What one Constitutional Amendment would you propose, irrespective of its chances for being adopted?
(Non-US Shakers, please feel welcome to propose either a US Constitutional Amendment, or an equivalent piece of legislation in your country of origin/residence.)
Question of the Day
Absolutism
I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but it's interesting to hear someone who is anti-abortion like Ross Douthat decry the "absolutism" of liberals like Ted Kennedy who was pro-choice -- the idea being that women have a right to make the choice about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and therefore may, without coercion from either side, make up their own mind -- while saying that his sister, the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver, was pro-life and therefore not an absolutist when it came to reproductive rights.
Pro-choice means exactly that: you have the right to choose, and assuming that because a woman has the right to have an abortion does not automatically mean she will have one. The only thing that should be "absolute" about it is that the choice should be hers and those she chooses to seek counsel from, be it her family, her spiritual counselor, or anyone else she decides to have a say in it, not some absolute stranger who stands on the sidewalk outside a clinic waving a sign, a bible, or a gun.
Cross-posted.
Quote of the Day
"I'm not entirely sure that Dick Cheney's predictions on foreign policy have borne a whole lot of fruit over the last eight years in a way that have been either positive or, to the best of my recollection, very correct."—White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, quite rightly implying that the media is wasting its time paying attention to anything the former veep and current concern troll has to say on foreign policy.
Blogginz Semi-Daily Dumpus
Hey, assholes! Last night I was over at Shakes Manor to watch shitty awesome movies like Conan the Destroyer and eat some delicious 'za, when I told Liss I had envisioned a project I like to call "Tron Voight." This morning, she sent me this:
Absolutely perfect. The lesson is this, Shakers: Your dream, too, can become a reality.
Rape is Hilarious, Part 35
[Trigger warning.]
Really, Ricky Gervais? Really?
Ricky Gervais has hit back at critics of a controversial joke about drink-driving in his new stage act - insisting the gag is "justified comedically".Okay, first of all, the headline for this item is "Gervais Defends Drink-drive Gag." Yeah, uh, I don't think the drunk-driving part is the most objectionable part of this "joke."
The British funnyman launched his new stand-up show, Science, in Scotland in August, but the routine caused a stir when a reviewer picked up on a punchline about the consequences of driving a car while drunk.
Now Gervais has spoken out to defend his craft - insisting that, although the joke is "a big taboo", the reviewer for U.K. newspaper The Independent misrepresented what was said and twisted its meaning.
In a posting on his blog, Gervais writes: "I do the following joke live when talking about the perils of drink-driving: 'I've done it once and I'm really ashamed of it. It was Christmas - I'd had a couple of drinks and I took the car out. But I learned my lesson. I nearly killed an old lady. In the end I didn't kill her. In the end, I just raped her.'
"The joke clearly revolves around the misdirection in the term "nearly killed", suggesting "narrowly avoided". But, as it turns out, "nearly killed" means something much, much worse. A big taboo I'll admit, but justified comedically I feel.
"This is how a journalist in The Independent recounted the joke: 'I nearly knocked this old woman over... but I didn't. I raped her.' He then went on to say how disgusting and unfunny that joke is. He's right. It is both disgusting and unfunny. But that's his joke, not mine. It's nothing like mine. It contains no joke at all. He has shown how qualified he is to talk about humour."
Secondly, if I'm understanding correctly (and whilst giving Gervais the most favorable interpretation of his defense), Gervais is attempting to justify the joke by saying he's not making fun of rape, but merely using it as an example of something "much, much worse" than narrowly avoiding being killed by a drunk driver. The comedy is in the misdirection, he insists, not in treating rape as something inherently funny.
Okay, fine, whatfuckingever. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree any comic could use rape in that way without a significant portion of the audience laughing at the idea of the theoretical rape itself (see: the rest of this series), let's just concede his point for the sake of argument.
Sure, rape itself isn't the punchline. Fine. So then I have only one question: Why don't you give a fuck about the rape survivors in your audiences, Ricky Gervais?
As I've said before (and will no doubt be obliged to say again): I will never understand why anyone wants to be the total douchebag who blindsides someone by evoking her (or his) memories of being raped, in the guise of "humor."
I can't even tell you how pissed I'd be if I paid to go see Ricky Gervais only to discover I'd laid out hard-earned money (money earned challenging the rape culture, no less!) to see a show that included this "joke," because—silly me—I don't like being slapped upside the head with rape jokes when I'm trying to have a good time.
Quite honestly, it's not even because I particularly find such "jokes" personally triggering anymore; I generally just find them pathetic and inexplicable. I'm more bothered by the fact that this kind of humor (irrespective of the comic's intentions) normalizes and effectively minimizes the severity of rape and thus perpetuates the rape culture.
And I'm bothered by the thought of a woman who's recently been raped, who's just experienced what may be the worst thing that will ever happen to her, and goes to see her favorite comedian and have a much-needed laugh—only to hear him using that horrible, life-changing thing as part of a "joke."
I still don't understand—and I don't believe I ever will—why anyone wants to be the guy who sends that shiver down her spine, who makes her eyes burn hot with tears at an unwanted memory while everyone else laughs and laughs.
Millions of people who have survived sexual trauma, particularly (but not exclusively) those who survived multiple events or whose assault was accompanied by significant non-sexual violence, have post-traumatic stress disorder. (I am one of them.) This means that many of the victims of the most brutal rapists are the most likely, when triggered, to suffer a physical reaction. It is the height of callous indifference to prioritize a "joke" over the very real possibility of causing a survivor to have a panic attack in the middle of a full auditorium, left with the decision of staying put and suffering acute anxiety or standing up and walking out, taking the risk of possibly catching the comic's attention and becoming the center of attention at the worst conceivable moment.
Isn't that just fucking hilarious?
I'd love to hear how Gervais finds that "justified comedically." I suspect the explanation would be one of the many tiresome variations of "everybody's offended by something," even though any decent person with a shred of intellectual honesty knows, whether they'll publicly admit it or not, that being involuntarily and physically triggered is not the same thing as being offended.
This is hugely disappointing. Not merely that the joke was made, but that it's being so vociferously defended. The painful irony is that Gervais' defense of his "joke" is itself dependent on acknowledging that rape is a horrendous thing, and yet he's still willing to include it, and defend its inclusion, in a punchline for a general audience, which certainly includes rape survivors, people who paid money to go out and laugh—not have the grim specter of their violation invoked for yuks.
