean AWESOME, then, yeah, THEY ARE!" but I can tell he's thinking it.
Uh-oh. Monkeys everywhere. They're ruining everything! It's a monkey war! HOLY SHIT!!!
"Evolution Becomes Revolution" says some text, even though evolution has fuck-all to do with this movie. Possibly that is just a ploy to ensure prominent placement in the Creation Museum.
Ahh! More monkey war! Your guns and helicopters are no match for smart monkeys! (What?)
Coming August 5 to a theater near your ass.
[Via Andy.]
Daily Dose of Cute
Sometimes, I say to Iain, "We should adopt another dog, so Dudley has a puppeh playmate." To which he says, "No way. That's too many legs in this house! There's a 20-leg maximum!" At which point I respond by pointing out that, irrespective of there being an entire house in which the cats and dog can hang out, they're always in the same room we are. We could live in a refrigerator box, and they'd be perfectly happy.
Right now, Dudley is lying on the floor beside me, Olivia is sprawled across the top of my desk, Sophie is draped across the top of the monitor, and Matilda is on a chair next to me. If I get up to take a piss, they will all follow me into the tiniest bathroom imaginable, and then follow me back to the office once I'm done.
And this is the scene in our living room on a typical night:
Big Couch
Little Couch
As you can see, the kitteh girls kindly left two seats open, so Iain and I would feel welcome to join them. I rest my case.
Quote of the Day
"I do not believe the Republican Party should focus only on our economic life, to the neglect of our human life."—GOP presidential contender Jon Huntsman, speaking today in DC at Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Conference, aka Another Iteration of Annual Fuckery by the American Family Values Children Christian Liberty Freedom Patriot Association Foundation Organization.
lol your assertion that the Republican Party cares about economics anymore. Or anything other than criminalizing abortion.
"I do not believe the Republican Party should focus only on eroding women's rights, to the neglect of EVERYTHING ELSE."—Me.
As governor of Utah, I supported and signed every pro-life [sic] bill that came to my desk. I signed the bill that made second trimester abortions illegal and increased the penalty for doing so. I signed the bill to allow women to know about the pain that abortion causes an unborn child [sic]. I signed the bill requiring parental permission for an abortion. I signed the bill that would trigger a ban on abortions in Utah if Roe vs. Wade were overturned.[Via.]
You see, I do not believe the Republican Party should focus only on our economic life, to the neglect of our human life. That is a trade we should not make. If Republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. It will be a deficit of the heart and of the soul.
An Observation
It is long past time for a national prime-time address by our ostensibly pro-choice Democratic president about the Republican all-out assault on reproductive rights across this country.
More than half the population is directly affected by the GOP's erosion of abortion rights. Needless to say, even people who cannot personally give birth are affected by the whims of the anti-choice brigade, too. This is a national issue.
If anti-choice legislation in all 50 states as well as the federal Congress doesn't warrant a Democratic president's attention, doesn't move him to address this full-tilt attack on every American's ability to control hir reproduction, which we consider one of the most fundamental rights of the modern world, doesn't cause within his gut a burning need to passionately defend every Uterine-American's access to basic medical care, including what is frequently a life-saving procedure, I can't imagine what will.
Speak up, Mr. President.
SPEAK THE FUCK UP.
Third Verse, Even Worse than the First
Not to be outdone by the rest of America, earlier this week the Louisiana House Health and Welfare Committee approved (by a 10-2 margin!) a bill that would ban all abortion, fullstop.
It gets worse. Remember Personhood USA? The legislation adopts their position that human life begins at fertilization, which raises all kinds of terrifying questions.
Under the proposed law, the state could sentence doctors who perform an abortion to fifteen years in prison.
As is the case with Indiana, if the bill becomes Louisiana law, it would do so it violation of federal law. While it's not clear what the federal government's response would be, it could put Louisiana's Medicaid funding at risk. Of course, given some prominent Republicans' views on Medicaid, I don't think it's a stretch to say that some conservatives are unconcerned, if not enthusiastic, about destroying Medicaid in their state.
This legislation in Louisiana, coupled with events in Indiana, is a key moment for reproductive rights in the United States. The Obama administration absolutely needs to respond with the full force of the federal government.
