[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
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!
Daily Dose of Cute
I have been spied from amidst a pile of blankets.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by chocolate.
Recommended Reading:
Kiese: [CN: White supremacy; violence] My Vassar College Faculty ID Makes Everything OK
Charles: [CN: Homophobia; transphobia; ageism; class warfare] Aging LGBT Populations Face Substantial Economic Hurdles
Jessica: [CN: War on agency] Indiana TRAP Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Nicole: [CN: War on agency] Who Are the People Behind the Numbers?
BYP: [CN: Racism; racist slurs; police misconduct] Ohio Sheriff's Deputies Under Investigation for Racist Texts
thekooriwoman: [CN: Racism] On Who the Fuck Is Iggy Azalea When She's at Home?
Jamilah: [AUDIO] John Legend, Common Add "Glory" to Selma Soundtrack
Leave your links in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Janelle Monáe (featuring Big Boi): "Tightrope"
This week's TMNS have been brought to you by ladies with double Ls in their first names.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
President Obama has nominated longtime senior Pentagon official Ashton Carter to replace Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. I literally cannot stop seeing "Ashton Kutcher" every time I read a story about this guy. "Dude, where's my drone?"
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism] And again: "Protesters demanded Thursday night that Phoenix police identify the officer who shot and killed an unarmed black father of four children, in a confrontation that critics and community members likened to the deaths of Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York. About 100 people marched to police headquarters a day after the department strongly defended the decision by the officer who shot 34-year-old Rumain Brisbon, who friends and family said was simply delivering dinner to his children, on Tuesday night."
[CN: Police brutality; racism] My pal Dan Solomon has written a good piece for Texas Monthly noting that police body cameras can only ever be one tool among many tools and strategies needed to meaningfully address this problem. After all, more evidence only matters if the people reviewing that evidence are invested in making sure it matters.
[CN: War on agency] Tara Culp-Ressler compiles "7 Victories for Reproductive Freedom You May Not Realize Happened This Year."
[CN: Transmisogynoir; violence] Police are investigating "the death of a 21-year-old transgender woman who was gunned down while pounding on the front door of a South L.A. home seeking help. Deshawnda Sanchez, known as 'Tata,' was shot around 4 a.m. Wednesday on the front porch of a home near South Wilton Place and West 62nd Street, according to the Los Angeles Police Department." It was not, as in the case of Renisha McBride, the homeowner who shot Tata, nor, as in the case of Jonathan Ferrell, the police who shot her. "A neighbor's surveillance camera captured part of the incident, which showed someone pulling up to the house in a vehicle, getting out and running up to the porch. The figure could then be seen running back to the vehicle and driving away, police said. ...Detectives believe S"anchez was running away from a robber when she was shot, but said they were not ruling out other scenarios." They are considering the murder a possible hate crime.
[CN: Transphobia; appropriation] Um: "One of the founding members of the iconic band The B-52s is back with a very queer new single. Kate Pierson is slated to release a solo album, called "Guitars and Microphones"... In anticipation of this release, Pierson dropped her first single and video for 'Mister Sister'—a track that she is dubbing a 'trans[gender] anthem.'" Nope! [H/T to Eastsidekate.]
"Romney's Inner Circle Is Convinced He's Running." Well, Romney's inner circle was also convinced he was winning, so.
[Note: Video autoplays at link] ChescaLeigh: "5 Tips for Being an Ally." So great.
NASA's Orion capsule, a spaceship designed for a future Mars mission, had a perfect test run: Orion "made a near-bullseye splashdown in the Pacific Ocean on Friday, wrapping up a flawless, unmanned debut test flight around Earth. The Orion capsule blasted off aboard a Delta 4 Heavy rocket, the biggest in the U.S. fleet, just after dawn from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Three hours later, it reached peak altitude of 3,604 miles (5,800 km) above the planet, a prelude to the most challenging part of the flight, a 20,000-mph (32,000 km/h) dive back into the atmosphere. Orion survived a searing, plunge through the atmosphere, heating up to 4,000 degree Fahrenheit (2,200 degree Celsius)—twice as hot as molten lava—and experiencing gravitational forces eight times stronger than Earth's. Over the next few minutes, a total of 11 parachutes deployed to slow Orion's descent, including three gigantic main chutes that guided the spaceship to a 20-mph (32 km/h) splashdown 630 miles (1,014 km) southwest of San Diego, California, at 11:29 a.m. EST (11:29 EST). 'I think it's a big day for the world, for people who know and like space,' NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said before the launch." Heck yeah it is! Neat!
A letter to my cat: Dear Vastra. All the blubs.
You probably won't read a headline better than this today: "Firefighter Nicknamed 'Dr. Doolittle' Saves Dog That Fell Through Ice." Yes!
Number One!
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; racism.]
Hey, remember Kirk Cameron's Christmas movie which we are all definitely going to see called Saving Christmas, which features a protagonist named Christian White who finally experiences the magic of Christmas via dancing and racial stereotypes?
Well, I have exciting news for you! It has reached #1—on IMDb's Bottom 100 movies, as voted by regular IMDb users!
Saving Christmas is literally the worst!
And it beat out some stiff competition, too! Like: Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#11), From Justin to Kelly (#23), Track of the Moon Beast (#34), Ghosts Can't Do It (#48), and The Tony Blair Witch Project (#76).
Congratulations, Saving Christmas! It really is the hap-happiest season of all!
I Write Letters
[Content Note: Sexual assault; rape apologia.]
Dear People Who Don't Believe Jackie:
In my experience, people who don't believe survivors simply just don't want to believe them, and then use whatever details of any particular case they can exploit in order to try to justify that disbelief.
But I'm going to go ahead and take your "concerns" at face value, in order that you might be more inclined to believe Jackie and/or other survivors of sexual assault.
Robby Soave, writing under the headline "Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?" for Reason, does not find it credible that Jackie's friends could have discouraged her from going to the hospital or reporting out of self-interest.
If the frat brothers were absolute sociopaths to do this to Jackie, her friends were almost cartoonishly evil—casually dismissing her battered and bloodied state and urging her not to go to the hospital.Failure to support a rape victim is something that could only seem "cartoonishly evil" to someone who has never survived an assault only to be met with indifference from friends, law enforcement, and/or even one's own family.
Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to pretend it's incredible that someone would be abandoned after an unfathomable trauma.
The secondary trauma of being disbelieved, being silenced and dissuaded from talking about your rape, or being obliged to pretend like nothing happened is extremely common.
