What is your favorite animated film?
I'm not a huge animated film buff, so my reservoir of potential answers is a lot narrower than other film genres. Of the ones I've seen, my favorite is probably The Last Unicorn, which strongly resonated with me when I was an awkward pre-feminist 8-year-old, and resonates with me still.
Honorable mention to Pixar's A Bug's Life, which features one of my favorite lines of dialogue of all time: The Fly, disgusted with the shitty quality of the Flea Circus at which he's in attendance, departs with the line: "I only got twenty-four hours to live, and I ain't gonna waste it here." Brilliant.
Question of the Day
Discussion Thread: Cooking Shows & Cooking Tips
If you are one of the many Shakers who loves food shows, whether just straight-up cooking shows or cooking competitions (or both), share in this thread what the best tip (or tips) you've ever gotten from a cooking show is.
I've gotten a lot of great tips over the years, but my absolute favorite has to be crushing garlic cloves with the side of your knife to separate the garlic from its skin. Works a million times better than a garlic press!
(Here's a demonstration, if you don't know what I mean.)
What I'm Listening To
[Lyrics here.]
As I've mentioned once or twice or three hundred times, I loooooooooved the movie Starman as a kid (and I still do) because Karen Allen. Just hearing the sampled bit of the score in this track gives me a wave of nostalgia so strong it nearly chokes me up.
Whoa
[Trigger warning for violence.]
After 30 years, prosecutors in Philadelphia have begrudgingly dropped their campaign to execute Mumia Abu-Jamal, the former Black Panther who was convicted of killing white police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1982. Abu-Jamal, who is now 58, and continues to maintain his innocence, will instead spend the rest of his life in prison.
Jorge Rivas has more here.
For those who are familiar with this case, which spawned the "Free Mumia" movement, the fervor with which the execution of Abu-Jamal has been pursued over the years makes this decision really rather extraordinary.
Pat Robertson Responds to Hillary Clinton's Speech
[Trigger warning for homophobia and Christian Supremacy.]
I'm pretty sure if someone had asked me to predict what Pat Robertson's response would be to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's landmark LGBTQI rights speech, I would've guessed pretty much exactly this, minus one Thomas Jefferson (mis)quote, and plus one deeply misguided rendition of Dolly Parton's "Straight Talk."
Isn't it appalling that the United States of America would try to enforce the acceptance of homosexuality on other nations, but at the same time we would not force them to take care of their religious minorities and they would permit discrimination and persecution of Christians? What kind of a country have we got? You know, there is a god in heaven and he is just. Thomas Jefferson: "I tremble when I remember that god is just." He is just; he is not going to allow this kind of thing to go on forever. This country cannot continue to violate god's principles and to make a mockery of his laws and think we're going to get away with it. And when the blow comes, it's going to be horrible.That's what she said.
[Via.]
Daily Dose of Cute
Olivia Twist, who is currently taking up every available bit of free space on my desk, snoozing.
Number of the Day
14: The number of years in prison to which former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was sentenced today, after making one last plea for leniency and telling the court, "I am unbelievably sorry."
Blago, who was convicted of 18 counts of corruption charges, including "attempting to sell or trade an appointment to fill the US Senate seat left vacant by the election of President Barack Obama," will "have to surrender Feb. 16. Under federal sentencing rules, Blagojevich will have to serve 85 percent of his sentence, or just under 12 years in prison, at a minimum."
Whooooooooooooops.
Reproductive Rights Updates: Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Dakota
Ohio! There are two issues in Ohio. First, the a senate committee will have the first public hearings (1pm EST) on HB 125, aka the "heartbeat bill".
The Senate Health, Human Services and Aging Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Scott Oelslager, R- North Canton, will hear from the bill’s sponsor, proponents and interested parties today. Typically, opponents also are given a chance to weigh in on legislation, but no other hearing has been scheduled at this point.That doesn't sound suspicious at all. Sounds like totally balanced government, right there. Sure.
Oelslager also chaired a special committee appointed by Senate President Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond, that has been privately reviewing the legislation, which passed the House in June.
Now, I came across this by accident in looking up info on the senate hearing mentioned above: SB 201. SB 201 was introduced to a senate finance committee yesterday. So while it's new, it's not that new because it's the companion legislation to HB 298, which I wrote about back in July. The bills are an attempt at a Medicaid work-around to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
***
In Michigan, a senate committee sent two bills to to the senate that prohibit insurance coverage of abortion services:
Health Policy Committee members on Wednesday sent to the full Senate two bills that would require health insurance policies sold on the MiHealth Marketplace website or in insurance markets to not cover abortions unless women buy an additional rider on their policies.The leader of MI "Right to Life" supports this, of course, because he says: "abortion is a social decision, not health care." Of course you say things like that! Of course you do.
***
In Wisconsin, there will be a hearing next week on SB 306 (AB 371), which is a bill that says women cannot get an abortion via medication unless seeing a doctor in person.
Madison - A hearing is slated for Dec. 13 on a bill that would prevent women from receiving drugs that induce abortions unless a doctor gives them a physical exam and is in the same room when they receive the drugs.Supporters of this are very determined that women should not get a consult via webcam. Supporters of this are very determined to make as many hurdles possible.
[...]
The legislation would also require doctors to speak with women seeking abortions out of the presence of others to determine whether they were coerced into getting abortions.
***
In Alabama, Sen. Phil Williams (R-Madison) has "pre-filed" a "personhood" bill for the Feb. 2012 session.
Senate Bill 5 looks to legally define humans as persons from the moment of fertilization and implantation. It is similar to Mississippi’s personhood bill, which was defeated 58 percent to 42 percent on Nov. 8.Intro'ing a bullshit bill that's similar to another that was shot down earlier this year totally doesn't sound like a colossal waste of time at all!
Williams’ attempt to pass comparable legislation earlier in the year was killed by a voice vote on the Senate floor.
In an interview with Mobile news station WKRG on Nov. 9, Williams said he believes personhood legislation is important to Alabamians.
“Number one, I think that this is a matter of state’s rights, that we can do this,” Williams said. “I think that this is something that Alabamians would want.”
***
In South Dakota, a federal appeals court has agreed to rehear arguments about doctors being forced to tell patients that they'll have a higher risk of wanting to commit suicide if they have an abortion.
he South Dakota Attorney General's office says a federal appeals court has agreed to rehear a case dealing with a 2005 South Dakota abortion law.The suicide bit? A lie (.pdf).
[...]
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley says the full 11-member court will rehear arguments related to the suicide advisory in January.
Goddammit
Plan B ruling: FDA says it wanted to ease restrictions, was overruled by Obama administration:
In a rare public split within the federal government, the Health and Human Services Department overruled a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to make [Plan B, aka the morning-after pill] available to anyone of any age without a restriction.There is literally nothing I can say that I haven't already said dozens of times before. This is yet another incredible disappointment.
In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by [people] of all age. But she added that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had rejected the move.
"I agree ... there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all [people] of child-bearing potential," Hamburg said.
"However, this morning I received a memorandum from the Secretary of Health and Human Services invoking her authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to execute its provisions and stating that she does not agree with the Agency's decision to allow the marketing of Plan B One-Step nonprescription for all [people] of child-bearing potential," she said.
The surprising decision is a stunning blow to some doctors, health advocates, family-planning activists, members of Congress and others to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies.
An Observation
So, I watch a lot of cooking shows. Especially various cooking competitions, like Chopped, Iron Chef, The Next Iron Chef, 24 Hour Restaurant War, Chef Hunter, Top Chef, Top Chef Masters, Top Chef Just Desserts, and Top Chef We're Just Fucking with You Now. And one of the things I've noticed (I am such a good noticer of things!) is that a lot of the male chefs—who outnumber the female chefs by probably at least 2-1 across all these shows, especially when you include all the chef judges—tell really cool stories about how they were inspired to be culinary artists by their mothers and/or grandmothers.