Indiana has denied women access to health care in direct violation of federal law. Louisiana is attempting to follow the Hoosier state's lead. Denying government funding to those who hate government is not a solution. It is long past time for the White House to take action to uphold the law of this nation.
Instead, I hear crickets.
H/t: Queen Emily
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, proud publisher of the upcoming coffee table book, Deeky W. Gashlycrumb's 10,000 Pictures of My Butt.
Recommended Reading:
Andy: Same-Sex Couples Have 33 Civil Unions in Mass Chicago Event
crunktastic: [TW for rape/violence] "Man Down": On Rihanna, Rape, and Violence
Allan: [TW for sexual harassment] Rep. Anthony Weiner Was Shining a Light on Justice Clarence Thomas' Ethical Problems When He Was Suddenly Accused of Sexual Harassment
Tami: Stop Saying "X Is the Last Acceptable Form of Bigotry"
Peter: When Republicans Are Elected, Women Pay the Price
Jeff: Polls Show Huge Public Support for Gay and Transgender Workplace Protections
Robin: [TW for sexual violence] What Can You Say About a "Conceived in Rape" Tour?
STFU Celebs: [TW for sexual violence; rape jokes] Donald Glover Thinks Rape Is Hilarious
John: 10,000-Brick Lego Sandcrawler
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Edwards Indicted
Former Democratic presidential contender John Edwards has been indicted on charges that he used campaign contributions to cover up an affair: "Edwards, 57, was charged with conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions and making false statements, according to a 19-page indictment. Ahead of the expected indictment, his attorney denied any wrongdoing. An arrest warrant has been issued for Edwards according to court records filed in District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina."
You know, I'm angry at Edwards for a lot of things, but none so much as the fact that he was the most prominent credible commentator about the increasing divide between the poor and the wealthy in this country. He could have been the guy to eventually lead us out of this economic quagmire with compassionate rhetoric about a divided nation and progressive economic policies, and he pissed it all away.
We needed someone like you, John Edwards. We still do.
Obviously
Dudley is pro-choice, no doy.
He is, as it turns out, one of many dogs who are pro-choice (and a few cats, too), because dogs (and cats) know what's up.
Dudz also wanted me to pass on that he feels like greyhounds, along with dogs used for breeding in puppy mills or used for dog fighting, have a special role to play in the pro-choice movement, because they really understand the difference between a life in which you're forced to use your body in ways you wouldn't choose and a life in which you aren't.
"I've heard all those anti-choice people say that bodies with uteri are 'designed to have babies,' so that's what they should do," Dudley told me. "Okay, sure. Just like greyhounds' bodies are 'designed to run'—but there's a difference between being made to run and choosing to run. And, as far as I can tell, giving people reproductive choices is the same as being able to run, if and when I want to, just for the joy of it. Which is way better."
[Video Description: Scenes of Dudley running around the dog park, set to "Gonna Fly Now."]
Dogs4Choice.
(FYI: Dudz totes got SO many peanut butter treats for posing so nicely for such a good cause.)
Number of the Day
4%: The real private-sector wage growth over the past decade, which falls "far short of any 10-year period since World War II, according to Commerce Department data. In fact, if the data are to be believed, economywide wage gains have even lagged those in the decade of the Great Depression (adjusted for deflation)."
Two years into the recovery, and 10 years after the nation fell into a post-dot-com bubble recession, this legacy of near-stagnant wages has helped ground the economy despite unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus — and even an impressive bull market.To say the least.
Over the past decade, real private-sector wage growth has scraped bottom at 4%, just below the 5% increase from 1929 to 1939, government data show.
To put that in perspective, since the Great Depression, 10-year gains in real private wages had always exceeded 25% with one exception: the period ended in 1982-83, when the jobless rate spiked above 10% and wage gains briefly decelerated to 16%.
...The long dry spell for real wage gains tests the natural resilience of America's consumer economy.
There's a lot of blaming and shaming of USians for frivolous spending and living beyond their means and being recklessly avaristic consumers—and, you know, I'm sure there are people like that, but I sure don't know a hell of a lot of them. (Or any of them.) I know of a lot of people who get accused of being irresponsible when they lose their homes because of unemployment, or medical bills, or predatory lending, or some combination thereof.
And all of that finger-pointing masks the reality reflected in the above numbers: The average standard and cost of living in the US have changed dramatically over the course of a single generation.