The thing is, I'm not sure he really understands how heinous rape actually is. I don't believe any man who will cast himself as a rapist, even (and perhaps especially) for a laugh, has any clue what they're saying. If they really understood what a (conscious) person being raped felt, looking up at the person forcing himself on hir, the abject terror, feeling his hot breath on hir neck, the stomach-churning revulsion, listening to him grunting and groaning, the red hot anger, struggling and clawing and resisting and succumbing and already feeling the creeping blame, the shame cutting through me like a knife, the horror of it, the unimaginable horror, oh god I can't believe this is happening, no goddamned person would ever cast himself as a rapist for a fucking joke. Not someone who understood. Not someone who'd ever even tried to understand.
[H/T to Shaker Jen. Rape is Hilarious: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four.]
Ya Know—For Kids!
At Gizmodo, Jesus Diaz says: "It rotates. It has blinking lights, a disco ball, and a pole. And it's probably one of the wrongest toys you can give to any girl." He also notes that, unlike the USB pole dancer, "this one is actually for kids." Delightful!
And, lest anyone misunderstand that I have a problem with this toy because I'm slut-shaming actual living, breathing, real-life pole-dancing ladies: No, I'm not. My objection to this item is that it introduces as a fun activity a sex act to which a child cannot consent and actively seeks to sexualize children, specifically girls, and specifically in an objectified and submissive sexual role.
[H/T to Shaker Roro80.]
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, proud sponsors of the "Dictionaries for Beck" literacy program.
Recommended Reading:
Pizza Diavola: I Wish [trigger warning]
Echidne: Meanwhile, in Afghanistan
LeMew: Useful Idiot of the Day
Jamison: What the WaPo's National Organization for Marriage Profile Left Out
Cycads: Purdah
And Happy Blogiversary to BAC!
Leave your links in comments...
In Which I Substitute A Chain-Mail Questionaire For An Actual Post
These things get passed around fairly often, and I tend to ignore them. Usually, my answer would be "None of your god-damned business" to every question on one of these things. But today, an earlier respondent filled in #56 with "definitely not Deeky" so I went ahead and filled mine in. Out of spite. At Liss' urging I share this with you. Still, I think, the answers here are none of your god-damned business, but I'm in a giving mood, so there you have it.
Welcome to the 2009 edition of getting to know your Friends. Blah blah blah:
1. What time did you get up this morning? one of the cats woke me up about 4:30
2. Diamonds or pearls? diamonds are a girl's best friend
3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema? Inglourious Basterds
4. What is your favorite TV show? Breaking Bad
5. What do you usually have for breakfast? nothing
6. What is your middle name? Ramón
7. What food do you dislike? McDonalds
8. What is your favorite CD at moment? Narrow Stairs by Death Cab For Cutie
9. What kind of car do you drive? Saturn
10. Favorite sandwich? club sandwich
11. What characteristic do you despise? piety
12. Favorite item of clothing? my blue necktie
13. If you could go anywhere in the world on vacation, where would you go? Prague
14. Favorite brand of clothing? Kenneth Cole
15. Where would you retire to? Prague
16. What was your most memorable birthday? 2002
17. What is your favorite sport to watch? I hate sports
18. Furthest place you are sending this? St. Louis
19. Person you expect to send it back first? who knows?
20. When is your birthday? November
21. Are you a morning person or a night person? night
23. Pets? ten fish, various species
24. Any new and exciting news you'd like to share with us? nope
25. What did you want to be when you grow up? an astronaut
26. How are you today? overdressed
27. What is your favorite candy? peanut butter cups
28. What is your favorite flower? aster
29. What is a day on the calendar you are looking forward to? none, at the moment
30. What are you listening to right now? "I Want a Boy for My Birthday" by the Cookies (from 1963)
31. What was the last thing you ate? filet mignon
32. Do you wish on stars? nope
33. If you were a crayon, what color would you be? vermillion
34. How is the weather right now? how would I know? I'm stuck in a basement with no windows.
35. The first person you spoke to on the phone today? no one yet
36. Favorite soft drink? Cactus Cooler™
37. Favorite restaurant? A.J.'s steakhouse, Las Vegas
38. Real hair color? Reddish-brown
39. What was your favorite toy as a child? my Chewbacca action figure (because he was taller than the rest)
40. Summer or winter? Fall
41. Hugs or kisses? please don't touch me, thanks
42. Chocolate or Vanilla? vanilla covered in chocolate
43. Coffee or tea? coffee
44. Do you want your friends to email you back? not particularly
45. When was the last time you cried? I don't recall
46. What is under your bed? a suitcase full of letters from my husband
47. What did you do last night? moved furniture around
48. What are you afraid of? not much
49. Salty or sweet? no preference
50. How many keys on your key ring? two
51. How many years at your current job? six
52. Favorite day of the week? none
53. How many towns have you lived in? nine
54. Do you make friends easily? I'm a misanthrope
55. How many people will you send this to? not sure yet
56. How many will respond? see # 44
The Nightmare I Built My Own World to Escape—My Terrible Bargain
by Shaker The White Lady
Melissa's post 'The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck,' and all the posts that followed it, really struck a chord with me, because like so many of us here, I have had to strike my own terrible bargain. Like Lauredhel, my own terrible bargain was made in the context of my disability.
I say that I made this terrible bargain, but in reality it was made for me. I wasn't consulted about whether I wanted to be disabled: The decision was made for me, and I was left to deal with the consequences. These consequences play out every minute of every day…for me there is no respite, not even when I walk into my own home at night.
Most people don't even think about turning a tap on without hurting their hand. I don't have that luxury. I don't have the privilege of slipping a coat on in three seconds. I am not as physically strong as other people in my family; my mind doesn't process information so quickly. Because of this, they regularly make me into the butt of jokes. Perhaps some people feel able to relax and be themselves with their families, but I am not one of these lucky people.*
Every year at about this time, because I am in receipt of funding for disabled students, I get into arguments with my family. One close family member is completely against any form of 'positive discrimination' (what US readers will call 'affirmative action'). They feel it gives some students an unfair advantage. Instead of backing me up and telling this person that they are wrong, the rest of the family shuts me down, and tells me not to be so emotional.
I get emotional because: Hey, you know what? This isn't some intellectual exercise; this is MY LIFE we're talking about. But they choose not to see that, in favour of having a quiet evening.
I've tried protesting this, but it is the same scenario as above. I have no power in the situation. I rely on my family for almost everything, including transportation. Without my family to drive me in and out of town, I would spend up to four hours and five pounds a day travelling in and out to my destination, so an effective means of silencing me is to threaten to ban me from the car. If I show how hurt and humiliated I am, this is the response.
At university, I have had staff interrupt me in the middle of a sentence, which is problematic, beyond just being rude, given my particular disability. I have been contacted on my mobile by staff despite requests I not be. I have had my complaints dismissed and have been lectured to get used to decisions being made for me contrary to my wishes.