Sometimes the people closest to you utterly fail you. Sometimes it's because they can't navigate their own discomfort. Sometimes it's because there is still a powerful stigma attached to surviving sexual assault; families with an enforced veneer of perfection will often prioritize that veneer even over supporting a child who has been abused. Sometimes it's because they think you're lying, or so fervently wish you were that they behave as though you must be, just to protect themselves from the reality of your pain that they can't alleviate. Sometimes it's just because they're straight-up assholes.
Most people are raped by someone they know, not strangers. (That alone, the fact that people are raped by their friends and family, should indicate the mere failure to support someone after a rape isn't remotely unfathomable.) Sometimes friends fail to be supportive because they know the person who raped you.
There are all kinds of reasons that friends might fail to support someone who has just been raped. And it's a particular sort of cruelty to disbelieve someone on the basis that their ostensible support system stinks.
Meanwhile, Richard Bradley, the editor-in-chief of wealth-management magazine Worth, writing under the headline "Is the Rolling Stone Story True?" for his own blog, does not believe that these sorts of sexual assaults happen in the United States:
A young woman is lured to a fraternity in order to be gang-raped as part of a fraternity initiation. It's a premeditated gang rape. I am not, thankfully, an expert on premeditated gang rape, but to the extent that it exists, it seems to be most prevalent in war-torn lands or countries with a strain of a punitive, misogynist and violent religious culture (Pakistan, for example).He is not an expert on gang rape, but is pretty sure it doesn't happen here however often would convince him that this could have happened here. Well, it happens here. It happens in Cleveland, Texas; it happens in Cupertino, California; it happens in Suburban Chicago; it happens in Richmond, California; in happens in Orange County; it happens in a US workplace abroad. That is hardly a comprehensive list.
I certainly hope that Mr. Bradley, and others who share his incredulity based on the frequency, or infrequency, of gang rapes in the United States would not argue that they would like more gang rapes, in order to believe any individual victim of one.
Bradley is also not an expert, apparently, on sexual assault as an initiation ritual:
The allegation here is that, at U.Va., gang rape is a rite of passage for young men to become fraternity "brothers." It's possible. One would think that we'd have heard of this before—gang rape as a fraternity initiation is hard to keep secret—but it's possible.We begin to see the problem with a self-admitted non-expert on rape culture using what he has or has not heard of as the benchmark for credulity. Because, again, fraternities—and athletics teams, and the military, etc.—using sexual assault, either of an outsider or of the new pledges, as part of initiation and/or hazing is not at all an unknown thing.
So then we have a scene that boggles the mind. (Again, doesn't mean it's untrue; does mean we have to be critical.)
That is not "a scene that boggles the mind"s of people involved in anti-rape advocacy, who listen to survivors' stories. It does not boggle the minds of women who have been gang-raped, or raped by one man as part of his initiation ritual into a fraternity or sports team, or even just so he can enter a name in a book passed among male classmates.
This, too, is a particular sort of cruelty: To use one's detachment from the threat and realities of sexual assault to impugn the credibility of those who don't have the privilege of ignorance.
Bradley has lived his whole life not "having heard" of basic truths about the ubiquity of rape and the many forms it can take. And then he positions his ignorance as objectivity to audit those of us who have intimately experienced these horrors and call us liars.
The disbelievers can't believe her friends would fail to support her. They can't believe gang rapes happen, or happen this way, or for that reason. They can't believe her injuries weren't worse; that her dress wasn't more torn; that she didn't behave this way or did behave that way.
In every story questioning the veracity of Jackie's story, I whiff a distinct disbelief that we can survive this stuff and still seem in any way "normal." They can't comprehend how survivors can go on after something like that. (It's because we have no choice.) They are so far removed from surviving this sort of experience in a privileged life in the United States, that it is incomprehensible to them that there are survivors who emerge from this shit and still look human.
There was never going to be a right way for Jackie to survive in order to convince people who don't want to believe survivors. Because this is the horrible conundrum of the public survivor: You are too broken to be credible, and not broken enough to be credible.
So they say that we are liars. Only they say it by publicly questioning "the details" under headlines phrased as questions.
Well, I have answered your questions in good faith. Do you believe her now?
I'm going to guess not, since your questions weren't asked in good faith. But please feel free to surprise me.
Regards,
Liss
Question of the Day
Again, by popular request: What are you currently reading? Would you recommend it?
Fat Fashion
This is your semi-regular thread in which fat women can share pix, make recommendations for clothes they love, ask questions of other fat women about where to locate certain plus-size items, share info about sales, talk about what jeans cut at what retailer best fits their body shapes, discuss how to accessorize neutral colored suits, share stories of going bare-armed for the first time, brag about a cool fashion moment, whatever.
* * *
FYI, if you're looking for some tall boots for winter in wide widths, Maurice's is currently having a flash sale, with some styles of wide width boots priced as low as $19.90. The sale covers narrow widths, too, in case you don't need a wide width for foot and/or calf.
I got my first pair of tall, wide-calf boots earlier this year (from SimplyBe), and I love them SO MUCH.
Gonna kick some ass in these beauties.
They are super comfy for walking around, and they are just tight enough to be fine if I'm wearing 'em bare-legged with a skirt, but just loose enough to be fine if I'm wearing 'em over snug jeans. That is definitely one of the benefits of spending a little extra to get boots with precise calf sizing, based on your actual leg measurement and not your shoe size. Whatever magical combination of foot-to-calf ratio on which that calculation is based, I don't have it!
Random Aside: They're not leather, but they were finished or packaged with some kind of scent of leather. (?) I was thinking when I opened it, I guess that's fun for people who buy faux leather to save money, but I'm not sure how keen people who are explicitly anti-leather for ethical reasons will be on it, lol.
Anyway! As always, all subjects related to fat fashion are on topic, but if you want a topic for discussion: Tall boots? Yay or nay?
Have at it in comments! Please remember to make fat women of all sizes, especially women who find themselves regularly sizing out of standard plus-size lines, welcome in this conversation, and pass no judgment on fat women who want to and/or feel obliged, for any reason, to conform to beauty standards. And please make sure if you're soliciting advice, you make it clear you're seeking suggestions—and please be considerate not to offer unsolicited advice. Sometimes people just need to complain and want solidarity, not solutions.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Rape culture.]