So many awesome stories about mama's signature greens and nonna's homemade gnocchi!
And then many of these same male chefs with the terrific stories about their female influences turn around and treat their female colleagues with sneering contempt, without a trace of irony.
Evidently, women are meant to cook exclusively for free to inspire men, who then go cook professionally for lots of money.
If they're talented they're lucky their grannies passed on the best recipes.
I guess a woman's place is in the kitchen, unless and until a man decides he wants to be there.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by pencil cases.
Recommended Reading:
Julie: [TW for rape culture and imagery; victim-blaming] PA Liquor Control Board to Teens: Rape Is Your Fault, and Your Friends' Fault!
Andy: [TW for homophobia] Rick Perry Attacks Gays in the Military, Obama's 'War on Religion' in New Ad
Shark-fu: Pondering the Newtonian Revival
Fannie: [TW for body policing, violence, medical malfeasance, misogyny, racism] Involuntary Procedures and Local Power
L Boogie: [TW for rape culture] Fanon, Alienation, and Sexual Harassment
Michelle: [TW for discussion of eating and hunger] How Does Hunger Feel?
Chally: [TW for injury and objectification] The Humbling of a Pretty Girl
This piece for Shameless magazine, in recognition of Canada's National Day of Remembrance, was written by a member of the Shakesville community who prefers to remain anonymous: [TW for violence and rape culture] National Day of Remembrance and Action of Violence Against Women in Canada.
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
It's Like They Took My Life and Put It On Television
[Trigger warning for misogyny, LGB-phobia, and transphobia]
Remember Bosom Buddies? It was this awesome show about two dudes who dressed up as chicks so that they could live in this cheap building for ladies. The show's title was pretty funny too, in that bosom is another word for tit.
Anyhow, Sara Rue and the CW have a great idea for a new show. Basically, it's just ripping off Bosom Buddies, only with a twist! Two (totes real, cissexual) ladies will pretend to be lesbians so that they can live together in New York City, because that's totally how things work in The City. Plus, the ladies will so get the perks of being domestic partners in a state that allows gay marriage.
I can't wait for the awkward second episode when one of the ladies has to explain to a really hot guy that even though she's a lady who (pretends she) likes other ladies, she (also) likes dudes! That's so strange! How do the writers presumably come up with this stuff?
Don't worry though, the entire purpose of the show is to empower real lesbians, in that it will show their plight or some such bullshit.
(Also, "faux-lesbian" is the greatest term ever. From now on, I'm referring to myself as "nouveau-lesbian." I love French shit.)
Speaking of bosoms, ABC's got a great new show coming up. It's about two dudes who pretend to be chicks so they can get a job, because that's totally how things work in the world.
I can't wait for the awkward second episode when one of the "ladies" has to explain to a really hot chick that he's a (pretend) lady who likes other ladies! That's so strange! How do the writers presumably come up with this stuff?
Don't worry though, the entire purpose of the show is to empower real ladies, in that it will show their plight or some such bullshit (e.g., when you are a lady, you can get a job easily!). Some people might claim the show is transphobic, but since these guys are dudes pretending to be ladies, it's clearly not about trans* people, in that trans* people want The Surgery or some such nonsense.
Now I've you'll excuse me, I'm off to buy a TiVo. They still make TiVo, right?
The Kingmaker!
LULZ: Gingrich or Romney: McCain prepares to play kingmaker. Ooh, I bet no one can wait to hear who McCain endorses! If he's as good at picking nominees as he is at picking running mates, we should DEFINITELY listen to his advice.
So Hillary Clinton Gave a Speech Yesterday
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a landmark speech on LGBT rights yesterday, in which she reasserted that LGBT rights are human rights and cemented the fight against discrimination toward LGBT people as a plank of US foreign policy, pledging to use diplomacy and dedicating $3 million in foreign aid to help expand LGBT rights globally.
This, Shakers, is a politician who keeps her campaign promises, even when she doesn't win the election.
It is a remarkable and moving (if imperfect) speech, and I can't even begin to choose what I would excerpt (I encourage you to watch/read the whole thing), but this is pretty good: "When any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. ... When we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won't suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. ... To people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. ... The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are."
So much blub.
In an email, which I am quoting with his permission, Shaker GoldFishy said: "THIS is the speech that Obama needs to give. THIS is the speech that my governor needs to give. THIS is the speech that any fair-minded leader with a platform should give. THIS is the speech that can change the world. A failure to lead doesn't mean that leadership doesn't happen—it just happens at the hands of someone else, probably with less than ideal goals."
Secretary Clinton reminds us we all have the ability to lead.
Full transcript available here.
Question of the Day
Are you prepared for the zombie apocalypse?
Yes, there will be a zombie apocalypse. Whether this happens before or after the robot uprising is open to debate.
Destruction
I'm having intermittent power outages today due to the Never-Ending Construction Project on my street, so, until I am able to be online for more than five nanoseconds at a time, please enjoy this picture of my mailbox on my lawn.
FYI
[Trigger warning for homophobia.]
In case you had forgotten for six seconds that Rick Santorum is a titanic garbage monster, here is a timely reminder.
For Love of a Good Mystery
[Image by Chris Scott, via NPR.]
Back in September, I linked in a blogaround to a piece about mysterious paper sculptures that were showing up in libraries around Scotland. Shaker Laurakeet forwarded this NPR article that has a neat follow-up on the ongoing mystery:
By this fall, these mysterious sculptures had become a hot story. Reporters checked the newest teacup and cupcake, then the little fellow hiding in a forest for some sign of authorship... [W]ho is the real perpetrator, asked the BBC, Scotland TV, The Guardian. And what is he? She? They? trying to tell us? Everyone wanted to know.Love.
Just as the news cycle was about to hit boil, The Edinburgh Evening News announced it had cracked the case. It turns out, they said, their own former music librarian, a Mr. Garry Gale, had figured it out. [But instead] of having Mr. Gale immediately identify the perpetrator, the Evening News decided to take a poll: Do you really want to know, it asked its readers, who made these gorgeous teacups and dragons and magnifying glasses, or would you rather honor the artist, and let him/her remain anonymous?
...The readers wrote in. And according to Central Station, a Scottish website, "the general view is that We Don't Want To Know." Presumably a significant number of respondents said they would rather not learn the identity of the sculptor and it would be best if those who know just not tell.
Has the paper published the perpetrator's name?
It hasn't.
[Note: There are places discussing the identity of the sculptor, including the comments section at NPR. If you are curious about the sculptor's identity, I kindly request you participate in that investigative work elsewhere. This thread is for lovers of mystery—and all mystery-related enthusiasm is on-topic.]
Do the Right Thing; Get Fired
[Trigger warning for animal cruelty.]
Reno-Tahoe International Airport baggage handler Lynn Jones refused to load an evidently abused and neglected hunting dog onto an airplane, believing that the dog would not survive the flight. For her compassion, she was fired.
Her (former) employer, Airport Terminal Services Inc., is, per a statement on its website, "reviewing the actions of all employees involved to determine if the appropriate action was taken."
Mega-grumble.
As for Jones, she says: "I wouldn't have traded that job for anything. I wouldn't have risked it for anything. But I just couldn't turn my back on that dog ... My supervisor said it wasn't my concern, but animal abuse is everyone's concern who sees it."
This is a real thing in the world.
Speaking of Pez dispensers, check this out, Ringians!
Lord of the Rings Pez Set
Awesome, right? It's got all your favourite Ring characters! (Unless that character is a lady. Whoops.) I looove how the Hobbit dispensers are shorter than the others. Because Hobbits, obviously! Get yours today!