To paraphrase a sentence from Lauredhel's post, there are always people who say that you can speak up, but, as the saying goes, words are cheap. Theoretically, I could speak up. I could go to a higher authority and complain that staff have overstepped their boundaries, but the problem is that in this particular relationship, I don't have any real power. The facility where they work is the only way for me to get the funding I need, to get the help I need to function as a proper university student. If I complain, I run the risk of getting the help taken away from me.
I don't mean that they could literally cut my funding. I don't think they have that power, anyway. What I mean is they could make my life very difficult indeed. They could 'forget' to sign documents that mean that the person who takes notes for me in class gets paid. They could also conveniently forget to send off the forms that secure funding. Yes, I know, people would always say that they would never dare do such a thing, that to deny help to a student would be more than their job's worth, but what if they did? Even if people took steps to sort the mess out, life from day to day in the university environment would already have become difficult, if not impossible.
This then, is the terrible bargain in my life. To go back to Lauredhel's post, not all people mean well. The old saying that power corrupts is back in business, and while these people are rarely in positions of absolute power, they definitely have been corrupted by the little that they have. It makes me sad, because not everyone I have met has been like this. There are a few good people in my life, but I can't afford to trust them, because what if they turn out to be like others before them?
I don't trust you. I can't trust you. I am sorry for it, but I have learned this lesson from people who earned my trust, only to betray it later by taking advantage of their power over me, because they know I need them more than they need me.
I wrestle with this simple truth: How do I know I can trust you to do what is right?
---------------------------
*Important note: My family (with a few possible exceptions) are the most wonderful people I could hope for. Unfortunately, they are human. They are not perfect. Nobody is.
[Terrible Bargain: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six.]
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five, Strip Six, Strip Seven, Strip Eight, Strip Nine, Strip Ten, Strip Eleven, Strip Twelve, Strip Thirteen, Strip Fourteen, Strip Fifteen, Strip Sixteen, Strip Seventeen, Strip Eighteen. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
News From Ft. Worth
Following up on a post I wrote a couple months ago, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has fired three agents involved in the June raid on a gay bar.
As you may recall, the raid happened to coincide with the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, and left one patron in critical condition.
Two agents were fired for failing "to report that they used force when arresting the customer or that he was seriously injured" and for "participating in the raid without their supervisor's approval, disrupting the business during the raid and wearing improper attire." Their supervisor was fired for failing "to ensure that the agents submitted a report on using force during the arrest, did not take appropriate action after learning they didn't wear proper attire during the raid and did not notify supervisors that multiple arrests had been made that night."
Two others were also disciplined.
A report addressing whether the agents' use of force was appropriate during the raid is expected to be released in September.
C is for Can't Spell
This week I've been telling you, "Ask questions. Ask questions." [flips through charts] Here are all the questions we have from just today. We have more. We have more you'll find 'em on the website at Glenn Beck dot com. [runs over to chalkboard on which is written:Okay, here's a question: Do they have any dictionaries over there at Fox News, you giant dumbass?
* OBAMA
* LEFT-INTERNATIONALIST
* GRAFT
* ACORN STYLE ORGANIZATIONS
* REVOLUTIONARIES
* HIDDEN AGENDAS
and turns toward chalkboard with chalk] I told you that we were gonna, we were gonna talk about these things. We're gonna talk about Obama [circles O in "Obama" on chalkboard], the Left [circles L in "left"], internationalists [circles I in "internationalist"], graft [circles G in "graft"], ACORN-style organizations [circles A in "ACORN"], revolution [circles R in "revolutionaries"], and hidden agenda [circles H in "hidden"].
O-L-I-G-A-R-H. [writing letters as he speaks] One letter is missing. Why did I select these words? Because ACORN selects tides (?); they all select their, their words first and then tie 'em all together into one word. Oligarch! [underlines "oligarh"] The one that's missing is "Y." [writes a Y at the end of the word, to make "oligarhy"]
I don't know if we're turning into an oligarchy or what we're turning into. But unless you ask why, we're gonna transform into something! Ask questions—now!
[H/T to Iain.]
Actual Headline
[Trigger warning.]
Man poisoned wife in "ill thought-out" act of love:
A British pensioner who tried to poison his estranged wife so he could rekindle her love by nursing her back to health [has] received a 350-day prison sentence, suspended for two years, the Press Association reported. Judge Robert Brown also imposed an 18-month supervision order at Preston Crown Court.Okay, first of all, he didn't try to poison her: He did poison her. He dropped mercury in her tea "at least five times," causing her to suffer "symptoms including forgetfulness, indigestion and headaches." The whole point is that he wanted to make her sick, and he did.
Secondly, THAT IS NOT AN ACT OF LOVE!!! A man who poisons his estranged wife in order to make her ill and vulnerable and dependent on someone for care, hoping that someone is him, isn't committing an act of love—he's committing a criminal act of extreme stupidity and voracious selfishness so profound that it is, in fact, the very opposite of love, prioritizing as it does his own needs over her life, which he is eminently willing to risk for his own gain.
Way to go, Reuters. There isn't enough conflation between "love" and "men doing violence to women" in our culture already. Men stalk women because they "love" them. Men hit women because they "love" them. Men rape women because they "love" them. Men kill their partners (and children) because they "love" them.
Enough.
Contact Reuters.[H/T to Shaker Gegi.]
Feel the Homomentum!
UK Edition: Lesbians given equal birth rights:
Women in same-sex relationships can now register both their names on the birth certificate of a child conceived as a result of fertility treatment.There's no information on when the same right be extended to gay male partners using a surrogate, for example, and same-sex partners of both sexes who adopt, but that's certainly in the pipeline.
Female couples not in a civil partnership but receiving fertility treatment may also both be registered.
The law change applies to female couples in England and Wales who were having fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009.
...Stonewall's Head of Policy and Research Ruth Hunt said that as a result of the law change, life for lesbian families "isn't only fairer, it's also much easier".
She added: "As the law improves to provide further equality, knowing your new rights will help people make full use of the services they're entitled to. And, if discrimination occurs, the same knowledge can help them demand fair treatment.
"Now lesbian couples in the UK who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers."
Even in Blighty, there's got to be conservative ding-a-lings warbling about the sanctity of marriage and whataboutthechildrenz:
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told the BBC that the move undermined the traditional family model.MADNESS! What's next?! Travel to THE MOON?!
She said: "If we want to build a stable society, a mother and father and children works as the best model.
"We should be striving towards repairing and reinforcing marriage. I think this move sends out the exact opposite message."
...Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, criticised the move, telling the Daily Mail that the change would "create a legal fiction around the parentage of the children" which would then result in a "legal minefield" when it came to issues of maintenance and inheritance.
He was supported by Labour MP Geraldine Smith, who said: "To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness."