"It is not who Cosby is that accounts for our long silence. It is who we are: a culture that does not believe people who share stories of surviving sexual violence. Were Cosby an unremarkable man of modest means, we would still doubt allegations like these, because that is what we do. The rationales we offer for why we doubt survivors are varied: the accused is a legend, or religious, or has been nice to us. The survivors have any number of real or perceived flaws. What doesn't change is that when someone alleges rape, we immediately begin to grasp for reasons why that person is unbelievable."—Tope Fadiran, in a terrific piece for RH Reality Check.
"Us Against Them"
[Content Note: Police misconduct and brutality.]
Today, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division released a "pattern or practice" report on the Cleveland Police Department's use of force, one of whose officers shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice last month. The investigation began in March 2013, at the mayor's request, following an incident in which a police chase "resulted in Cleveland police dispatching at least 62 vehicles, firing 137 bullets, and killing two unarmed black suspects, who each sustained more than 20 gunshot wounds."
The report found an almost unfathomably frequent use of unjustifiable and excessive force:
The agency's investigation found that officers in Cleveland routinely use unjustifiable force against not only criminals and suspects, but also innocent victims of crimes.The investigation also found that supervisory reviews of the force incidents "is superficial at best and, at its worst, appears to be designed to justify their subordinates' unreasonable use of force."
...Most recently, on November 22, a Cleveland police officer fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was playing with a toy gun in a park. Footage of the incident shows the officer firing his gun within two seconds of pulling up to the boy in his car. The Guardian reported on Thursday that Timothy Loehmann, the officer who shot Tamir, was judged unfit for police work in 2012 by his then-employer, the police department of Independence, Ohio. An Independence official described Loehmann's "dismal" handgun performance in an internal memo.
According to the DOJ report, Cleveland police officers "carelessly fire their weapons, placing themselves, subjects, and bystanders at unwarranted risk of serious injury or death." For example, the agency pointed to an incident in 2011 where officers "fired 24 rounds in a residential neighborhoods," with six rounds striking houses and 14 hitting parked cars. In another case, "an officer's decision to draw his gun while trying to apprehend an unarmed hit-and-run suspect resulted in him accidentally shooting the man in the neck."
The Justice Department also claimed to have identified "several cases" where "officers shot or shot at people who did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others." For example, in 2013, the report noted that police shot at a kidnapping victim after he fled from his assailants wearing only his boxers. The sergeant said he believed the victim had a weapon because he raised his hand.
In another case detailed by the Justice Department, a 300-pound officer punched a 13-year-old boy who was handcuffed inside a police car and kicking the door. The officer, whom the report describes as 8 inches taller than the boy, punched him "three to four times" until he was "'stunned/dazed' and had a bloody nose."
Further, the investigation concluded that there is a militaristic, antagonistic culture within the force: "The report also said that the culture of the Cleveland police force promotes an 'us-against-them' mentality. It cited the example of a sign in one district station that identifies the station as a 'forward operating base'—which DOJ noted is a military term for a small outpost in a war zone."
This cruelty reverberates through communities, and does not make anyone safer.
As I noted during coverage of the murder of Jonathan Ferrell, the 24-year-old black North Carolina man who was shot and killed by police after knocking on a door for help following a car accident: If a man unknown to me comes knocking at my door in the middle of the night seeking help, I don't want to feel like if I call authorities ostensibly equipped with providing the aid he's seeking that I'm risking his life.
Police routinely tell members of their communities to call them when a stranger needs help. When anyone needs help. But how can we safely help someone we believe is in genuine need by calling police, when police harming them is a potential result?
Us against them. When police are enemies of the community, or parts of the community, we're well and truly fucked.
Today in Rape Culture
[Content Note: Rape apologia; sexual violence. Graphic description of assault in Rolling Stone link.]
Last month, Rolling Stone published a story by Sabrina Rubin Erdely detailing the gang rape of a University of Virginia student named Jackie. It is incredibly difficult to read, and a depressingly familiar story to anyone who engages even marginally with anti-rape advocacy.
The story has received the predictable and typical backlash. But it has also come under fire for failing to include responses from the alleged rapists.
Earlier this week, writing for the Washington Post under the headline "Rolling Stone whiffs in reporting on alleged rape," Erik Wemple said: "For the sake of Rolling Stone's reputation, Sabrina Rubin Erdely had better be the country's greatest judge of character. ...Rolling Stone bears a great deal of responsibility for placing the credibility of the accuser in the spotlight, thanks to shortcomings in its own reporting. Consider that: Erdely didn't talk to the alleged perpetrators of the attack."
Katherine Reed has written a thoughtful response [H/T to Jessica Luther] to this particular criticism, from the perspective of someone who covers sexual assault cases, and I encourage you to read the whole thing.
I will just make this personal observation: Who the fuck even cares what the men alleged to have gang-raped a woman for hours have to say? If they're rapists, I'm pretty sure they're liars, too.
Whatever they have to say isn't worth a smudge of dogshit regarding the veracity of Jackie's account.
Even people who believe Jackie to be a liar know this is true. Whatever the men accused of gang-raping her have to say, unless it's a full confession, isn't really meaningful.
So why would anyone bother arguing that their expected denials should have been included? And this is the reason: Because they want something on which to hang their hats. They want something, even if it's a transparent lie, that they can use to justify disbelieving Jackie.
It's so unfair that they haven't been offered the opportunity of the pretense of fairness toward the accused as cover for their axiomatic rape apologia.
They're pissed that they haven't been given something, anything, to allow them to question her account by pretending they are just interested in fairness and balance. They're pissed that they have no cover for challenging her credibility.
So now it's all about ethics in game rape journalism.
I see you.
Daily Dose of Cute
Olivia grooms herself, while Sophie snuggles up.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Racism; police brutality.] Last night, people took to the streets of NYC in protest of no indictments for Eric Garner's death, chanting his last words: "I can't breathe."
[CN: Racism; police brutality] The officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice while he was playing with a toy gun in a public park, "had issues with handling guns during his brief tenure with a suburban police department. A Nov. 29, 2012 letter contained in Tim Loehmann's personnel file from the Independence Police Department says that during firearms qualification training...'He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal,' according to the letter written by Deputy Chief Jim Polak of the Independence police. ...'I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies,' Polak said." Terrific hire, Cleveland.
[CN: Rape culture; sexual abuse; descriptions of assaults at link] Three more women have come forward with stories of Bill Cosby sexually abusing them. Vulture has an updated timeline of the allegations here.