I now live in the same town in which I grew up, on the other end of the same street on which I grew up, in a smaller house than the one in which I grew up, and in which my parents still live at the other end of the street. My dad was a public high school teacher, and, until I was 18, my parents, sister, and I (and a menagerie of cats, dogs, turtles, and birds) lived on his salary—and, although I never had expensive clothes and my parents never had the best cars or the nicest electronics, we did all right, and my parents managed to save money for retirement to boot. Iain and I have no kids, share one car, have no savings, and two full-time salaries.
There is simply no way we could have the same life that I had growing up in the same place 30 years ago.
That's the reality of wage stagnation in the US.
And it's the result of greed, but not on the employee side of the paycheck.
Question of the Day
If you were offered a biebillion dollars* to change your name to the name of a Very Famous Person—someone who, if not virtually a global household name, is at least super-famous where you live—and you couldn't ever tell anyone why you'd changed your name and couldn't ever change it again, whom would you choose and why?
For a biebillion dollars, I would become Rip Taylor, effective immediately, no doy.
---------------------------
* Or whatever sum of money would make this hypothetical worth your while. To be used in any way you see fit.
Route 2012
Willard makes it official. Palin steps on his toes. Pawlenty and Bachmann, despite spin to the contrary, are not BFFs, are not glad they met in English class, and do not wish each other tons of fun over the summer. Huntsman's getting the side eye from George Will. Herman Cain who? Gingrich is finished, or maybe not, yawn. Other people doing things. Fart.
Seen
From the "Great Reads: New in Paperback" section of People magazine: "STILL MISSING by Chevy Stevens: A young Realtor tries to reclaim her life after a crazed rapist holds her captive. Just enough chills to start your summer off right."
Do I need to explain what's wrong with this? Please tell me I don't need to explain what's wrong with this.
Indiana Farts in the Government's General Direction
So you recall that Indiana decided to defund Planned Parenthood by violating the rules of Medicaid? The government was all "Uhm, no." in response. Well, Indiana responds by telling the gov't to take its no and shove it:
Indiana officials said Thursday they will defy a federal order to continue funding Planned Parenthood and other clinics that offer abortion services.I see.
Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a law in May that would cut off federal funding from Indiana clinics that perform abortions. The law is primarily aimed at the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics, which get federal family planning grants to administer services unrelated to abortion.
[...]
"The way the law was written, it went into effect the moment the governor signed it," Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration, said in a telephone interview.
"We were just advised by our lawyers that we should continue to enforce Indiana law."
There is a hearing scheduled for next Monday (Planned Parenthood sued) before U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Judge Walton Pratt has stated she will rule on the issue by July 1st.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for sexism; gender essentialism.]
"I feel more emotionally connected to this apple than I do to a person I've just slept with. Women reading that will think that's awful. But that's what men are made of."—Robbie Williams, Pop Singer and Professor of Manology at Science University.
As far as "men are just irrepressible sex-beasts" quotes go, this one is actually pretty tame. But that's kind of the point. It's just another casual reminder, another reductive assertion about monolithic mankind nonchalantly inserted into an interview with a grown-up boybander, that men are made of sex and indifference.
Once again, I will note that it is feminists who have the reputation as man-haters, but it isn't feminists who routinely talk about men like they're emotionless, exploitative garbage. It's Patriarchy enthusiasts like our friend Mr. Williams.
And, yeah, I can imagine a few women thinking that it's awful to say that all men use women (and/or other men?) for sex, but I know a few men who might not be thrilled with that assessment, too.
The real curiosity is why I don't know more of them.
Why I'll Never Vote for That Fucking Goat by Butch Pornstache
So, I hear some of you femifarts, queerbaits, gender-benders, fat chicks, and various other dinguses are all excited about that GOP Goat running for president. Well, let me tell you something as a long-time Republican voter: Ain't no way I'm voting for that fucking goat.
I don't care if he (or SHE, ladies) promises to 86 taxes altogether, turn Social Security into the Defense Department's piggy bank, appoint Chuck Norris the Secretary of Asskicking, and make Whitesnake vinyls the national currency. I don't care if my stepmom Cheryl promises to tell me where she hid my Best of Chico and the Man videos; I don't care if my ex-wife/fiancée Tammy promises to let me wear my favorite Hooters cap to our next wedding; I don't care if my brother Buck promises to give me back my copy of Guns & Ammo with that awesome Ted Nugent (NUGE!) interview in it. I still ain't voting for that fucking goat.