MP Nadine Dorries, Dr. Peter Saunders, and MP Geraldine Smith then collectively pooped their pants.
[H/T to Shaker The Bald Soprano.]
What The Hell?
Shaker gogo
Happy first day of school, kids!.
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, Talonas, and The Great Indoors.]
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
I loved Uchenna & Joyce so much, and hated Rob & Amber and Ron & Kelly so thoroughly, that I felt like I won the Amazing Race when Uchenna & Joyce crossed the finish line.
Remembering Hurricane Katrina
by Shaker Renee, of Womanist Musings
On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. It ravaged the Gulf Coast from central Florida to Texas. New Orleans was the most affected due to the levees breaking. Many evacuated before the storm hit landfall; however, those unable or unwilling to leave waited out the storm in their homes or in what was known as the place of last resort, the Super Dome. The water lingered for weeks because 80% of the city was flooded.
When former President George W. Bush looked back on this horrific natural disaster, at the end of his term, he spoke of how effectively the residents of New Orleans had been evacuated, however; it is certain, that the 1,836 dead would have had a different opinion, had they still been alive to tell their stories. Not only was Katrina a massive display of incompetence, it revealed the race and class divide, that has become a part of life in America to the world.
When one leads a hand to mouth existence, even though life and death may depend upon evacuation, it may simply be impossible to leave. Hurricane Katrina happened at the end of the month and those that are dependent upon governmental subsidies like welfare would have been at the end of their resources. Assuming that they had a vehicle to leave in; how were they going to pay for an extended stay in a hotel and food? Quite often, motel owners will raise their rates, when they know that a large number of people will be seeking shelter. The law of supply and demand does not take into account human lives.
The nation watched in horror, as it became evident that those swimming for their lives were largely Black. This was not the dream that Martin spoke of, where is the long awaited mountaintop? Even the reporting on Hurricane Katrina was largely tinged with racism, as Blacks were accused of looting, while Whites were merely forging for supplies. All of the major news outlets were there broadcasting in solemn tones about the human tragedy and yet no one bother to report on the murders of Blacks in Algiers Point. Anyone stumbling into that area risked being shot, as White vigilantes strove to protect what they deemed to be theirs. In a documentary on this event, two members of the community stated:"It was great!" said one vigilante. "It was like pheasant season in South Dakota, if it moved you shot it ... I am no longer a Yankee."
Even amongst the vulnerable, Whiteness continued to exist with the ability to act with impunity. No investigation was launched by the state regarding the shooting of Blacks, revealing that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, racism continued to factor into the governments decisions on which bodies are considered valuable.
A woman responded, "He understands the N word now. In this neighbourhood we take care of our own."
The survivors of Hurricane Katrina were housed in trailers, which were later to be revealed to be formaldehyde death boxes. The crime rate in these makeshift communities soared as residents experienced depression and desperateness. Many are just barely surviving, with no way to rebuild even the meager homes they once had. Construction in New Orleans is well underway, with planners ensuring that not only would the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina reveal a changed landscape but a radically different population density, by failing to rebuild affordable housing. Many who initially felt sympathy for the survivors, now display a shocking lack of empathy, as they fail to grasp that the same cycle of poverty that prevented the survivors from leaving years ago, now subjects them to sub-standard living conditions.
Hurricane Katrina still haunts the United States because no lessons were learned despite the size of the tragedy. After the civil rights movement ended, many were content to believe that the disparity due to racism was a thing of the past and yet the inner cities told a different tale. Blacks have loudly argued that racism is a systemic force, that continues to affect every aspect of their lives and yet silence is the response from Whiteness. Hurricane Katrina arrived to devastate the Gulf Coast and there could be no denying which bodies lived in privilege and yet, years later, African Americans are still accused of playing the race card, being overly sensitive, and holding onto the past.
Since then, Obama has been elected as the first African American president, and yet there have been no fundamental changes to the system. Far too many Blacks are purposefully under-educated, which sets them up for a lifetime of poverty. Police violence against bodies of color has escalated, as Whiteness fights a battle to maintain its power. If a natural disaster were to happen in another large urban center, the same result would occur because the social hierarchy continues to exist. The capitalist system of exchange further ensures that those that are of color lack the means to be able to pull themselves out of poverty. We have simply resolved to continue on this path, though it has been revealed in real and startling ways, how devastating it can be to those that own the status of "other."
[Cross-posted.]
Vloggin' with Blogginz, Episode 2
[Episode One.]
[Also available at Daily Motion. Full transcript below.]
Title Card: Vloggin' with Blogginz
KBlogz: Hey, everybody at Shakesville! This is me, Kenny Blogginz, and I'm here with another one of my fabled book reviews. [Liss snickers.] Do you wanna see a book that's got a really great cover on it?
Liss: Yeah!
KBlogz: [picks up book] It's the Red Wizard! [edit; close-up of book cover] Just, just look at his face. [points to the face of Ryan the Red Wizard, which looks vaguely pissy] Just look at the expression that the artist managed to capture in that—this is, this is Ryan.
Liss: And there's a rainbow behind him!
KBlogz: There's a rainbow behind him. [traces rainbow with fingers]
Liss: He's got a cape…
KBlogz: [points at cape] He's wearing a red cape. Um, he's holding a crayon!
Liss: And he's got a jaunty pose, I have to say.
KBlogz: He's got a very jaunty pose. Um, he looks like a very, um, he looks, he looks like a clever boy! [Liss laughs] He looks like an adventurous young boy.
Liss: He does indeed.
[edit]
KBlogz: This is the only copy I've ever seen.
Liss: Where did you get it?
KBlogz: The Salvation Army.
Liss: Uh-huh. Is that a library book?
KBlogz: It is a library book [opens cover to reveal library card] from…an elementary school, I guess. Now it's here with me.
Liss: Lucky!
KBlogz: And the Red Wizard, uh, [opens cover to read] is about a tiny boy named Ryan DeWitt, and he thinks his parents don't like him. And why else would they drag him on a boring family vacation, where there's nothin' to do but listen to the gulls? And Ryan's father can never seem to understand Ryan thirst for excitement, ya dummies! [sighs exasperatedly; puts hand on hip] He has his mind set for Ryan to inherit and expand on the family business. Sounds boring!
Liss: It sure does. 'Cuz I bet the family business isn't, like, wizardry or anything.
KBlogz: No! This is, this vacation is meant to relieve his father's work-related stress, but, uh, Ryan just keeps day-dreaming, and his dad gets really mad at him, and then—wouldn't you know it? That's right when he gets transported to a mystical landscape!
Liss: [laughs] Holding a red crayon. A red Crayola crayon, I notice.
KBlogz: Well, I started reading it, and, basically, the plot is that having a red crayon, like—y'know, pigments were a lot harder to come by in the past, and also in, like, Narnia or whatever.