[CN: Child abuse and neglect; disablism] A 15-year-old Indiana girl with psychological disabilities was discovered by relatives being kept in a locked room in her grandfather's home. She weighed only 35 pounds. She has been hospitalized and "remains in critical condition with life-threatening injuries, police said." Her shitlord guardian says she was abusive, and meanwhile is raising at least one other kid, a boy, like nothing horrific was happening in his home.
[CN: Misogyny; sexual abuse; sexuality policing] The World Health Organization has released a new document stating that "'virginity tests'—a 'two-finger test' used to determine whether or not a woman has had sex or has been sexually assaulted—has no scientific basis and should never be used." Good.
Whooooooops! "The Vatican's economy minister has said hundreds of millions of euros were found 'tucked away' in accounts of various Holy See departments without having appeared in the city-state's balance sheets." Well, sure. It's easy to lose track of millions of monies. Who hasn't done that? Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit millions of euros from the Vatican's couch cushions!
Oh shit: Africa's giraffe population "has dropped about 40 percent in just 15 years, according to the Giraffe Conservation Foundation. ...And while animals such as elephants and rhinos garner a large share of conservation attention, why does it seem like a 'silent' extinction? Experts speculate that they're such a presence in our lives that it's easy to think the species is as abundant as can be. 'Giraffes are everywhere. Look at kids' books, which are full of giraffes. They're always in zoo collections. They're easily visible, so you don't think we have to worry about them,' said David O'Connor, research coordinator with the San Diego Zoo's Institute for Conservation Research."
This dude in Indiana turned his old Geo Metro into a flying saucer. Well, no shit he did! What would you do with an old Geo Metro?
And finally! Great silly photos of dogs who need homes. Love.
Fat People, Smokers Denied Routine Surgery
[Content Note: Fat hatred; "headless fatty" image at story link.]
This is utterly heinous:
Smokers and the morbidly obese in Devon (UK) will be denied routine surgery unless they quit smoking or lose weight.They need to save money, so someone has to not get surgery—and it might as well be people for whom no one will be inclined to fight.
Patients with a BMI of 35 or above will have to shed 5% of their weight while smokers will have to quit eight weeks before surgery.
The NHS in Devon has a £14.5m deficit and says the cuts are needed to help it meet waiting list targets.
Just to underline how completely arbitrary this horseshit is, someone with a much higher BMI (which itself is a garbage measurement) than 35 could lose 5% of their weight and still have a BMI over 35.
So what's the point?
The point, of course, is setting a threshold for access to healthcare that most people won't be able to meet.
The new restriction is "only" on routine surgery and not lifesaving surgery. (So they claim.) Among those routine surgeries are "hip and knee operations for the morbidly obese." If you're thinking, gee, it might be difficult even for people who can lose weight via diet and exercise to lose weight without full use of their hips and/or knees, welcome to the world of being a fat person who can't fucking win.
In a statement the Royal College of Surgeons said it was "concerned" by the move and warned the region was merely storing up "greater pressures" for the future.Well, at least the Royal College of Surgeons has some fucking sense. For some patients these steps may not be possible. Imagine that! It's almost like it's a terrible fucking idea to draw arbitrary exclusion lines instead of doing your job and taking the time to work with patients on an individual basis.
It said: "The need for an operation should always be judged by a surgeon based on their clinical assessment of the patient and the risks and benefits of the surgery - not determined by arbitrary criteria.
"Losing weight, or giving up smoking is an important consideration for patients undergoing surgery in order to improve their outcomes, but for some patients these steps may not be possible.
"A blanket ban on scheduled operations for those who cannot follow these measures is unacceptable and too rigid a measure for ensuring patients receive the best care possible."
Granted, arbitrary exclusion lines are so much easier.
The thing about successful surgical (and other healthcare) outcomes is that patient compliance is the most important component. It doesn't matter if someone is a thin non-smoker; if they don't follow post-surgical recommendations, don't comply with recommended physical therapy, don't take their meds, etc., they're not going to have a successful outcome.
Certain types of mental illness or neurological disorders tend to be incompatible with rigorous patient compliance. The line is not drawn there, however, even though this is ostensibly about best outcomes, because it would be an outrage for healthcare providers to suggest that someone with mental illness doesn't deserve access to routine surgery because they might not make good decisions afterwards.
(This does, by the way, happen. Individually and quietly. There are profoundly disablist policies in healthcare services, including here in the US, especially around lifesaving surgeries like transplants, used to deny people care. It just tends not to be made public so brazenly.)
This is a public policy position, and so they make the choice based on stereotypes about fat people and addicts (but only addicts to cigarettes, who are "nuisances" and not addicts)—people who are largely assumed to not give a fuck about their own health and who are widely despised with impunity.
It's an outrage to draw this line anywhere. Individual patients need individual care and individual decisions.
Fat people are being scapegoated, targeted by people who don't want to make tough decisions. So instead they make lazy ones.
And, the truth is, many of the "routine" surgeries they want to deny meaningfully affect people's ability to move and thrive. This isn't a neutral decision. It will negatively affect fat people's and smokers' health. But we're not supposed to think about that. Or care about it, because, hey, they're definitely for sure obviously already unhealthy anyway.
This could shorten people's lives. But who cares.
Fat hatred kills.
Today at the Intersection of Racism and Fat Hatred
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism; fat hatred.]
Last night, Republican Representative Pete King, who is a nightmare, appeared on CNN's "The Situation Room" in order to defend the cop who killed Eric Garner, saying Garner died because he was fat.
NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo was not charged in the death of Eric Garner, 43, whom he put in a chokehold during a July confrontation over Garner's selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. Garner, who suffered from asthma and other health problems, later died in the hospital and the city's medical examiner ruled his death a homicide.So, racism played no part in it a white cop killing a black man, and it's all that black man's fault for being so fat. Cool theory.
"You had a 350-pound person who was resisting arrest. The police were trying to bring him down as quickly as possible," King said in an appearance on CNN's "The Situation Room." "If he had not had asthma and a heart condition and was so obese, almost definitely he would not have died from this. The police had no reason to know he was in serious condition."
The confrontation between Pantaleo and Garner was also caught on video that showed Garner repeatedly telling the officer he couldn't breathe. King said police hear that kind of thing all the time.
"But if you can't breathe, you can't talk," he argued.
The Long Island congressman also dismissed the idea that any racial animus played into Garner's death.
"I have no doubt, if that were a 350-pound white guy, he would have been treated the same," King told CNN.
(I will just quickly observe that there are plenty of fat people for whom asthma is not a result of being fat. Sometimes, in, fact, it's precisely the other way around.)