Quote of the Day
"It presents her as a professional woman writer; there are pens on the table, a sheaf of paper. She seems to be a woman very confident in her own skin, very happy to be presented as a professional woman writer and a novelist, which does fly in the face of the cutesy, heritage spinster view."—Jane Austen scholar Dr. Paula Byrne, who may have discovered a lost portrait of Austen. The image, done in graphite on vellum, undermines the traditional narratives of Austen that cast her as a one-dimensional irascible spinster, and instead "shows a writer at the height of her powers and a woman comfortable in her own skin."
[H/T to Iain, whom I love even more now than I did in the moment before he passed this along with a note about how much I'd like it.]
Melissa McCarthy Deserves Better
Because I love Melissa McCarthy, I have tried watching Mike & Molly, despite knowing it would be dismal. And it is. It's ostensibly a show about fat acceptance, which hates its fat characters. And yes, subjecting them to all manner of ridicule and abuse, to make the point that fat hatred exists, which its targets and purveyors already know, is hatred of its fat characters.
Spudsy and I were talking about this trainwreck this morning, and, observing that the other female characters (particularly Molly's mother and sister) are horrible, conniving, nasty people, classic sit-com bitches, Spudsy noted that it's like the show's writers don't imagine that a fat female character could be likeable unless she's surrounded by sinister harpies.
There are a lot of problems with the show, and yet its worst offense, IMO, is that which I noted after seeing the previews: This show acts as though Roseanne never existed. It so self-evidently pats itself on the back for being some kind of transgressive, progressive contribution to the television canon, but there existed a show 20 years ago with two fat leads who loved and fucked and lived their lives—and they didn't have to suffer the indignity of the constant juvenile moralizing that lies within every implicit reminder that "fat people are human, too!"
It's a step backwards. Melissa McCarthy deserves better. And so do we.
Primarily Stupid
A look at what's going on with those rascally Republican rapscallions this morning...
In feminist news (lulz), Rep. Michele Bachmann has received the endorsement of arch conservative Phyllis Schlafly. How fun! An anti-feminist lady endorsing an anti-feminist lady—and womanhood, nor the particular attributes that being a strong woman in a misogynist culture both demands and reinforces, definitely has nothing to do with it FOR SURE, because that would be feminism, which is obviously garbage.
Speaking of strong ladies, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi knows Newt: "One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff." I believe the technical term for that is "oppo-research-a-go-go."
Obviously, conservatives don't give a fuck if Newt Gingrich snorted payola off an organic goat's tenderloin, but GOP elites have to be nervous about whether independent voters will be so sanguine about Candidate Gingrich's unsavory past. And present. And certain future.
On that "we'll take Newt, whatever" note, as Gingrich emerges as the clear frontrunner in Iowa, Gallup finds that "Republicans See Gingrich, Romney as 'Acceptable' Nominees." And they are the only two candidates deemed acceptable by more than 50% of respondents. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Curb the enthusiasm there, Republicans!
Speaking of Mitt Romney: Did you know he's a flip-flopper? It's true! I know, I was shocked. And not only does he lack integrity, it turns out he's shady and dishonest, not to mention unethical, as well. What an absolute surprise! I had no idea. Ha ha just kidding. I had ALL the ideas.
The leftovers: Gingrich asks Trump to create 'apprentice' program for poor schoolchildren. Of course he does. And Paul Krugman on the current state of American politics.
Question of the Day
What is the worst campaign advertisement you've ever seen? Please feel welcome to include link to YouTube, if available/applicable.
[TW for violence and implied violence.]
Since I don't want to snatch all the Willie Hortons out of all the Daisies, I'll go ahead and cast my vote for Dale Peterson's campaign ad for agriculture commissioner, 2010.
Big-Ass Bug, Part Deux
Following up on Melissa's post of a big-ass bug, I remembered a picture I took back in July 2000 when I was living and working in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We found a bug that nobody could identify except to say, "Whoa, holy shit; that is one big-ass bug!"
If there's someone out there who isn't averse to big-ass bugs and thinks they might be able to identify it, click here to see it.
For those of you who are not fans of big-ass bugs, I strongly advise against clicking that link.
To give a sense of scale, it's in a Tupperware sandwich container, which is probably 4" x 4" or so.
Picture of the Day
[Artist's rendering of the Earth-like planet known as Kepler-22b. (NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech)]
NASA has found a new planet outside Earth's solar system that is eerily similar to Earth in important aspects.Let's go ruin it!
Scientists say the temperature on the surface of the planet, known as Kepler-22b, is about a comfy 72 degrees (22 Celsius). Its star could almost be a twin of Earth's sun. It probably has water and land.
It was found in the middle of the habitable zone, making it the best potential target for life.
However, getting there would take some time: Kepler-22b is about 600 light years away.Damn.
Quote of the Day
"Is liberal Hollywood using class warfare to brainwash our kids?"—Fox News host Eric Bolling, discussing the "Communistic" new Muppet movie, the villain of which is a shady oil tycoon.
Please enjoy the resultant Twitter hashtag #GOPMuppetHearings here.
Iron Ladies
L-R: Chef Guarnaschelli, Chef Falkner, Chef Burrell.
One of my favorite things on television right now is the camaraderie between Chef Alex Guarnaschelli, Chef Elizabeth Falkner, and Chef Anne Burrell on this season of Next Iron Chef. I routinely despair at the lack of pop culture with stories about strong, talented, individual women who complement each other and aren't in competition for (male) attention—but here it is, on a reality food show, where the women are in actual competition and yet are clearly friends and colleagues with an enormous amount of respect for one another.
I love all of these women, and their individual styles. Their food always looks amazing, although sometimes I hardly notice, because I am so busy enjoying the opportunity to watch a group of women I admire, and lamenting the damnable rarity of such an event.
[Note: The results of last night's episode are off-topic for this thread, in case anyone hasn't seen it yet. No spoilers!]
Number of the Day
5.9%: The increase in carbon emissions in 2010.
Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.Whoops.
The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades.
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Pez dispensers.
Recommended Reading:
Cheryl: Rock, Paper, Scissors: Choosing between Race and Gender in Comics
Scatx: NPR Article on Siri Is Major Fail
Sarah: Cloning a Mammoth: Totally Gonna Happen
Captain Awkward: Derailing: How Not to Talk to People Who Are Telling You Something Sad
Tami: Gawker and Vulture: Why No Love for Georgia Peaches?
Deborah: The 43rd Down Under Feminists Carnival
TDW: Infographic of the Day
Issendai: WARNING: Purina Pet Food Has Started Making Pets Ill (It sounds like, at minimum, check your bags to see if there's a "chemical" smell before feeding it to pets, which seems to be a common experience among owners with sick animals. It's a good recommendation generally to give your pets' food a good sniff before serving.)
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Impossibly Beautiful
One of the basic (but unspoken) tenets of the Beauty Standard is that famous women (and men) must mask all indication of their humanity. No laugh lines, no frown lines, no blemishes, no evidence of aging, no having too much hair there or too little hair here, no fat, no sag, no varicose veins, no moles, no marks, no crooked toes, no imperfections no flaws no scars no errant freckles even if they are beautiful because no deviation from the arbitrary standards of Perfection.
It's a heinous enough expectation for the cover of a magazine, when an intern with Photoshop will be tasked with clumsily erasing all trace of documentation that a mortal human being exists behind the carefully constructed veneer. But these days, when half the population's walking around with an HD camera and a high-speed internet connection in their pockets, suddenly celebrities are expected to not be human even in person, even in extreme close-up.