Liss: Mm.
KBlogz: So that's slightly more valuable there.
Liss: The red crayon?
KBlogz: Yeah.
Liss: It's like a currency in a different dimension.
KBlogz: Sort of. And there's like a magic wizard who sort of, you know, gives him sandwiches and stuff.
[Liss laughs; edit]
KBlogz: [reading] Soon, though, Ryan has to confront deadly danger from a young warlock named Rudd.
Liss: Paul Rudd?
KBlogz: No, it's just Rudd.
Liss: Mm.
KBlogz: Ryan—And, in order to defeat him, Ryan must learn to face his own fear of the warlock's powers!
Liss: Are you sure it's not Paul Rudd? And the warlock is Judd Apatow?
KBlogz: Paul Rudd is Judd Apataow!
Liss: [gasps] What?!
KBlogz: [laughs] I mean, the warlock is Rudd! Judd Apatow is a very powerful necromancer. [Liss laughs] With this new knowledge of himself, and through the deep magic behind colors, Ryan is ready to face returning home. It looks like returning home might just be the hardest part of the whole mystical journey.
[edit]
KBlogz: [holding book next to face and singing, Creed-like] Red Wizard! Red Wizard! Red Wizard! Red Wizard!
[edit]
Liss: Did you wear your red cape in honor of the Red Wizard?
KBlogz: [who is wearing a red hoodie tied around his neck like a cape] Yeah! I did.
Liss: And what about your trucker hat?
KBlogz: Trucker hat has an M on it—and that stands for magic.
[edit]
KBlogz: I love Red Wizaaaaaaaaard!!!
Title Card: The End!!!
Civic Pride
I live in a pretty cool and fairly progressive town, all things considered. We've a crazy tree-hugging mayor whose pants are so spunked up over reducing congestion and pollution he's spent most of the city's money painting bike lanes everywhere (as we're trying to scrape together money to pay for firing up street-lights (oh, and did I mention we've a problem with street crime here? Never mind that!)) We've three colleges downtown (including one of the finest journalism schools in the Midwest), a huge student population, a book store called The Peace Nook, two gay bars, and every one of our Quiznos have gone out of business. I mention that last bit partly because the space one formerly occupied has found a new tenant. This is a pretty cool town, but every once in a while something like this comes along:
This is one business I will not be supporting.
Mods Get To See The Darnedest Things
Archaic verb forms, for example. Now, it's never occurred to me to use "concrete" as a verb. But "concrete" is a perfectly cromulent, though archaic, verb. You learn something every day. After reading the following comment from the moderation queue of today's Conniving and Sinister, I looked up "concrete" to confirm that it can in fact be used to mean "to make real or concrete instead of abstract". My Webster's widget lists this as an "archaic" usage and gives this example: "concreting God into actual form of man". Here is the context from my mod queue:
Fat Princess (the game) Please understand that a game is a game. I have played it and for me, playing it does not make me dislike fat people, in fact, I have many friends who are bigger than me. By condemning the game, you are helping concrete the unspoken idea that fat people are disliked and also that being unhealthy is -okay. I do not support either view, with greater emphasis against obesity. Thanks. P.S. Since this is a feminist site I must make my concern known: I suggest you lobby for male prison terms to be applied to women. I find it unfair how some women get off the hook at a lesser sentence.My concerned, well-meaning language professor gets bonus points for bringing Fat Princess up out of nowhere. Fat Princess is truly the Gift of Trollery that Keeps on Giving. Further bonus points for concern trolling that actually uses the word "concern". Fie on subtlety! Yet more points for evoking "I have some friends who are fat", and even more still for the dollop of "we can't have fatty-boom-balatties thinking they might actually be healthy the way they are!"
Also rich: suggesting that the dislike of fat folks is an "unspoken" idea, and that there are special, harsher "male" prison terms. The FAIL is strong with this one, my friends.
But thanks for the verbular education, trollio.
This Is Getting Monotonous
Yet again, a Canadian citizen waits in Kenya for the government to recognize their Canadianness.
If only this were new news. Once again, a Canadian citizen is disbelieved and stranded abroad, and once again, the government is making little to no effort to help him come home.
Now, I wonder if we can discern any possible trait which these Canadians have had in common? What leaps out at me is, they're immigrant citizens, and they've had the bad taste to have dark skin. So obviously, no one could have any belief in their citizenship, amirite? I mean, we all know real Canadians have pale skin and Scottish last names, no? Well, except for the ones who have pale skin and French last names.
Once again, I am left encouraging my fellow Canadians to write to your MPs, and other Shakers to write to Canadian embassies or consulates:
Who's your local MP?
Where's the nearest Canadian diplomatic mission?
Politely but firmly let these officials know that Canadians and the rest of the world are watching, and expecting appropriate respect for the rights of citizens, no matter their birthplace or colour.
In Shit You Can't Make Up
In her first health care town hall of the August recess, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann faced a volatile crowd looking for answers on the future of health care in America.Social Security, of course, is a socialist program.
...At times tempers flared at the forum, with constituents shouting at one another.
LeRoy Schaffer, a St. Francis city council member, dressed in a tuxedo and top hat for the occasion. Shaffer got visibly emotional asking Bachmann about the future of health care and the role of special interests in Washington.
"I'll be danged if I am going to give up my Social Security because of socialism," Schaffer said, before being booed by the crowd. (link)
Friday Blogaround
Today's super-sized blogaround is brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Telescopic Male Gaze Blockers: specially designed for the effective blockage of Don Rumsfeld's Telescopic Male Gaze.
Zuska: Who Needs Health Insurance When You Can Sponsor a Car Wash?!?! Friends and family of uninsured shooting victim Heather Sherba raise money for her medical bills by washing cars.
Maud Newton: On the melding of fact and invention in fiction II
David DiSalvo at Neuronarrative: I Must Be Guilty--The Video Says So. Researchers find that subjects confess to thefts they did not commit when faced with fake video evidence of their “crimes”.
Rosalind Joffe: When Chronic Illness and Marriage Collide
Suzie at Echidne of the Snakes: Looking Down on the South
Stephen Fry: Confession. Fry "registers his retinal striations" with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. "If you can picture the response of a US immigration official asked to reschedule a biometric session because it clashes with a game of cricket then you can picture a stolid stare of stony disbelief."