King is certainly not the only person to float this theory. In fact, the police tried that from go: Before the medical examiner's report was even done, the official line was that Garner just had a heart attack.
They probably figured they could say a fat man had a heart attack and no one would question it. Because fatties.
And why not? This happened in a city primed by the former mayor to view fat people as dangerous and diseased.
Eric Garner did not die because he was fat. He died because a police officer who doesn't agree that Black Lives Matter put him in an illegal chokehold and because his chest was lethally compressed as multiple officers who also don't agree that Black Lives Matter piled on top of him.
But in a world where truth doesn't matter, Garner is dead because he is fat and the officer merely used a wrestling move on him.
Question of the Day
What is something you regret never having tried when you had an opportunity, and hope to have the opportunity to try again someday?
What Works
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism.]
New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio just made a statement in which he urged protestors to demonstrate peacefully, saying that peaceful protest "is the only thing that's ever worked."
Worked how?
Why are we here, then? If peaceful protests have worked?
What "works" is accountability. What "works" is indictments. What "works" is not giving people reasons to protest in the first place.
What "works" is police not killing black people with impunity.
Essentially, what De Blasio and everyone else singing this kumbaya horseshit are saying is: "It's incumbent upon you to protest peacefully, but not incumbent on us to stop killing black people."
Fuck that. Fuck anyone who says that.
"Yeah, yeah, this keeps happening over and over and over. But you need to ask us NICELY to stop."
That is monstrous.
I swear to fuck if all you have in this moment is tone policing from a podium, you have less than nothing.
No Indictment in Eric Garner's Death
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism.]
Eric Garner, a black man who lived in Staten Island, died after a violent encounter with the NYPD in July of this year.
Garner, who had broken up a fight according to witnesses, was stopped and accused by police of selling untaxed cigarettes on the street. When Garner verbally protested, officers moved in to arrest him, putting him in an illegal chokehold then throwing him to the ground and handcuffing him, while multiple officers piled on top of him and smashed his head into the pavement, all of which is viewable in video of the incident taken by a witness.
Garner, who has asthma, can be seen repeatedly shouting that he cannot breathe. The police ignore him, and, upon realizing something has gone terribly wrong, start shooing people away from the scene. Garner died there, in police custody; his last words were, "I can't breathe."
The police attempted to justify this use of excessive force by asserting that Garner had been illegally selling cigarettes.
At first, the police suggested that Garner had died of a heart attack. But a month later, the coroner's report unequivocally stated the cause of Eric Garner's death was compression of the neck and chest. His death was ruled a homicide.
Today, a grand jury failed to indict the NYPD officer who killed Garner, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.
On camera. Illegal chokehold. Ruled a homicide. No charges.
I am hardly the first person to ask: If even this killing does not result in an indictment, what the fuck will?
Daily Dose of Cute
Ms. Cuddlybizness
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by saddles.
Recommended Reading:
Carla: Chicago Approves New Minimum Wage: $13-an-Hour
Mustang Bobby: Miami-Dade Bans Trans Discrimination
Imani, Jessica, and Zerlina: [podcast + transcript] RJ Court Watch: Why Loretta Lynch Is the Right Nominee for Attorney General
Trudy: [Content Note: Misogynoir; violence; police brutality] Intimate Partner Violence, State Violence, and Marissa Alexander
Jonathan: [CN: Male privilege; rape culture / video + transcript] 25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male
Jasmine: [CN: Rape culture; violence] How to Get Away with Rape Culture
Jim: Parents Announce 'Arrival' of 19-Year-Old Transgender Son
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Nell Carter: "Back in the High Life"
From In a New Light: A Call to Action in the War Against AIDS, broadcast July 11, 1992.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Class warfare] Incoming Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is vowing to destroy the Affordable Care Act any way he and his party can. Republicans think people aren't entitled to healthcare.
[CN: Climate change] Holy shit: "A comprehensive, 21-year analysis of the fastest-melting region of Antarctica has found that the melt rate of glaciers there has tripled during the last decade. The glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice faster than any other part of Antarctica and are the most significant Antarctic contributors to sea level rise. This study by scientists at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), and NASA is the first to evaluate and reconcile observations from four different measurement techniques to produce an authoritative estimate of the amount and the rate of loss over the last two decades. 'The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate,' said scientist Isabella Velicogna, jointly of UCI and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California."
But, by all means, Congress—let's debate taking healthcare away from people, instead of showing some urgency about how the planet is totally fucked.
[CN: Misogyny] Actual Headline: "Hillary should stop dithering." Actual Subhead: "The media have moved from Hillary fatigue to Hillary exhaustion." Actual paragraph from this garbage passing for journalism: "So far, Hillary's non-campaign campaign is based on three things: She is the inevitable Democratic nominee. She deserves the presidency. And there is nobody who can beat her." These are all things that the media, the poor babies who are so exhausted from writing pointless speculation about Hillary Clinton 24/7, have said about Clinton's "non-campaign." Maybe they could just STFU and take a nap.
[CN: Illness] Idris Elba is a good egg: "British actor Idris Elba and a host of international football stars launched a public awareness campaign on Wednesday to help halt West Africa's Ebola epidemic and recognize the health workers fighting the deadly disease. ...'For me the battle against Ebola is a personal one,' said Elba, whose parents are from Sierra Leone and Ghana. 'To see those amazing countries in West Africa where my father grew up and my parents married being ravaged by this disease is painful and horrific.'" Lending his celebrity to try to keep this story in the Western media is terrific. And it's infuriating that it's necessary, but it has utterly fallen out of the news in the States, now that the alarmism drummed up for the midterm election isn't useful anymore.
[CN: Police brutality; racism] The grand jury is expected to return a decision this week regarding the killing of Eric Garner. "In anticipation of the grand-jury announcement, the New York Police Department has started preparing for large-scale protests."
President Obama has announced an initiative "aimed at improving conditions and opportunities for American Indian youth, of whom a third live in poverty. Obama's Generation Indigenous initiative calls for programs focused on better preparing American Indian youth for college and careers, and developing leadership skills through the Department of Education and the Aspen Institute's Center for Native American Youth."
Breaking fifteenth century news: "It's Official: Skeleton Found Under Parking Lot Is Richard III."