Hence: BuzzFeed's "10 Scary Celebrity Close-Ups." I'm not going to provide a direct link, because fuck giving them traffic for that; you can find it easily enough if you're so inclined. It's a gallery consisting of extreme close-up images of nine women, with one close-up of Iggy Pop, as if everyone's holding Iggy Pop and the latest Hollywood ingenue to the same beauty standards.
This picture of Zooey Deschanel—whose indefatigable service as every hipster dude's Manic Pixie Dream Girl is now being rewarded with the predictable sneering backlash once the dudes who drooled over her discovered she had the temerity to not, as it turns out, be their private property—is typical of the gallery:
Granted, the grey bits rattling 'round my brainpan have been freed from The Matrix, so my perspective is very
I also, for the record, see a beautiful woman. But my opinion of Zooey Deschanel is irrelevant. What matters is that there's no such thing as an objective beauty standard.
And then there's this: It's incomprehensibly fucked up that evidence of a woman's humanity is considered "scary," by any means of observation. But this contempt for visible humanness in close-up reveals something extremely ugly about the nature of objectification: People who want to fuck Zooey Deschanel express repulsion at seeing her face up close. "Eww—you got intimacy all up in my remote objectification! Gross!"
The real problem with these images, and their insistent revelation of humanness, is not that they are "scary." It is that they challenge the viewer to embrace the humanity of women.
Which I suppose might be terrifying, if you're not used to thinking of women as human.
Enough already. Enough.
Kansas Update
Way back in July I posted about how Kansas hired Koch-bros. affiliated attorneys to defend itself in cases regarding its attacks on clinics and its de-funding of Planned Parenthood. At the time I noted:
Huh. I had no idea the state of Kansas had so much money laying around! Planned Parenthood, by the way, is being represented by pro-bono attorneys.Yesterday the Kansas City Star reported on just how much money the state has paid (so far!):
After about six months, the state has tallied $392,520 in legal bills stemming from attempts to restrict abortion that were pushed during the legislative session earlier this year.The state's Attorney General, Derek Schmidt, said they had to hire people since his office is overburdened.
The state spent $237,834 on private lawyers defending efforts to strip Planned Parenthood of federal family planning funds. It has laid out $94,380 defending new rules for abortion clinics.
And it has amassed $60,306 in legal bills over a new law that bars insurance companies from providing elective abortion coverage as part of their comprehensive plans.
[...]
Two firms are handling the lawsuits for the state.
Foulston Siefkin is representing the state in the Planned Parenthood case. The firm charges up to $300 an hour for litigation work and $115 an hour for paralegal services.
The law firm of former University of Kansas Law School Dean Steve McAllister — Thompson, Ramsdell & Qualseth — is representing the state in lawsuits challenging the new abortion clinic rules and the insurance restrictions.
McAllister’s firm charges up to $275 for litigation and $75 an hour for paralegal work.
So, earlier this year, while the state passed bullshit legislation that was guraranteed to be challenged in court, the state was also working on a budget. Here's a bit how that went:
Friday’s cuts include:And:
--A $50.2 million reduction in general state aid to education, which will require legislative action in order to coordinate that change with expected increases in health and human services caseloads.
--$2.3 million reductions each in Board of Regents system operating budgets and Social and Rehabilitation Services mental health care managed services.
--A $1.3 million reduction in State Finance Council funds dedicated to assuring Kansas government salaries are competitive with the private sector.
--A total $374,000 in reduced debt service costs and lowered operating budgets for the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals, the Kansas Attorney General’s office, the Kansas Art Commission and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
Republican leaders asserted that tax increases will be necessary in the budget, but the House budget did not include a tax increase.[35] Instead, the House budget lessened funds for public education by not replacing $172 million in federal stimulus dollars.So how is that working out? Pretty much how you might think:
Quietly, without fanfare, the 39-year-old emergency center for Johnson County youth in crisis at TLC closed in September.And:
In December, the 17-year-old old transitional program for disturbed Johnson County kids from teens up to 18 at TLC will also close.
The elimination of both programs is a result of statewide budget cuts.
[...]
In the meantime, Marillac, the other facility in the county that deals with youth in need of acute care, is facing severe cutbacks in its own programs. It, too, is trying to deal with major budget cuts.
Both TLC and Marillac exist for youth with severe psychiatric needs who have been referred to them by the Johnson County Mental Health Center.
Topeka — State budget cuts to public schools have resulted in fewer teachers and more crowded classrooms, according to statistics reported Friday by the Kansas Department of Education.But, hey, Kansas has plenty of money (nearly $400K for six months of work!) to spend hiring attorneys to defend anti-abortion legislation. Obviously that money couldn't be useful anywhere else in the state. Priorities!
The total number of teacher positions statewide in the current school year is 34,075.
That is a drop of 256 from last year and 1,363 since the 2008-09 school year total of 35,438.
Meanwhile, student enrollment has increased from 473,097 in 2008-09 to 482,798 in the current school year. That is an increase of 9,701 students. During that time, the Lawrence school district grew from 11,007 students to 11,613 students, an increase of 606 students.
The elimination of teacher positions coincides with cuts to school funding.
Here Are Some Neat Things to Read!
This is a good article about Chelsea Clinton in the New York Times. Too bad about that dud of a closing quote from Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, though. Amy Chozick should have given the last word to Chelsea Clinton, who says the most interesting things about Chelsea Clinton in the piece. She is very self-aware!
This is an extremely moving piece by Yasmine El Rashidi in the New York Review of Books, titled "Choosing Egypt's Future," about the elections in Egypt. Egypt's future remains uncertain, and it is refreshing to read the perspective of that uncertainty from a woman who stood in line six hours to vote, since so much of the available punditry, is, typically, provided by white male outsiders.
And this is a fun interview with comedian Jim Gaffigan, who is one of my favorites (and not just because we grew up about 10 minutes apart). I don't believe I've ever seen a male comedian give credit to his wife as a writing partner before, unless they were co-performers (e.g. Stiller and Meara), even though Jeannie Noth Gaffigan is certainly not the first woman whose writing talents have assisted a husband's career.
Priorities!
[Trigger warning for sexual assault]
I've been chewing on this for a day, and I still don't have much to say.
AP:
The Wisconsin Justice Department has warned organizations that help sexual assault victims to expect drastic reductions in state aid next year, a surprise move for an agency that has prided itself on capturing sexual predators.Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault (WCASA) [pdf]:
Justice Department officials informed service providers around the state this month it plans to cut grants from its Sexual Assault Victim Services program by 42.5 percent this year. The announcement blindsided service providers who rely on the grants to pay for therapy, crisis intervention and education. They expected cuts, they said, but never thought they would be so dramatic.
At a time when events around the country have focused attention on sexual assault, Wisconsin’s only grant program devoted to direct services for sexual assault victims is slated to be cut more than 40 percent in 2012.
The Sexual Assault Victim Services program (SAVS) grants are the sole state source of funds and therefore vital to sexual assault service providers’ ability to provide direct services to victims and their families including: 24-hour crisis response, victim advocacy, and criminal justice, legal and medical advocacy.
Unlike comparable programs in other states, SAVS has never received general purpose state revenue; it is only funded through a surcharge paid by perpetrators upon prosecution. A decline in the number of prosecutions has led to lower surcharge revenue.
A number of other state programs which fund critical services have been appropriately protected from these
budget cuts and lapses. [Interim WCASA Executive Director Pennie] Meyers contends SAVS needs to be added to that list.
That certainly seems like a reasonable suggestion.
Did I mention that the Republicans responsible for this garbage nightmare are largely pro-life? Because they want to protect the children and other traditional values? Traditional values like silencing rape victims? And protecting people who sexually assault the children (and adults) they're protecting? Did I?