Ideas in Food: Reheating the Pizza
Jade Park: A is for Aub Zam Zam
In the Haight, just a few blocks from Golden Gate Park, in the heart of hippiedom, sits a very un-hippie place: the Aub Zam Zam room. A martini bar. And inside the bar used to reside a very decidedly anti-hippie bartender: Bruno. Bruno Mooshei, to be exact (Bruno passed away about nine years ago but the bar still remains). And Bruno hated hippies. I watched him kick person after person out of the bar with a frank, “I’m going to have to ask you to leave,” or “I think you would like it a lot better at the bar down the street.”This piece is part of Alphabet: A History, which is a blog effort to write one's way through the alphabet with a series of memoir pieces, one for each letter. See also Park's B is for Boys, Charlotte's Web's A is for Africa, Everything In Between's A is for Anna, and City Wendy, who seems to have started it all.
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Blog: Four Dialogues 4: On Elaine MaySome history first. Mike Nichols and Elaine May meet at the University of Chicago, two young American Jews who “loathed each other on sight.” Both had studied the Stanislavski Method, and were part of The Compass, a nightclub group that pioneered sketch improv comedy in the mid-1950s. (Compass would later become The Second City, a crucible for many of the actors on Saturday Night Live, Strangers with Candy, The Daily Show etc.) In 1957 Nichols and May split off and become immensely successful, quickly getting spots on TV and then on Broadway, releasing records, and so on. Then in 1962 they break up. And there is an ambition, on both of their parts, to bring their style of comedy to Hollywood. Nichols make Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), which wins awards, and The Graduate (1967), which is a huge commercial success. May writes plays and enters cinema a bit later, as a writer and actress. She’s perhaps less instantly successful, but eventually starts directing too; her films are A New Leaf (1971), The Heartbreak Kid (1972), Mikey and Nicky (1976), and the notorious Ishtar (1987). For her part, critic Pauline Kael deplores the influence their style of comedy has on movies in the late 1960s. “Nichols-and-May” becomes a kind of shorthand for her, for a “crackling, whacking style [that] is always telling you that things are funnier than you see them to be.” (from Reeling, 1976)
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five, Strip Six, Strip Seven, Strip Eight, Strip Nine, Strip Ten, Strip Eleven, Strip Twelve, Strip Thirteen, Strip Fourteen, Strip Fifteen, Strip Sixteen, Strip Seventeen. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
In Awesome Things Found in My Inbox
The following arrived in my inbox last night from Kenny Blogginz under the subject heading "Kenny Singinz." There was no additional commentary; this was the whole email. (I literally cried with laughter.)
A lot of people told me they loved my cover of "Eye of the Tiger," the Rocky theme song. Hopefully, these lyrics can change your life as they have mine.
Risin' up,
hittin' the streets,
tie the laces of my punch-gloves.
Jogging town,
getting real sweaty
losing weight to punch the bad guys.
Cuz it's the eye of the tiger
when you're fighting that guy
and he punches you right in your mustache.
Eye of the tiger when you're farting in bed
and you pull up the covers; Dutch Oven!!
Blog Note
Shaker Socchan emails: "I just figured out how to edit comments in the new system. This page seems universal enough that you should be able to use it, so here's hoping."
As long as I'm logged in while clicking on it, it's taking me to a page where I can edit my comments, so *touch wood* this should work for everyone.
Quote of the Day
This week, our chefs cooked for joint bachelor/bachelorette parties, and Ashley spoke articulately about her dismay and discomfort cooking to celebrate an upcoming wedding when gay people are still denied the right to wed throughout most of the world. I’m going to go out on a limb and say a few words about same-sex marriage: First of all, part of the problem with the issue is that it is framed by opponents as a discussion of whether gay people should get special rights. This is specious – yes, special legislation or court decisions grant them the right to wed in a particular state, however this is done to ensure that they share equal protection under the law by finally being able to avail themselves of the same rights as everyone else. They are not seeking special treatment, just equitable treatment. [...] The institution of marriage should be available to all. The idea that you can have a life-long partner and not make decisions for them in a hospital, not share in insurance benefits, not automatically have parental rights unless you are the birth parent, is just flat-out wrong.--Tom Colicchio, on Top Chef's sixth season wedding challenge.
WTF WaPo?
Last month, the Washington Post published a big floofy profile of anti-choice terrorist Randall Terry. Today, Shaker Siobhan sent me the link to this big floofy profile of anti-marriage equality bigot Brian Brown. The headline is "Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile," and the piece gushes about how very reasonable and likable and even-tempered he is, even as it describes his crusade to deny equal rights to a sizable portion of the American citizenry.
And then there are the exhortations that progressives must take Brown seriously, that he's got the people to make sure that marriage equality is not merely a matter of time. It reeks, as did the Terry piece, of a newsmaker's desire to fan the flames of a Great Social Battle of Our Time, because, gee, we're just not ready for progressives to actually win yet. This stuff is just too much fun!
Meanwhile, there are passages like this (emphases mine):
In short: The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been homosexual relationships. But no society that he knows of, in the history of the world, has ever condoned same-sex marriage. "Do they always agree on the number of partners? Do they always agree on the form of monogamy? No," Brown says, but they've all agreed on the gender issue. It's what's best for families, he says. It's the union that can biologically produce children, he says. It's all about the way things have always been done. He chose his new church, St. Catherine of Siena, because it still offers a Latin Mass. Other noted conservatives have been parishioners there; Antonin Scalia has worshiped at St. Catherine's.The author (or editor) subtly hints that Brown could be wrong—and, let's make no mistake here, he is. His version of history is demonstrable, manifest bullshit. Yet the WaPo seems content to merely hint at that reality instead of providing the evidence, those little things called facts in which I keep hearing the mainstream media is so interested.
"I think it's irrational that up until 10 years ago, all of these societies agreed with my position" on same-sex marriage, he says, and now suddenly that position is bigotry. "The opposition is trying to marginalize and suppress us," he says. "Usually, that happens with positions that are actually minorities. But we're the majority."
Does he ever think that what he sees as an abrupt historical shift is, perhaps, progress?
I guess they don't want to offend Mr. Brown by pointing out he's, at best, an ignorant fraud, and, at worst, a despicable liar with a cavernous void of conscience.
But they don't seem to have any compunction about offending queers and their allies by running an absurdly imbalanced profile rife with its subject's uncontested mendacity, a piece that functionally serves to suggest that hatred isn't really hatred as long as it's delivered with a smile.
Contact the Washington Post's ombudsman
Today in Fat-Hatin'
Shaker Sunnyhello emailed me this article with the note (which I am sharing with her permission): "This Newsweek article on the cultural anger toward fat people surprised me. Until it got to the very end. And then the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' bullshit was not so much like another shoe dropping as much as like having a shoe thrown at me."
Hate the fat; love the thin person we know is buried somewhere underneath!
Personally, my favorite part of the article was the blink-and-you-miss-it line "some obese people are technically healthier than their skinnier counterparts." Oh, they're technically healthier, are they? Well, technically, qualifiers like that, which broadcast that fat people are less than even when they're not, is exactly why articles about institutional fat hatred need to be written in the first place.