Oh Maude, get ALL the tissues: Family adopts dying dog to give him the best last days ever. "Before Butch left this world for good, they were going to give him the best days he would probably ever know. He was taken to a fire station to see Santa, and then they threw him a big party complete with guests and gifts at a local park. The party menu consisted of cheeseburgers and pumpkin pie, and that evening he got to snuggle up with Kansas to sleep." ♥
And finally! Here is a kitten playing with an iPad. "You won!"
Twenty
[Content Note: Sexual abuse; rape culture.]
Another woman has made allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Cosby, making her the 20th woman to come forward.
Twenty women.
Many of whom have been telling their stories for years, only to be disbelieved, until a male comedian raised mentioned the allegations in a show.
In the past couple of weeks, I've seen a lot of arguments made by prominent progressive men (and while women may well have made this argument, too, I haven't personally seen it) that the number of Cosby victims has made it "easier" for them to believe the veracity of their allegations.
There are a lot of problems with this position, not least of which is that it invokes every piece of rape apologia centered around these four words: "He said, she said."
Reduced to its essence, saying that the number of victims makes it "easier" to believe them basically says: "Lucky for those women he raped so many of them, so that men like us can't not believe them."
Of course I know that's not the intent of men who offer some version of this "too many victims to disbelieve" trash. But the problem with the argument is that it effectively, even if unintentionally, suggests that more victims is better for any one victim.
I was raped by a man who I know raped at least one other woman besides me. And I find this argument deeply upsetting, because it turns survivors into numbers in a way that suggests my rape might have been somehow "useful" for her, or hers "useful" for me.
I would rather have been the only person he hurt, than had other women be able to say, "He raped me, too," in order to convince men to believe us.
And, by the way, no one believed us, anyway.
I guess there just weren't enough of us to satisfy men so detached from the realities of rape that it takes a numbers game to convince them.
If that sounds grotesque, well, that's because it is. Believing survivors should not be predicated on the number of victims (who come forward) of any individual rapist. Part of the reason 20 women have now told their stories of being abused by Cosby is because people started believing the first women who came forward.
To disbelieve a victim, because she appears to be the only one, is to discourage other victims from coming forward.
When men play this game in which belief is withheld until their arbitrary threshold has been passed, they're actively participating in a cultural silencing mechanism. They're essentially ensuring that there will never be "enough" victims to convince them, because their disbelief is a disincentive to further disclosures.
We know there are vanishingly few false reports of rape, and we know that most rapists have multiple victims. These are the only numbers that matter; the numbers that should underwrite believing victims, whether they speak alone or as part of a cacophony of survivors of the same abuser.
Yes, you're a fool if you don't believe now that there are 20 women who have come forward. But you were a fool if you didn't believe when there was only one.
[See also: "I hope it's not true."]
Of Course
[Content Note: Pregnancy discrimination.]
Today, the US Supreme Court will be looking at the case Young vs. United Parcel Service, which will decide "whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are 'similar in their ability or inability to work.'"
The case arose after UPS employee Peggy Young requested "a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006." She provided a note from her physician "recommending that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds." UPS refused to accommodate her request.
This seems like it should be an easy decision: The answer appears to be so clear that "the Obama administration and an unusual array of liberal and conservative interest groups are backing Young." Who would disagree that reasonable accommodations should be made for pregnant people?
The US Chamber of Commerce is among those on UPS's side. The chamber says many of its members do provide additional benefits to pregnant workers, but says policies at thousands of companies would be upended if the court were to rule for Young.Policies at thousands of companies would be upended! Oh the horror!
Only in a country with a corporate culture where virtually always are profits prioritized over people would "companies with discriminatory and/or non-accommodative policies might have to change their policies and this is a terrible thing" be suggested as the reasonable argument, and "it is wrong to continue to risk the health and well-being of thousands of people at thousands of companies, even if fixing that might cause some temporary inconvenience and marginally reduced profits" be received as an unreasonable argument.
Let us hope that SCOTUS does the right thing here, even in spite of their tendency to concede anything corporations want ever.
This Is Class Warfare
[Content Note: Exploitation; classism.]
According to conservatives, "class warfare" is any suggestion that rich people should contribute a little more so that the most vulnerable among us can struggle a little less. "Wealth redistribution," they call it. And they disgorge garbage narratives about takers and moochers who scammers who exploit the system.
All of this is projection. Wealth is being redistributed upwards, not the other way around. Economic warfare is being waged against the lower classes. And it is wealthy people who are found to be, over and over, the laziest, greediest, most opportunistic moochers who exploit the system, with proficiency and profligacy about which poor would-be swindlers can only dream.
Case in point: The Tampa Bay Times has published a scathing investigative report on New Beginnings of Tampa, one of the Florida city's largest programs serving homeless people, which sends participants to work concessions at Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games, among other jobs: "For years, New Beginnings founder and CEO Tom Atchison has sent his unpaid homeless labor crews to Tampa Bay Rays, Lightning and Bucs games, the Daytona 500 and the Florida State Fair. For their shelter, he's had homeless people work in construction, landscaping, telemarketing, moving, painting, even grant-writing."
Atchison calls it "work therapy." Homeless advocates and labor lawyers call it exploitative, and possibly illegal.Oh, well, if their hearts are in the right place, then case closed.
...The Times reviewed thousands of pages of public records about New Beginnings, including police reports, bank statements, grant documents and court proceedings, and interviewed more than 20 current and former New Beginnings residents and employees. Among the findings:
• Employees and residents said Atchison took residents' Social Security checks and food stamps, even if they amounted to more than residents owed in program costs.
• A New Beginnings contractor told the Times he overbilled the state for at least $80,000 of grant money, then gave the money to the program instead of returning it.
• While claiming to provide counseling, New Beginnings employs no one clinically trained to work with addicts or the mentally ill. One minister cited his experience running a motorcycle gang as his top qualification. The Times couldn't verify the doctorate in theology Atchison said he earned from a defunct online school.
..."It needs to stop," said Lee Hoffman, a former New Beginnings resident and minister. "There are a bunch of homeless people who are being exploited."
...New Beginnings charges its residents who can pay $150 a week, or $600 a month, which covers rent and three meals per day. Those without money work to cover their costs. Residents also agree to drug testing, curfews and sober living.
Metropolitan Ministries, the county's largest nonprofit assisting the homeless, has worked for years with New Beginnings.
"Their hearts truly seem to be in the right place," said Tim Marks, Metropolitan Ministries president and CEO.
Except for how their hearts are in a place that considers homeless people their "property."