Rebuilding Privilege
Speaking of Newt Gingrich (ugh, this job, where I have to write things like "speaking of Newt Gingrich," because I have to speak of Newt Gingrich), the candidate has released his first television campaign spot, which will begin running in Iowa today. It's called "Rebuilding the America We Love," although, as per the usual conservaspeak, that's just a dog whistle more honestly translated as "Rebuilding Privilege."
String music. Amber waves of grain. A white picket fence, and a porch with a US flag blowing gently in the breeze. Newt Gingrich: "Some people say the America we know and love is a thing of the past. I don't believe that." Majestic purple mountains. A white dude in a factory. Lots of sparks. (Did Michael Bay direct this shit?) "Because, working together, I know we can rebuild America." US flag. Ma (a white lady) sweeping porch of her white-shingled ma-and-pop business. "We can revive our economy and create jobs—" Steel mill. Sparks. "—shrink government and the regulations that strangle our businesses—" Young blonde white lady arranging flowers in her flower shop window. "—throw out the tax code, and replace it with one that is simple and fair." The Marine Corps drill team (just a sea of white dude faces) practicing the exhibition drill. "We can regain the world's respect, by standing strong again—" Statue of Liberty. White church in the countryside. "—being true to our faith—" Four young corporate types—two white women, one white man, and one black man. "—and respecting one another." White cowboy in slo-mo, lassoing steer. "We can return power to the people—" Statehouse. "—and to the states we live in—" White man's hand drifting across the golden tops of wheat in a field. "—so we'll all have more freedom—" Little white boy in classroom being taught by young white lady teacher. "—opportunity—" Silo backlit by sunrise. "—and control of our lives." Newt's face. "Yes, working together, we can and will rebuild the America we love." STRING MUSIC! "I'm Newt Gingrich, and I approve this message." (Oh, I bet you do.)[Via Andy.]
Primarily Gross
It's been so long since there was a Democratic incumbent in the White House that I forgot how completely goddamn boring primary season is when it's just a bunch of Republicans running around trying to out-stupid each other. Despite their desperate bid for my attention with no fewer than twelve thousand debates since June, I haven't managed to muster much energy or enthusiasm for their traveling sideshow, but I guess it's about time to discuss the epic garbage nightmare that is the potential candidacy of one of the reprobates from the field of failosaurs regurgitated from the bowels of the Republican establishment this year.
So here's the latest news: Herman Cain has suspended his campaign, while promising to "not go away." (It's okay; you can just go away. Really.) He will reportedly endorse Newt Gingrich today, who is now leading the polls among primary voters in Iowa. (He can also go away. And take Mitt Romney with him.)
It's coming down to Mitt vs. Newt. Either one would be colossally horrendo as president, and I don't imagine that one would be more of a danger to Obama in the general campaign than the other. They've both got their campaigning strengths and weaknesses, and neither one would be measurably stronger or weaker in debates: Newt Gingrich is a more confident debater, but Mitt Romney is less likely to say things like, "We should hire poor children to work at the bootstrap factory."
President Obama's biggest threat remains his own record—and the haunting echo of his own voice promising hope and change.
And, as ever, the media will be a wild card: Paul Krugman observes, both amusingly and depressingly: "All indications are, however, that Campaign 2012 will make Campaign 2000 look like a model of truthfulness. And all indications are that the press won't know what to do—or, worse, that they will know what to do, which is act as stenographers and refuse to tell readers and listeners when candidates lie."
Can't wait!
Open Thread
Hosted by the Stardust.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by awesome matchbook covers.
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!
(Don't forget to tip your bartender!)
Film Corner: Mission Make Me Pee My Pants
Say what you will about Tom Cruise (just don't say it here because it's not on-topic!), but the man is fearless like a brave thing made out of courage with lots of little daring bits all over it. Below is video from the upcoming fourth installment in his Mission Impossible series, in which Cruise does one of the most amazing stunts I've ever seen, dangling on a wire at the top of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai, a mile and a half off the ground.
Please note that if you don't like stomach-churning videos of people doing things at great heights, you should definitely not hit play on this video.
Text Onscreen: Tom Cruise Scales Burj Khalifa—A behind-the-scenes look at how Tom Cruise filmed his stunts on Dubai's Burj Khalifa during the making of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.I'm really excited for this film. I quite enjoy the Mission Impossible films, in no small part because Iain looooooooves them, and his boundless enthusiasm for each new one is truly infectious. Also: Sawyer!
Followed by: Images of Dubai, images of the looming Burj Khalifa, and images of Cruise on a wire, preparing for the stunt, accompanied by the "Mission Impossible" theme music.
Brad Bird, Director: We're a mile and a half above the earth, heh heh, on the tallest building on the planet—the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. And we're filming a scene where Tom Cruise is climbing on the outside of the building.
Dude Who Appears to Be the Stunt Coordinator: Okay, Tom, we're ready to go.
Followed by: Video of Tom Cruise stepping out of the building at its top, protected by only by a minimal safety harness.
Bird: This is just another day at work on Mission Impossible. [nervous chuckle]
Several People: Three-two-one-ACTION!
Followed by: Video of Tom Cruise LEAPING OFF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND SWINGING AROUND IT OMFG ALL THE BLOOD JUST RUSHED OUT OF MY BRAIN AND I FEEL LIKE I MIGHT FALL OVER.
Followed by: More video of Tom Cruise running all over the outside of this goddamn building, with "Mission Impossible" theme music, and then running and leaping out a window, and then I CAN'T EVEN TAKE IT HE IS SO HIGH UP OMFG TOM CRUISE YOU ARE MAKING ME GIGGLE NERVOUSLY AND UNCONTROLLABLY I AM SO SCARED FOR YOU EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU ARE STILL ALIVE BECAUSE THIS IS SO TERRIFYING AND ALSO IMPRESSIVE GOOD FOR YOU!
It's Not Just You
Comments look different all of a sudden, and they're loading only 5 at a time, with avatars, despite the fact I have "don't show avatars" selected, as always, under settings.
I just want to make it clear that I did not change settings to make avatars viewable without any warning to commenters who may have wanted to change their avatars if they would be made viewable to this community.
I'm not sure what is causing the glitch or when it will be fixed, but, in any case, I've increased the font size for now, so at least it's readable.
My apologizes for the inconvenience.
UPDATE: Okay, it looks like the avatars are gone again now, and the original design has been restored, thanks to Space Cowboy. Hopefully comments will start loading normally again soon.
Perfect
Trump to Moderate Republican Debate.
It's funny, because I've just been thinking the past few never that what the Republican primary needed was MORE DEBATES and also MORE DEBATES MODERATED BY WORLD-CLASS ABSURDITY MERCHANTS.
This Is (Soon To Be) a Real Thing in the Real World
MMMHop: A Hanson-brand beer based on their 1997 earworm "MMMBop," scheduled to hit store shelves near you early next year.
Zac announced the product during a talk at Oxford Union, where he also explained why there were so few Hanson products on the market: "What is vital is that Hanson merchandise is quality and not made solely with the purpose of profit. We have a board game and even a record player to play our last record on, but we will never make dolls, lunch boxes or toothbrushes that play our songs for example…It's vital our fans have trust in everything Hanson do."Cute!
I'm not much of a fan of beer myself, so I'm holding out for the Irene Cara-brand "What a Riesling!"
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by the splits.
Recommended reading:
Mannion: Ode to Joylessness
Pam: Herman Cain Launches Web Site Catering to Misogynists, Attacking 'Husbandless' Accusers
Andy: GOP Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Supports Marriage Equality
Jamelle: Hardly a Winning Performance
Jos: It's About Time for Some Trans Issues Wins
Echidne: On the Skills of Getting Elected vs. Governing
Susie: Drilled
sheridf: Reed-ing Gender Between the Lines
Leave your links in comments...