Yeesh.
Inaccurate Contraceptive Info from National Prescribing Service
by Hoyden and Shaker Lauredhel of Hoyden About Town
One of the key pieces of information we need when choosing contraception is accurate data on effectiveness. What is the likelihood that your birth control will stop you getting pregnant? We are presented with pretty charts by family planning counsellors, doctors, midwives; sometimes we are told a little more about "real world" and "perfect use" efficacy; if we're lucky, our healthcare workers will do a more individual assessment, giving clear information on how medications, herbal medicines, weight, and other factors might affect contraceptive efficacy.
But how much do we really know about contraceptive failure rates? What do our doctors and nurse practitioners and midwives know? What sources of information are they drawing on? How accurate are those sources? I've typically thought that the sources offered in medical schools and textbooks and review journals and Family Planning leaflets were pretty good; the fact that they took into account real-world differences in use and misuse lent further credibility. Recent information has disabused me of that notion.
The National Prescribing Service (NPS) is a government-funded service in Australia intended to provide practitioners and consumers with independent, evidence-based, accurate education on the Quality Use of Medicines (QUM). It is a service with a lot of reach, and is considered by many doctors to be a rigorous and highly trusted source of medical education. They put out regular bulletins to doctors with information on both new and old drugs.
They have some "information" on contraception that didn't ring true to me. The chart is large, so I've picked out the relevant parts - you can click through for a PDF of the full chart.
See that? Combined oral contraception (COCP, or what most people call the standard "Pill") is cited has having a typical-use failure rate of 8% in the first year; a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%. Progesterone-only oral contraception (POP, the "mini pill") is cited as having a typical-use failure rate of 8 in the first year and a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3. The vaginal ring with combined hormones is cited as having a typical-use failure rate of 8 in the first year and a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3.
Do you smell a rat too?
[Click through for details on actual rat, size of rat, smelliness of rat, and where the rat came from!]
So I chased and I googled and I tracked, and I think they've just grabbed some contraceptive efficacy data from the World Health Organisation (WHO) website and slapped it in.
See if you can spot the problem with this.
I've excerpted just the barrier and certain female hormonal methods to highlight the problem.
The chart gives identical - not just similar, but identical - figures for failure and discontinuation rates of the combined pill and minipill, the contraceptive patch, and the contraceptive ring, both in typical use and perfect use situations. Typical use failure rate of 8%, perfect use failure rate of 0.3%, discontinuation rate of 68%.
This has to set any half-tuned bullshit-meter a-ringing. There is no study that separates those types of hormonal contraception out, looks at them independently, and comes up with identical rates across the board. They have taken aggregated data for hormonal contraception, then split it for this table.
(The data for nulliparous women using sponges and caps is also identical, and the diaphragm data is close. This also smells.)
The table in the National Prescribing Service educational material for doctors is even worse - they've grabbed the data from this WHO table or its source, then further split out the combined oral contraceptive pill and minipill, attributing them identical failure rates also. Doctors are reading this and "learning" that the minipill (progesterone only pill) is exactly as effective as the combined oral contraceptive pill, then making prescribing decisions on that basis.
You can't grab aggregate data and assume that it applies equally to every subset. That would be like saying that each and every adult human has slightly less than one breast.
I source-chased a little further. With help (thankyou!) I have a Trussell review paper with this chart in it. I have cut it to the relevant parts; click through to see the full chart.
James Trussell, "Contraceptive failure in the United States", Contraception, 2004, 70(2):89-96.
Here are the notes from that source."For spermicides, withdrawal, periodic abstinence, the diaphragm, the male condom, the pill and Depo-Provera, these estimates were derived from the experience of women in the 1995 NSFG, corrected for underreporting of abortion, so that the information pertains to nationally representative samples of users [3]. ...
Suspicion confirmed. The NPS comparison-chart information on contraceptive efficacy is not evidence-based; it's based on a series of assumptions and estimates and aggregations, and an error of baseless disaggregation that I can't call anything but egregious.
"The NSFG does not ask for brand of pill; thus, combined and progestin-only pills cannot be distinguished. However, because use of the combined pill is far more common than use of the progestin-only pill, the results from the NSFG overwhelmingly reflect typical use of combined pills. The efficacy of progestin-only pills may be lower than that for combined pills because progestin-only pills are probably less forgiving of nonadherence to the dosing schedule. [...]
"The estimates for the Ortho-Evra patch and NuvaRing were set equal to those for the pill. It is possible that the patch and ring will prove to have better efficacy than the pill during typical use, because of better adherence with the dosing schedule. However, such superior efficacy has not been demonstrated in randomized trials. [...] There are no published studies in which women were randomly assigned to the NuvaRing and the pill. Clinical trials of Lunelle cannot yield an estimate of efficacy during typical use, because the design of those trials calls for discontinuing those who return late for their injections [7,8]; the estimate is therefore assumed to be the same as that for Depo-Provera."
Your health dollars at work. Your body at risk.
[Cross-posted.]
~~~
If you're not an Australian local, where are you getting your information on contraceptive efficacy? What does it say? Where does it come from - both immediately, and originally?
Open Thread
Good times.
I've had a terrible stomach since last night, so I'm a little slow this morning. Sorry, Shakers!
What are you reading this morning?
Goodbye
It's time to say The End.
This was the best show ever. But you don't have to take my word for it...
Oh and this:
Linda Simensky, vice president for children's programming at PBS, says that when Reading Rainbow was developed in the early 1980s, it was an era when the question was: "How do we get kids to read books?"Is wrong. While teaching mechanics are important, teaching the love of reading is equally important, if not more. Being curious, to wonder what adventure lies in a story, to want to imagine the worlds painted by words...these inspire children to want to read--to want to learn and use those mechanics. Reading Rainbow fostered that. It's a damn shame that funding and PBS itself wouldn't stand by the show anymore.
Since then, she explains, research has shown that teaching the mechanics of reading should be the network's priority.
What The Hell?
Shaker The Great Indoors
I hope this picture is from Halloween, and not an episode of The Twilight Zone.
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, and Talonas.]
Question of the Day
What trait that you don't possess do you admire in others?
I admire anyone who can walk confidently into a room full of people. Well, confidently isn't the right word, exactly, because I'm not lacking confidence; I just have general social anxiety.
The thing is, if I'm one of the first people to arrive to a party, say, I'm fine as people slowly pile in. It's the arriving to a crowded party already underway that gives me a case of the panics.
The one exception to this is if I'm addressing a group for some reason. I have absolutely no fear of public speaking at all. Go figure.
Photo of the Day
President Barack Obama, wearing a Chicago White Sox cap, with daughter Malia Obama, 11, waits for lunch, Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2009, in Oak Bluffs, Mass. [Via.]