Because goats are assholes, man.
I know all you animal-loving hippies are already fixing to whine about how goats are awesome and shit, but hear me out! Here is my evidence:
1. This one time, a goat ate my entire stash of weed.
2. This other time, when I took my niece Sierra to a petting zoo, I saw a goat eating another goat's poop right as it was falling out of the other goat's butt. For serious. And when I reported that nasty business to the petting zookeeper by pointing and shrieking, "GOAT EAT GOAT POOP," he was all, "Oh, yeah—they do that all the time." Hell no. And don't even get me started on how creepy their little round turd-pellets are. P.S. The gumballs at petting zoos are actually goat food.
3. Another time, I was totally minding my own business in this field of goats, and one of them goddamn goats kicked the shit out of my shin, man.
4. One time, I caught a goat trying to hump one of the pink flamingo statues in my Aunt Trudie's front yard.
5. Oh, also—a goat ate my entire stash of weed. Again. Yeah, a totally different goat, man. That shit happened to me TWICE.
6. "Goats Head Soup" by the Stones. 'Nuff said.
7. Another time, a goat stepped on my laser disc copy of Universal Solider and broke the fuck out of it.
8. I barfed after eating goat stew at an Indian restaurant. (What—you think I never eat anything besides mac and cheese with hotdogs chunks in it? Just because that's my favorite meal doesn't mean I never try anything else! I'm married not dead, or whatever.)
9. I barfed after eating chèvre. That is the last time I use anything but American cheese to make Mac-n-Dogz.
10. Baby goats are called "kids." How fucked up is that? They're trying to be humans, straight scoop. You have no idea what they're capable of if we make one of them president.
11. One time at the beach, this goat totally kicked me in the nuts.
12. I once saw this documentary about mountain goats, and those fuckers can run straight up a cliff, man. I don't trust anything with less than six legs that can run straight up a cliff. That shit ain't natural.
13. This guy.
14. A goat ate my entire stash of weed. Twice. I know I mentioned it, but it bears repeating.
15. Goats live in herds called a "gnarl." Each gnarl elects a queen to oversee all goat business. A new queen is elected exactly three days after the death of her predecessor. That is some gnarly shit, and no I am not trying to be funny.
16. Like, half of my friends, when you ask them what animal they'd choose if they could be a human-animal hybrid, pick a goat. That's fucked-up, man. I don't know what right-minded dude would choose anything but a wolf, which gives me the suspicions that goats have the power of hypnosis, apart from all their other evil.
17. They're always judging you.
Welp, that's probably enough evidence for now. But I got a lot more where that came from, if you're still not convinced that goats are assholes. If the GOP really does run that goat in 2012, it'll be the first time I'm glad all you dumbasses are voting for Al Nader or whatever.
Pornstache: Out.
[Editor's Note: Although Shakesville disagrees with the GOP Goat on virtually every plank of its party's platform and respects Butch Pornstache's personal experience, Shakesville recognizes that goats are not a monolith and is officially pro-goat, generally speaking.]
One for the Ladies
Liss just pointed out a piece on HuffPo that asks a totally cromulent question: "What the Fuck is a Mom Cave?" (Technically, it asks "What the F*ck is a Mom Cave?", but I've never been hot on cryptoquips.)
According to credible sources USA Today and the Daily News the mom cave lives:
A mom cave is the place where the woman who nurtures everyone goes to nurture herself, said Elaine Griffin, New York City interior designer and author of "Design Rules: The Insider's Guide to Becoming Your Own Decorator." She coined the term mom cave with HomeGoods. (It's really a woman cave but mom cave sounded better, she said.)
It's a natural evolution from man caves, the saying "If mom's not happy, nobody's happy," and the idea that it's OK to have me time, she said. The next logical step was a space for the me time.
"We saw women all over the country beginning to take that space for themselves, whether it was an extra room they could actually dedicate to themselves or just a space they could carve out for themselves," she said.