Quote of the Day
"Bigfoot dressed as a circus clown would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character."—An anonymous Republican insider, one of many "anonymous Republican insiders" who offer equally amusing assessments of candidate Gingrich, who has far less favor among the GOP establishment than he does among conservative voters generally, because people who know him know that he's a multidimensional garbage nightmare.
One Way To End A Survey Call
Scene: Last night, my home.
(Phone rings.)Hey, they were great cars.
ME: Hello?
SURVEY TAKER: Good evening. I'm from ______ Research conducting a consumer survey.
ME: Okay.
SURVEY TAKER: When you think of a brand of a luxury automobile, what name comes to mind?
ME: Pierce-Arrow.
SURVEY TAKER (long pause): Okay, sir, thank you.
(Click.)
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
So This Is Basically My New Favorite Thing
Preston Leatherman Dances with an iPod in Public: "I had this idea to go to a public place (in this case, the local shopping mall) and dance like no one's business. The only catch is, there is an iPod in my ear, so no one else around me can hear the music." LOL. The best!
Dancing with an iPod in Public: "All I Want for Christmas Is You"
[Via Gabe.]
Economic News Round-Up
Here's some of what I've been reading this morning [trigger warning for child abuse]...
The Hill—Senate Passes $662B Defense Bill After Deal on Detainee Language:
The Senate passed a $662 billion Defense bill Thursday evening after a long fight over how the U.S. military detains terror suspects.For more on the detainee legislation, see Glenn Greenwald, whose piece underscores why this is an economic issue: War is big business for US corporations, especially as war is increasingly subcontracted to profit-making enterprises. Forever war is forever money, for them.
The bill passed overwhelmingly 93-7, following an agreement reached late Thursday afternoon to add compromise language on the detention of U.S. citizens and terror suspects on U.S. soil.
Now the Defense bill goes to conference committee with the House, which had its own language on detaining terror suspects that must be reconciled with the Senate version.
It is not clear whether the change will satisfy the White House, which has threatened to veto the Defense bill over the detainee provisions.
The Obama administration expressed its opposition to the use of military detention within the United States, but also had concerns over the legislation tying the hands of federal law enforcement by mandating military custody and prosecution of al Qaeda members. The administration also opposes restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees.
CNBC—Economy Creates 120,000 Jobs, Rate Tumbles to 8.6%: "Job creation remained weak in the U.S. during November, with just 120,000 new positions created, though the unemployment rate slid to 8.6 percent, a government report showed Friday. The rate fell from the previous month's 9.0 percent, a move which in part reflected a drop in those looking for jobs. The participation rate dropped to 64 percent, from 64.2 percent in October. The actual employment level increased by 278,000. The total amount of those without a job fell to 13.3 million." Emphasis mine. It's not good news when the unemployment rate drops only because people are giving up.
New York Times—For Jobless, Little Hope of Restoring Better Days: "Even though the Labor Department is expected to report on Friday that employers added more than 100,000 jobs in November, a new study...to be released Friday by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, [shows] just 7 percent of those who lost jobs after the financial crisis have returned to or exceeded their previous financial position and maintained their lifestyles. The vast majority say they have diminished lifestyles, and about 15 percent say the reduction in their incomes has been drastic and will probably be permanent."
Texas Tribune—Abuse Reports in Texas Increase as Economy Falters:
More children are living in poverty than ever in Texas. About 1.7 million Texas children — 26 percent of the total population — live below the federal poverty level, according to United States census data released this week. Experts speculate that a key factor in the increase in reports of child abuse and neglect is the struggling economy; the number of reported cases of abuse has gone up 6 percent in Texas since 2008, before the recession.Texas is, of course, not the only state in which this is happening.
In Travis County, the number of new cases opened with Child Protective Services rose 36 percent from 2008 to 2011.
"In an economic downturn, when you're losing your job, it pushes you over the edge in terms of the resources you have both internally and externally to care for your kid," said Jane Burstain, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal research group.
...Child Protective Services, like most state agencies, was hit with severe cuts during the 2011 legislative session.
Child abuse prevention financing was slashed by 44 percent. And because the Legislative Budget Board did not increase financing for caseload growth or to support family services or relative caregivers, the agency will continue to operate on a budget designed in 2009. Shelters and facilities that care for children and provide services like domestic violence prevention and protective parenting classes are struggling to find ways to serve more families with far fewer dollars.
CNN—Fannie Mae, Banks Halt Foreclosures for the Holidays: "Happy holidays struggling homeowners! Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and several large mortgage lenders have pledged not to foreclose on delinquent borrowers during the [holiday] season. For homeowners with loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the moratorium will run from Dec. 19 to Jan. 2. During this time, legal and administrative proceedings for evictions may continue, but families will be allowed to stay in their homes, Fannie said in a statement. 'No family should have to give up their home during this holiday season,' said Terry Edwards, an executive vice president for Fannie Mae." Awwwwwwwww. God bless us, every one!
Nick Hanauer at Bloomberg—Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: "It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can't have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it's equally true that without consumers, you can't have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do. That's why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion's share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer. And that's what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years." This is just a great piece. A definite must-read.
Paul Krugman at the New York Times—Killing the Euro: "Can the euro be saved? Not long ago we were told that the worst possible outcome was a Greek default. Now a much wider disaster seems all too likely. even optimists now see Europe as headed for recession, while pessimists warn that the euro may become the epicenter of another global financial crisis. How did things go so wrong? The answer you hear all the time is that the euro crisis was caused by fiscal irresponsibility. Turn on your TV and you're very likely to find some pundit declaring that if America doesn't slash spending we'll end up like Greece. Greeeeeece! But the truth is nearly the opposite." Spoiler Alert! Austerity is disastrous. Whooooooooooops!
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to leave links to anything you're reading and/or writing in comments.
Question of the Day
If you were offered the choice between an afterlife over the design of which you could not exert control, or no afterlife at all, which would you choose?
Backlash Backfire
[This post originally ran in February, but the included video is making the rounds again, and I've gotten a bunch of emails about it, so here it is again. Enjoy!]
In August of 2007, the state of Iowa's prohibition on same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional. In 2008, the case for marriage equality went to the Iowa Supreme Court, and, in 2009, the Court unanimously ruled in favor of marriage equality, thus making same-sex marriage legal in Iowa.
So of course Republicans in the state House introduced an amendment to the state's constitution to outlaw it again—a futile gesture, since state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal flatly refuses to allow it to come up for a vote in the Senate. (Rock on.) But there were hearings nonetheless, because homobigots love to hear themselves talk in poorly appointed rooms on shitty microphones.
What they weren't counting on was providing a platform to 19-year-old Iowan Zach Wahls, who was raised by a same-sex couple and whose compelling testimony has gone viral, making a passionate appeal for marriage equality the most talked-about event of their stupid symbolic hearing. Whooooooops!
Take it away, Zach.
[Transcript below. H/T to everyone in the multiverse, and thanks to each and every one of you.]
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan, an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women.
My biological mom, Terri, told her grandparents that she was pregnant, that the artificial insemination had worked, and they wouldn't even acknowledge it. It wasn't until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson. Unfortunately, neither of them lived to see her married to her partner, Jackie, of 15 years, when they wed in 2009.
My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994; we actually have the same anonymous donor, so we're full siblings, which is really cool for me. Um, you know, and I guess the point is that our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family—you know, when I'm home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations. But, you know, we have our hard times, too—we get in fights, um, you know, actually, my mom Terri was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2000; it is a devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair, so we've had our share of struggles.
But, you know, we're Iowans; we don't expect anyone to solve our problems for us; we'll fight our own battles; we just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government.
Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same-sex marriage comes up quite frequently in classroom discussions. You know, and the question always comes down to, "Well, can gays even raise kids?" And the question, you know, the conversation gets quiet for a moment, because most people don't really have an answer—and then I raise my hand and say, "Actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I'm doing pretty well."
I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT; I'm actually an Eagle Scout; I own and operate my own small business. If I were your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I'd make you very proud.
I'm not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn't so different from yours. After all, your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, "You're married—congratulations!" No, the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other, to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones; it comes from the love that binds us. That's what makes a family.
So what you're voting here isn't to change us. It's not to change our families; it's to change how the law views us, how the law treats us. You are voting for the first time, in the history of our state, to codify discrimination into our constitution—a constitution that, but for the proposed amendment, is the least amended constitution in the United States of America. You are telling Iowans that some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.
So will this vote affect my family? Will it affect yours? Over the next two hours, I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But in my 19 years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple.
And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character.
Thank you very much. [applause]
Calgon, Take Me Away
Video Description: A dog lies on its back in a soapy bath, luxuriating, while its person scrubs its belly, because dogs know how to live.
[Via The Daily What.]
Big-Ass Bug
If you, like me, are a fan of big-ass bugs and think big-ass bugs are supercool, then you should definitely click this link, at which you will find some very cool pictures of the biggest-ass bug ever found. Who, by the way, is a big-ass female bug with a wingspan of seven inches and a weight equivalent to three mice.
If you are not a fan of big-ass bugs, I strongly advise against clicking on the link. You're welcome.
[Via.]
Quote of the Day
"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday."—Multimillionaire Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who has evidently never actually met any poor people, defending his endorsement of repealing child labor laws.
Via @AdamSerwer, who also notes that it's "More accurate to say poor children often have 'no one around them' because they frequently have one parent who is *always* working."
Again, I would just like to note that Newt Gingrich is one of the best candidates the Republican Party can find in a nation of 308 million people.
Top Chef: Texas Open Thread
Top Chef: Texas continues to exploit tired and boring Texican clichés: Last night there was a cookout at a campground. I guess. It looked like some benches abandoned in a random field to me. Wevs.
At this point, there are still a bunch a chefs I don't know. As usual, only the assholes seem to stand out. I haven't anyone to root for yet. There is also some Last Chance Kitchen thing that happens on Bravo's website to allow eliminated chefs back on the show. Theoretically, Top Chef: Texas could just go on forever this way. I hope everyone likes the Chris twins, because this season might never end! Oof. Discuss.
Spoilers below.
Good News!
Herman Cain, who was said to be reassessing his campaign after the news broke of his 13-year extramarital affair, has concluded that his campaign is DEFINITELY AWESOME and thus has put out a hot new campaign advert.
You know, I wasn't going to vote for him before, what with all the sexual harassment, cavernous void of personal ethics, comprehensive lack of competency, and general garbage ideology, but now that I see he's got the moxie to indirectly throw down a straw-gauntlet against imaginary presidents who hate America, I'm going to reassess my own campaign of resounding contempt.
Ha ha just kidding I'm for sure never voting for him or anyone in his stupid party of bootstrap-hollering dirtbags.
Anyway! To the video!
Herman Cain in voiceover, over patriotic music and images of a busy factory where the forklifts sport US flags: The engine of economic growth is the business sector. Now this is good. [images turn to a still factory, as the music segues to an ominously howling wind] This is bad. [cut to Cain onscreen, with "I Am America" music from previous ads] Our fifteen trillion dollar national debt is killing our children's future, and it's not going to get any better until we put an executive into the executive office. [more scenes of busy factory] I've spent a lifetime creating jobs, and, if you make me America's CEO, we the people will take this country back. We can do this. I'm Herman Cain. I'm running for president. I approve this message, and I will never apologize for the greatness of the United States of America.I would just like to note that Herman Cain is one of the best candidates the Republican Party can find in a nation of 308 million people.
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley Q. McEwan, Professional Goofball.
Lest anyone mistake this for a fleeting moment in world-class goofballery serendipitously captured on not-film, Dudley was asleep in this position for a good ten minutes or so, before he flopped onto his side with his tongue hanging out and began to snore.
World AIDS Day- A Challenge
Yesterday, Melissa sent me a link to this story, saying that this probably wasn’t news to me as I work for an HIV/AIDS services organization, but that I might want to write about it. I decided to save the post for today, as it is World AIDS Day (although as we say at my agency, “Every day is World AIDS Day.”). And yes, reading this isn’t particularly surprising to me (although I was blown away by the discrimination statistics), but the numbers are still shocking:
Medical progress now ensures that HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence, but only for those who can access good medical care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that almost three out of four Americans with HIV are not receiving enough medicine or regular health care “to stay healthy or prevent themselves from transmitting the virus to others.” Out of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. have HIV, 850,000 aren’t receiving regular treatment to keep the virus at a low enough level to prevent transmission or hurt their own health and 240,000 Americans don’t even know they’re infected with HIV.Indeed, as the first sentence states, HIV is now a very manageable medical condition if you can access care. Access to a knowledgeable medical provider is very important, but without access to medications, the phrase “HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence” doesn’t hold much water. With so many people lacking insurance that covers prescriptions, and with so many states creating ADAP (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) waiting lists, access to the medication needed to combat HIV infection is a very real problem. For people not living in the USA, access to medications may be impossible. Many of the problems that made HIV so difficult to combat early in the epidemic are still very present today, such as lack of education and stigma.
Recently, I was talking with a co-worker and he was mentioning to me a talk he had recently with a rather prominent HIV activist. In this discussion, he was shocked to hear that this person was very misinformed about a risk behavior that could lead to possible HIV infection. Hearing this was very surprising to me as well, and reminded me that even those of us who are touched by HIV on a daily basis always have something new to learn. I bring this up not to waggle a shaming finger at this person, or anyone who may lack certain knowledge about the disease, but to illustrate that all of us should be educating ourselves.
So. Here is my challenge to you, dear reader, on World AIDS Day.
First, if you are able to, get tested. Know your status.
Second, educate yourself about HIV and try to spread at least one fact about HIV to people you know. Here is my fact for you.
When discussing how HIV is working inside someone, the most common terms you will hear are “CD4 count (or t-cells) and “viral load.” Basically, CD4 cells help your body fight off disease, and viral load refers to HIV virus cells. Doctors measure the number of these cells in a cubic millimeter of blood (a small drop). So, the goal is a high CD4 count and a low viral load. Sometimes you will hear people say they are “undetectable.” This means their viral load is so low, the HIV cells cannot be detected in that drop of blood.Until there is a cure, knowing your status, educating yourself, and eliminating stigma are the best ways to fight HIV/AIDS.
However, this does not mean the person is cured of HIV, or that the HIV cells are gone.
And most importantly, even with an undetectable viral load, it is still possible to infect someone else with HIV. Although it is more difficult to contract HIV from someone with an undetectable viral load, it is still possible. This is why we encourage people to always practice safer sex.
Harmful Communication, Part One: Intent Is Magic
[Trigger warning for harmful language, emotional manipulation, rape culture.]
This is the first post in a series about language. Specifically, harmful language.
We talk about physical and emotional abuse a lot in this space, and, to some extent, we also talk about abusive language: Under the "this shit doesn't happen in a void" refrain, I've frequently addressed hate speech, and we acknowledge that bullying is abusive even without any physical violence.
We also recognize, in discussions of rape culture and in conversations about institutional oppressions, that systemic harm is not limited to physical violence, but additionally manifests as harmful language in the form of rape jokes or slurs or violent rhetoric, as examples.
In discussions of privilege, we also begin to get at the ways in which language that is not explicitly violent or marginalizing can also be oppressive, and we recognize how a failure to own one's privilege using accountability deflecting language extends and exacerbates the hurt, anger, and alienation caused by privilege and expressions thereof.