"When they come in the program — this sounds a bit bad — they become our property to help us help them become new people," said Anthony Raburn, a minister who works with Atchison. "There are expenses that go along with that."No, Mr. Raburn. That doesn't sound a bit bad. It sounds a lot bad.
And this sure doesn't sound any better:
New Beginnings is one of three agencies applying to run Hillsborough County's proposed homeless shelter, a contract potentially worth $1.6 million annually. The competition includes the Salvation Army and DACCO, a facility that treats people with substance abuse problems and mental illness.He deserves a $100,000 annual salary for running a program that makes people indentured servants. Neat.
If New Beginnings gets the shelter contract, and some other grants, Atchison wants to increase his salary.
"I should be making $100,000-plus a year," he said. "And not apologizing for it. I deserve it."
Now, as you know, I believe people deserve to be paid for their work. I'm not saying Atchison should do this work for free. Well, he shouldn't be doing this work at all, because it's grossly exploitative. But even if he were running a solid, decent program, $100,000 annually is more than double the median household income for the area.
And he isn't running a solid, decent program. He's running one in which people aren't being paid for the work that they're doing.
"This is outrageous," said Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, a labor advocacy group. "These workers are doing a job. They need to be treated with dignity."Yes.
This Is Happening
[Content Note: War; militarism.]
Seems like something we oughta know about:
The new Army commander in Europe plans to bolster the U.S. armored presence in Poland and the Baltic states and keep rotations of U.S. troops there through next year and possibly beyond to counter Russia.Up until this point, the U.S. has provided only non-lethal aid to Ukraine—about $100 million worth, in the form of night-vision goggles, counter-mortar radars, protective gear, vehicles, blankets, and MREs. And this doesn't appear to change that policy, despite the fact that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko "has been pleading with the U.S. for advanced weaponry to counter the Russian troops and rebels."
Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges, who replaced Lt. Gen. Donald M. Campbell earlier this month as commander of U.S. Army Europe, said the Army was looking to add about 100 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the forces in Eastern Europe.
"We are looking at courses of action for how we could pre-position equipment that we would definitely want to put inside a facility where it would be better maintained, that rotational units could then come and draw on it and use it to train, or for contingency purposes," Hodges said in a briefing from Vilnius, Lithuania.
Hodges visited a training site in Lithuania that could be used to store armor and said he would look at similar sites in Estonia and Poland.
"Certainly, I don't see a need to build infrastructure -- a FOB [Forward Operating Base] if you will -- or anything like that, that would be used for U.S. forces," Hodges said.
Since taking command, Hodges has made clear his concerns about Russia, which annexed Crimea last March and has supported the separatists in eastern Ukraine. U.S. Army Europe, which had 280,000 troops at the height of the Cold War, now has 31,000.
The rotations of U.S. troops on training missions in Eastern Europe would provide "deterrence against Russian aggression," Hodges said.
Per "a senior administration official traveling with Vice President Joe Biden on his trip to Ukraine last week," the administration believes there's no point in arming Ukraine because "no matter how many weapons we provided to Ukraine, they were going to get outgunned by the Russians."
Okay.
Instead, the decision is to bolster our military presence in the region with tanks and armored vehicles, and just sit there making sure Russia knows we'll use 'em if they get too "aggressive."
Welcome to the Cold War 2.0.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker kiwi_a: "What's your favourite pair of shoes (barefoot/socks totes fine as answers)?"
Important Victory for Trans* Veterans
Two New Jersey-based transgender veterans represented by the ACLU of New Jersey, [Jennifer, a Sergeant Major who served in the U.S. Army for 29 years, and Nicolas, a New Jersey National Guardsman who served for nine], have won a victory in a battle to change their names on a key military identification document, with implications for transgender veterans throughout the country. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records sent letters on Nov. 12, which the ACLU-NJ received on Nov. 24, with its decision to change the names of the two veterans on their "DD-214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty" forms, principal documents for any action requiring proof of veteran's status.Congratulations to Jennifer and Nicolas, and to everyone for whom this decision will make life easier and more just.
..."To get this news the week of Thanksgiving feels fitting," said Jennifer. "This is about much more than a change on a piece of paper. This is about the relief of knowing that when I apply for a job, or a home loan, or anything where my veteran status is relevant, I can do it as myself."
..."This small change in a personnel document means a huge change for veterans like me," said Nicolas. "I served to protect American principles, and the principles of justice and equality have been served by this decision."
The DD-214 form determines veterans' eligibility for benefits and legal protections tied to military service. Veterans need this document to engage in a wide range of activities in public life, including securing a home loan, taking the bar exam, or applying for a job with an employer that gives veterans preference in hiring. Transgender veterans not only risk the denial of these many benefits because of inconsistencies on the DD-214, but also face invasive questions every time this document is presented.
..."With this decision, the U.S. Army has recognized the importance of reflecting service members' true identities accurately, and we're grateful that the deputy assistant secretary chose to reexamine the approach the Army Review Boards had taken for too long," said ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. "We hope this action signals a new direction for the Army, if not all branches of the military, and indicates a new sensitivity to the barriers faced by transgender veterans."
Of Course
[Content Note: Police brutality; death; racism.]
As you may recall, following the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, the Northeast Ohio Media Group saw fit to publish a story about how his father had a history of domestic violence.
Now, they have published this trash: "Father of Cleveland cop who shot Tamir Rice says his son had no choice."
So, the father of the victim irrelevantly has his violent history documented, and the father of the killer is given a platform to defend his son. Cool.
And this shit was published without a trace of irony or decency:
Tim Loehmann attends church, socializes with friends and is doing "pretty well" in the days following the Nov. 22 shooting, his father Fred Loehmann said in an interview Monday from the family's home in Parma.Wow.
"He's living his life," he said.
[H/T to @OHTheMaryD.]
Aphra and Liss Talk About Elonis v. United States
[Content Note: Threats; harassment; violence; silencing. Posted with Aphra_Behn's permission.]
Aphra: Did you see this [New York Times piece on Elonis v. United States, currently before the US Supreme Court]? So, according to the New York Times, intent is magic, and we should definitely prioritize free speech over women's safety. What the everloving fuck. I have a bad feeling about how The Supremes are gong to rule on this, and I have a terrible feeling about what that will mean for women, including women who dare to have a public presence in the world.
Liss: Yeah. I read that this morning, and I am honestly feeling all kinds of ways about writing about it. Like, mainly, that I don't want to, because I can't get past my sheer terror about what this is going to mean for me and you and every other woman who has a life online in the future. I was shaking reading it. How do they not know that EVERY DUDE who makes threats like this knows FULL WELL that "I was just joking" or "I didn't really mean it" or "I was just blowing off steam" absolves them of all accountability? And they're going to help them pull that shit? Terrific.