Quote of the Day
"It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"—An actual question on the Republican National Committee's "2009 Future of American Health Survey," which was sent out to voters accompanied by a cover letter from RNC Chair Michael Steele.
Let us note: This isn't some extreme rightwing fringe wackniess, but an official document of the GOP suggesting Democrats are going to exterminate Republicans.
Via Digby, who asks: "How long is everyone going to deny just how fucking crazy mainstream Republicanism has become? And when are people going to start asking seriously where this is headed?"
Wow
A 29-year-old woman who was abducted in 1991 at age 11 has been found [trigger warning]:
Jaycee Dugard is in good health, el Dorado County sheriff's office said in a statement, but provided no further details.I cannot even imagine what this woman has been through; my heart breaks for her. But she has been reconnected with her mother and stepfather, who she remembers and with whom she'll soon be reunited. Her stepdad, who saw Jaycee getting snatched by two people in a vehicle as she walked to her bus stop, says that finding out she's still alive is "like winning the lotto." Blub.
Meanwhile, in Contra Costa County, another sheriff's spokesman confirmed that that a man and a woman have been arrested in connection with the case but could provide no other details.
CNN affiliates have reported that Phillip Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy Garrido, have been charged.
Phillip Garrido is a registered sex offender and listed on the Department of Justice's Megan's Law page because of a previous forcible rape charge.
[H/T to Mr. Petulant.]
More Facts!
Top six gayest robots (in descending order):
1. C-3PO
2. Data
3. Maria
4. The Westworld Cowboy
5. The Phantom Creep (A.K.A. The Iron Man)
6. Robby
(See also.)
[Cross-posted.]
Crank It Up to 11
So, here's something interesting that happened after "Terrible Bargain" was published at The Guardian's CifA yesterday: I started getting emails from men.
All the emails from non-Shakers I've gotten in response to that piece since it went up yesterday have, in fact, been from men.
And all of them have been supportive.
Which is awesome—and yet also speaks to a fundamental problem inextricably related to the piece itself: Feminist men who do the right thing often do it quietly, while misogynist men spew their rubbish at incredible volumes.
See: The comments thread at CifA. In which, btw, I do not want to discount the valuable and valued voices of male feminist allies like Richard Adams and Flewellyn, who were and are total champions, nor the voices of the men who speak up regularly in contentious feminist threads in this space (and others).
The few, the proud, the vocal allies.
But anyone who's spent a lot of time in those sorts of threads knows that the dynamic is almost always a bunch of women (and a couple of male allies, if any) fighting against an onslaught of faugressive dudebros and/or MRAs (and the occasional Exceptional Woman who denies other women's experiences in exchange for cookies from anti-feminist men).
I can certainly understand why men don't want to get involved in the rage-making timesucks that are threads about feminist women's lived experiences. Aside from the crushing feeling of futility such participation inspires, men who engage on the side of feminist women inevitably face a barrage of intense vitriol. In return for allowing me merely to publish his response to the piece, Iain has been resoundingly pitied by misogynists across the blogosphere for his lamentable fate to be married to such a gruesome harridan.
(He has also been deemed a "saint," for, let's recall, demonstrating a basic willingness to give a shit when he hurts me. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. And I'm the alleged man-hater…!)
Getting involved pretty much sucks rocks. You're forced to deal with people who, on the best end, are deliberately obtuse bullies and, on the worst end, leave comments like the ones quickly moderated from yesterday's CifA thread contending I must have been lying about being raped because I am so ugly. These are not pleasant folks, and I'd like to avoid them myself.
Unfortunately, that would necessitate closing up shop, putting down my teaspoon, and going silent.
And then, somehow, magically not being a woman who lives in a patriarchy anymore.
This is the hard truth for progressive men who care about gender-based inequalities: When you leave the public fight to others, you're leaving it mostly to women—which, I don't guess I need to point out to the intelligent and thoughtful men reading this site, is itself a perpetuation of gender-based inequality.
I'll give you a moment to contemplate the many ways in which treating feminism as "woman's work" is some fucked-up irony, right there.
Now here's the other thing about leaving the rectification of gender-based inequalities to the ladies: Misogynist men don't respect women. They don't listen to women; they won't acknowledge a woman's authority on her own lived experiences; they're not going to learn anything from women, and certainly not feminist women.
Men who think women are less than need to hear that they're terribly, infuriatingly, and demonstrably wrong from other men. Publicly. Passionately. As loud as the loud, so very loud, voices on the other side. One of the ways their self-reassuring bullshit works is via the effective void of male dissension, which supports their erroneous belief that they are the "objective" arbiters of womanhood. Well, if we're so wrong, where are the other people [men] to say so? they wonder smugly.
They count on feminist men never showing up en masse for the main event.
Recently, we've had a couple of threads about trans issues get nasty, and, in each case, I've dived in and gone ten rounds of virtual fisticuffs. I was pissed (PISSED, BROOTHA!!!), because I categorically do not consider the legitimacy of trans lives up for debate, and it infuriates me that there exist people who do. But I was pissed in a different way than I get pissed when it's a thread in which, for example, the legitimacy of my perceptions of my lived experiences as a woman are being debated, because being pissed on behalf of other people doesn't make my heart pound and my teeth grind the way being forced to defend my own goddamned consciousness does.
During those nasty threads, on the other side of the series of tubes connecting our respective inboxes, CaitieCat's heart was pounding and her teeth were grinding, because it was personal to her in a way it's not to me. I wasn't the one being attacked; my life wasn't being treated like a tetherball. My empathy allows me to be a tenacious ally, but my cis privilege insulates me from the resonant ache of being a lifelong target of transphobia. What is galling to me in a trans thread gone off the rails, can be not merely galling but triggering to CaitieCat, because it plucks the strings of her history.
And even though Maude knows CaitieCat can hold her own in any thread in the multiverse, as can the rest of the trans Shakers, my role as an ally is to make sure that they don't have to carry that burden on their own—that they aren't expected, in the middle of a personal attack, to swallow down ten metric fucktons of rising bile in order to face off against and/or try to educate someone who's hurting them, especially on the occasions when that hurt is deliberate.
Often the most important thing an ally can do is just be willing to stand in front of a friend and take a few arrows in the armor made thicker by degrees of distance, to give the priceless gift of: "I got this one."
If, my esteemed male feminist allies, you don't want to be part of the problem, these fights have got to be your province, too. Giving yourselves the permission to not get publicly involved, or to get publicly involved only when it's convenient and not all that risky and not all that hard, is the ultimate expression of privilege.
And, hence, counter to precisely the principles with which you're ostensibly allied.
Let's get loud together, shall we?
[Terrible Bargain: One, Two, Three, Four, Five.]