The language of defensiveness, projection, emotional auditing, non-apology apologies, false choices, and magical intent is ubiquitous in social justice spaces—and pretty much everywhere else.
This series is intended to really examine how this brand of accountability deflecting language manifests as abuse in everyday interactions with the people around us. In the same way that discussions of consent as a broad concept beyond sexual interactions have inspired people to reconsider other consent issues, even something as common as posting photographs online, I hope that this series can make us more sensitive to what we're actually communicating when we engage accountability deflecting language, and underline why it is inherently harmful.
We begin with Magical Intent.
Magical Intent is the principle by which someone who has said or done something offensive, hurtful, rage-making, marginalizing, and/or otherwise contemptible argues that the person to whom they've said or done it has no right to be offended, hurt, enraged, alienated, and/or otherwise disdainful because their intent was not to generate that reaction.
In other words: "I didn't intend for you to feel that way, so if you do feel that way, don't blame me! My intent magically inoculates me from responsibility for what I actually said and how it was received!"
This is one of the most harmful—and common—manifestations of accountability deflecting language, rooted in the false contention that intent is more important than effect. It is a most curious habit, given that most of us would readily acknowledge that "I didn't mean it" isn't an excuse for not having to apologize when we bump into someone or accidentally step on someone's foot. Yet we have nonetheless created an entirely different standard for things we say that inadvertently hurt other people.
Intent does not, in fact, magically render us unaccountable from the effects of our communication, no more than not intending to step on someone's toes magically renders us unaccountable from the effects of our movement. Pain caused unintentionally is still authentic pain.
And, although it's true that sometimes our communication is simply misunderstood, more frequently, the (mis)communications that led to the invocation of magical intent are the result of implicit intent not actually matching what is being explicitly communicated. To illustrate what I mean, some examples:
Example One: Alex has a PhD in Subjectology. Jamie knows that Alex has a PhD in Subjectology, yet, during a discussion of Subject, Jamie, who has an interest in and is reasonably knowledgeable about Subject, condescendingly explains basics of Subject to Alex without regard for Alex's demonstrable proficiency. Alex expresses that Jamie's insistence on explaining basics makes Alex feel as though Jamie does not respect Alex's competency or intellectual capacity. Jamie, whose intent was actually to impress Alex, insists that hir intent was not to make Alex feel that way. Alex makes a valiant attempt to explain why Jamie behaving as though Alex doesn't know the basics of Alex's professional field is disrespectful, at which point Jamie gets miffed, reiterates that the intent was not to make Alex feel bad, accuses Alex of looking for things to get mad about, and misrepresents Alex's good faith attempt to address demeaning language as a personal attack on Jamie.
Thus, what had started out as an inadvertent slight becomes a harmful exchange, as Jamie refuses to acknowledge that the effect of the action irrespective of its intent was hurtful to Alex, and deflects accountability by casting Alex as unreasonable.
Example Two: Kelly and Terry are friends. Kelly is fat; Terry is thin. Terry routinely expresses disgust with hir body by saying things like, "I am so fat" and "This cellulite is disgusting." Kelly tells Terry that such expressions are hurtful and make hir wonder what Terry must think of hir, since zie is much fatter than Terry. Terry, whose intent was actually to solicit support and validation from Kelly, insists that hir intent was not to make Kelly feel that way. Kelly makes a valiant attempt to point out that even if it was not intended to make hir feel bad about hir body, it does, because Terry is associating fatness with something bad. Terry reacts defensively, reiterating that the intent was not to make Kelly feel bad and accusing Kelly of being jealous and oversensitive.
Thus, what had started out as a misguided attempt to connect becomes a harmful exchange, as Terry refuses to acknowledge that, despite a lack of intention to be hurtful, zie was hurtful nonetheless, and deflects accountability by projecting hir void of sensitivity onto Kelly as an abundance of oversensitivity.
Example Three: Jesse has a habit of casually using the rhetoric of sexual violence ("I got raped by that ATM fee"), even around hir friend Jordan, who was raped. Jordan has asked Jesse not to use those phrases around hir, explaining that they are triggering and make hir feel unsafe, to which Jesse agreed. Jesse nonetheless slipped up, and Jordan expressed hurt both over the use of the phrase and also over the disregard for hir previous request. Jesse, whose intent was not to hurt Jordan, responds belligerently and insists zie just forgot and hir intent wasn't to hurt Jordan and doesn't Jordan know that? Jordan says zie does know that, or else they would not still be friends, but adds that it was hurtful all the same. Jesse storms off in a huff, but not before hurling another accusation of bad faith at Jordan.
Thus, what had started out as a hurtful mistake becomes a harmful exchange, as Jesse refuses to own hir mistake or acknowledge that the effect was to disregard the feelings of an ostensibly valued friend, then further escalates the situation by attributing to Jordan accusations of ill will that Jordan did not make.
In the first example, Jamie's implicit intent was to shape Alex's perception of hir, but Jamie's explicit communication was a display of hir knowledge of Subject. In the second example, Terry's implicit intent was to elicit validation and fish for a compliment from Kelly to assuage Terry's anxiety about hir body, but Terry's explicit communication was a negative expression about fat. In the third example, Jesse's implicit intent was merely to communicate a frustration about something, but hir explicit communication went beyond that to include triggering language that broke an existing friendship agreement with Jordan.
In all three cases, there was a significant gap between intended communication and actual communication, leaving room for a grave misunderstanding.
Now, mismatches between intended communication and actual communication happen all the time, even when one endeavors to communicate as straightforwardly as possible, and it's not always a problem. (Sometimes, in fact, it is a source of great humor.) But a harmful exchange is most likely when the discord arises from seeking something for oneself without empathizing with how it's being received by the person from whom one is seeking it.
That's the danger in trying to communicate need in indirect ways. It's easy to lose sight of what you're conveying tangentially, because you're so focused on accessing approbation, reassurance, validation, support, the placation of internal distress because you know you've fucked up, or whatever else for which you're searching.
And in instances where it begets an unintentional offense, the worst possible response is to try to shift accountability to the recipient of the communication.
It's an understandable impulse: Deflecting accountability—that is, asking the listener to be responsible for the genesis of the hurt, because they misunderstood your intent—feels a lot better than being accountable.
But seeking accountability-free absolution from whom you've wronged, asking to be let off the hook so you can let yourself off the hook, only serves you—it does not serve the person that you've hurt.
It is not merely unfair (although it is that, too) to deflect accountability by casting someone to whom you've done wrong as unreasonable, oversensitive, or alleging malice ("How could you think I intended to hurt you?!"), when they are being or doing no such thing. It is abusive.
And it is abusive because it is emotionally manipulative.
That's a difficult notion to accept for most of us, because most of us have engaged in this type of harmful communication at some point in our lives, even if it's not a regular habit. Even being presented with the idea that common defensiveness can be abusive is likely to elicit, in some readers, a magical intent response: I don't intend to abuse or manipulate people, so there's no way I'm doing it!
But that's why this conversation is so important—because a lack of intent to harm doesn't guarantee that one will never harm.
The convention of magical intent seeks to oblige a harmed person into accepting accountability for our fuck-ups. It asks them to accept that their feelings are irrational, because what matters is what we intended them to feel.
Which brings us to the auditing and asserting ownership of someone else's emotions. And that will be Part Two.
[Note: It is not incidental that, in all examples provided, the harmed parties responded to unintentional offenses done by trusted people with the good faith assumption that there was no intent to harm even when harm was done. As all communications, this particular issue has two sides: One is assuming good faith in criticism when deserved, and the other is assuming good faith in response when approached thus.]