"It's a space a woman can go to and say, 'All right husband and kids, when this door is closed I'm off duty.' "
It's not simply a room for doing nothing. Unlike men, women relax by doing things, so they need storage and a place to work, Griffin said.I didn't know drinking gin was a "thing" nowadays, but sure, why not? I did, however know that all women are moms, because no doy.
This is where Courtney Cachet's brilliant critique comes in [TW: ableist langauge]:
"Here's what I really don't get. Man Caves, which I have written about a few times, are a total home decor phenomenon. Why? Because they're bad ass. Tricked out media rooms with movie screens, stereo systems, pool tables and lots of liquor and sports. Awesome, right? Mom Caves, by contrast, are not entire rooms, but "nooks" and "little spaces", "even a closet will do nicely" one article on Mom Caves stated! Also, you better like pink, damask and Rococo. Maybe we'll do crafts or think up new Bundt cake recipes in there! Then we'll pipe in some meditation music so we can "chill out" or meditate in our "sanctuary". My sanctuary? Sanctuary?? My husband would be checking me into the psych ward in a hot minute.Fucking right they do. Worse yet, they don't find you and instead find sunblock to apply to their stuffed animals or an entire pile of clean clothes to dress said greasy animals.
What I find particularly irritating is The Man Cave gets entire rooms, entire floors or basements. He gets all the cool gadgetry, and fantasy like decor. Not Woman, but The Mom gets a closet or a nook where she can paint it pink, light scented candles, read Chicken Soup For The Mom's Soul or paint her toenails pink and listen to Yanni. Call me crazy, but I think I'd rather be a dude in this scenario. Wait, what about the single ladies? No cave for you, bitches! First you have to pop out a couple of bambinos and pack on 10 lbs. Only then are you worthy of your own pillow filled room!
The whole notion of this room works much better on paper. I live in a pretty spacious house. I work from home about half the work week. I have tried countless times to hide from my kids and guess what? They always find me. Always!"
What I find works is having my
All I'm saying is that I'm a lady who likes to drink gin and play Xbox. Sometimes this involves feeling like a failure as a parent, and sometimes this means waiting until my daughter's asleep to cull the plastic herd enough to allow me to park my butt on the couch. And during football season, I'm sorry sweetie, but the game is on. Maybe if you're good, we'll skip the Sunday night game in favor of Blue's Clues (especially if the Cowboys are playing).
Despite what this essay implies, my partner and I nurture our asses off like whoa. Yet in contrast to the implications of mom caves, part of this nurturing involves taking time to not care what other people think, even if this means doing the manly work of "doing nothing."
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for sexual violence; rape apologia; victim-blaming.]
With depressing regularity, someone writes an article suggesting that women have to be more responsible about their drinking habits in order that they might avoid getting raped. It's exasperating enough when this shit is peddled as unapologetic victim-blaming in garbage rags like the Daily Mail, but when it's concern trolling with a "feminist" label slapped on it, it positively makes my teeth grind. It's just the same old victim-blaming horseshit re-spun with empowerment rhetoric.
To wit: The Frisky's "Girl Talk: Why Being Drunk Is a Feminist Issue," by Kate Torgovnick, who totes isn't a victim-blamer, she swears! It's just that we don't live in an ideal world, so because women "do not have control over what men, drunk or sober, will do when presented with our drunkeness," women should take control over "our side of the equation—how much we drink."
There is a lot wrong with that article (not least of which is the author's confusion about what actually constitutes rape), but I'm not going to waste my time fisking garbage. I'll merely note that the entire premise is fundamentally flawed in the same ways that every other piece in this despicable genre is, in addition to the evident issue that victim-blaming, even if cynically rebranded as "taking control," inexorably shifts responsibility from rapist to victim:
1. Asserting that women can avoid rape via sobriety only makes sense if the victim is drunk in the vast majority of rapes. That is not the case.
2. Asserting that women can avoid rape via sobriety only makes sense if the vast majority of women who drink are raped as a consequence. That is not the case.
3. Asserting that women can avoid rape via sobriety only makes sense if every rape that happens to a woman who's been drinking is committed by an opportunistic rapist who would not have otherwise raped her. That is not the case.
The ultimate value of this advice to potential rape victims is thus negligible, given that, in practical terms, it boils down to: "If you don't drink, it may or may not protect you from getting raped in some situations."
Very useful. (Nope.)
Supporters of this "don't drink to empower yourself" idea roll their eyes at people like me and demand to know how I can ignore that lots of women are raped after they've been drinking. The thing is, I'm not ignoring that. I know that happens. It has happened to women (and men) I love quite a lot. I'm just not of the opinion that it's good or decent or practical advice to tell people that not drinking will help them avoid rape, when every single person I know who's been raped after drinking has imbibed on other nights and not been raped.
For what is probably the hundredth time: Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad, I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist.
Enough blaming the victim. Enough.
[Via Jill.]
GOP: The FDA is for Suckers
So adding to the List of Things the GOP Hates: food safety regulation. Which makes sense since it's supposed to enhance public welfare and contains the word "regulation". On Tuesday, the House approved budget cuts to the FDA. These cuts affect legislation that was passed back in December (the first food safety overhaul since 1938).
...[T]he agency will not be able to meet many requirements of the new law, including increased inspections of food manufacturing plants, better coordination with state health departments, and developing the capacity to more quickly respond to food-borne illnesses and minimize their impact.That's not all, though! It also will:
[...]
States have had to reduce food safety inspections and enforcement because of budget pressures and have been counting on new funding at the FDA, Saunders said. The FDA routinely contracts with states to perform inspections on its behalf. Virginia conducts about 400 a year under contract to the FDA, in addition to its own inspections, Saunders said.
The proposed budget cuts [will] also hinder the FDA’s ability to increase scrutiny of imported foods, according to food safety advocates. The new law requires the FDA to create a system of third-party certifiers to ensure that food coming into the United States meets the same safety standards as food produced domestically. Without additional funding, the FDA cannot create that system, said Erik Olson, director of food and consumer product safety programs at the Pew Health Group, part of a coalition of public health advocates and food makers.
“These cuts could seriously harm our ability to protect the food supply,” said Olson, who is hoping the money will be restored by the Senate, which has not proposed its spending plan.
The House subcommittee also proposed a $35 million cut to the Food Safety Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry and some egg products.
...[C]ut about $650 million — or 10 percent — from the Women, Infants and Children program that feeds and educates mothers and their children.And you know what? That's not all. You see, the GOP have decided that the the Obama admin's push for healthier school lunches is not okay.
Under the guidelines, schools would have to cut sodium in subsidized meals by more than half, use more whole grains and serve low-fat milk. They also would limit kids to only one cup of starchy vegetables a week, so schools couldn't offer french fries every day.Oh but they didn't cut everything, no. They fully funded a program, the Market Access Program. What is that? Well, it is designed to allow farmers to compete in the global marketplace:
The starchy vegetable proposal has been criticized by conservatives who think it goes too far and members of Congress who represent potato-growers. They say potatoes are a low-cost food that provides fiber and other nutrients.
The program, managed by the Agriculture Department, awards grants to nonprofit organizations, small businesses and large grower cooperatives, such as Sunkist, Welch’s and Blue Diamond, to promote their agricultural goods in foreign markets.Priorities!
Last year, for example, the Cotton Council International, which represents the U.S. cotton industry, received $20.3 million through the program to help fund a popular reality television show in India featuring aspiring fashion designers.
Back the the hatred for regulations for a moment, an amendment was put forth regarding the FDA. Did you know that the Food and Drug Administration uses "soft science"? Who knew! Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). He knew and decided to enlighten us all:
The most intense reaction was generated by a provision offered by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) that would block the FDA from issuing rules or guidance unless its decisions are based on “hard science” rather than “cost and consumer behavior.” The amendment would prevent the FDA from restricting a substance unless it caused greater harm to health than a product not containing the substance.His rider amendment has to do with the proposed menthol ban in cigarettes and also the widespread use of antibiotics in commercial farming. Where, of course, both industries say "Oh ho, there's no problem here!".
“The FDA is starting to use soft sciences in some considerations in the promulgation of its rules,” said Rehberg, who defined “hard science”, as “perceived as being more scientific, rigorous and accurate” than behavioral and social sciences.
“I hate to try and define the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist, between a sociologist and a geologist, but there is clearly a difference,” he told the committee.
“This subcommittee has begun making some of the tough choices necessary to right the ship,” said Chairman [House Appropriations subcommittee] Jack Kingston.