Aphra: I know. I KNOW. And you know what? I've been reading several opinions about this, and way too many seem to think that it is more newsworthy to note that Justice Roberts quoted Eminem, hardee har har, than to mention that this would be KIND OF A BIG DEAL for domestic violence cases and for online harassment. In other news, I was sort of shocked to find myself rooting for Alito, since he's the only justice who reacted to the arguments by saying adopting the "true intent" standard would make for "a very grave threat of domestic violence." WHUT.
Liss: Alito? ALITO?! WHAT IS EVEN HAPPENING? I find it really disturbing that, yet again, there is precious little concern about how allowing threatening speech under the auspices of free speech actually curtails the free speech of the people at whom threatening speech is directed. If the government says, "People are allowed to threaten you indefinitely and with impunity" to me, that puts me in the position of making difficult choices about what I can and can't safely say publicly. They are actively abetting the curtailing of speech that is likely to result in threats, intimidation, and harassment. Doesn't that matter?
Aphra: YES YES YES omg THAT!!!!! Because the threat itself is enough to make you shut up. The threat itself is a goddamn crime. The Atlantic had a decent piece about this using a bomb threat to a high school as an example—whether "intended" or not, it still results in canceled class (loss of instructional time), lots of work by admins and teachers, lots of work from the police, maybe calling out the bomb squad...those are real losses from the threat. Because you can't afford to be weighing or not how "serious" it is. There should be the exact same logic applied to women receiving threats via social media. How the fuck do I decide if it's "real" or not? And do I just magically decide it's not real and wave away the physical and mental effects? Also: escalation, how does it work?
Liss: I don't even know why on earth anyone would think it is a good idea EVER to define the severity of a crime by the intention of the person who perpetrated it. I mean, I get the point of differentiating between causing someone's death accidentally and deliberately, but even the whole "premeditated murder" vs. "murder of passion" distinction is pretty irrelevant, AFAIC. "Oh, this creep who sent me a threat every day for six months didn't INTEND to make me feel like I don't even want to walk outside to get the mail? Okay, then. By all means, protect his fucking SPEECH."
Aphra: Right! And how on earth does the threat being sent to you via Twitter differ from it being mailed or emailed? Does that mean threats are okay if you post them on a fucking billboard? I hate everything about this. You know, if this case and the pregnancy case end up like the Hobby Lobby ruling, I guess we'll have a pretty good indicator of the Supreme Court majority's ideal women: pregnant, unemployed, and terrified. HOW VERY NEAT.
Liss: Sob.
Daily Dose of Cute
Matilda.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Racism; violence.]
"I have a dream...that one day I'll see as much outrage over professional football players raising their hands against a woman or child in anger as I've seen over football players raising their hands in solidarity with a community demanding justice."—Pamela Merritt, aka SharkFu.
Pam is always brilliant, but holy shit. That took my breath away.
[Shared publicly with permission.]
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There's a big spidey in this video.]
Milla Jovovich: "Gentleman Who Fell"
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Racism] This is something: "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday he would soon release new guidelines to limit racial profiling by federal law enforcement, a move long awaited by civil rights advocates. ...Civil rights advocates have long called on the federal government to expand the guidelines. It is not known what groups Holder will include. The new guidelines would not pertain to local or state law enforcement, such as the Ferguson Police Department where officer Darren Wilson worked when he shot Brown. But Holder and civil rights advocates have said the federal guidelines will set the example for local agencies." Is the problem with local and state law enforcement lack of good examples, though? I think it's rather more lack of accountability. Still, this is good news.
[CN: Racism; police brutality] The unmitigated cheek: "Less than a week after twelve-year-old Tamir Rice was fatally shot by Cleveland police officers who thought Rice's toy gun was real, nine other members of the Cleveland Police Department filed a lawsuit that accuses the department of discriminating against non-African American officers who used deadly force. ...In the suit, the plantiffs claim that the department treated non-African American officers involved in the 2012 shooting of two African Americans 'substantially harsher' than African American officers involved in the same incidents. ...The officers alleged that the department's practices place 'onerous burdens on non-African American officers, including the plaintiffs, because of their race,' which violates their due process and equal protection under the law." I don't even know.
[CN: Racist apologia] What the actual fuck: "Chief Jon Belmar sent an email to his staff Monday night informing them that a senior Rams executive called to apologize for some players' show of support for protesters in Ferguson, Mo., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. ...Belmar wrote his staff that Kevin Demoff, the Rams' chief operating officer, called 'to take the opportunity to apologize' to the police department on behalf of the team. ...Demoff didn't dispute that he called Belmar. But he told ESPN.com that he never apologized during the conversation. 'In those conversations, I expressed regret that players' actions were construed negatively against law enforcement,' he told ESPN, adding that the team believes 'it is possible to support both our players' First Amendment rights and the efforts of local law enforcement to make this a better community.'"
[CN: Class warfare] More evidence that the recovery is not a recovery for everyone: "They tell you if you knuckle down and work hard, you'll get ahead in life. But Northwest Indiana residents haven't been making much progress financially—in fact, they've collectively been hit by a big pay cut over the last year. On average, wages in Northwest Indiana declined by $1.25 an hour over the past 12 months, and the average income has fallen by $3,000 as a result of lower wages and fewer work hours, said Micah Pollak, Indiana University Northwest assistant professor of economics. It's a local problem: Wages actually rose by 24 cents an hour statewide over the same period, while workers nationally got an average raise of 33 cents per hour. The average income in the Calumet Region has dropped to $40,000 from $43,000, a 6.6 percent decline, while workers nationally are making the same amount as they did a year ago." BOOTSTRAPS!
Ms. Willie Murphy is a 77-year-old weightlifting champion who could definitely kick my ass.
Sad news for all you Portman-heads out there: Republican Ohio Senator Rob Portman has ruled out a presidential bid. We're all devastated, I'm sure.
Neat! "Astronomers have made the first ever observation of an exoplanet using a ground-based telescope." 55 Cancri e is a "super-earth" orbiting "a star dimly visible to the naked eye called 55 Cancri."
And finally: Nobody puts Baby behind a pet gate! Nobody!
Culture: How the Fuck Does It Work?
"Relax, it's just a movie."
"Settle down, it's just a TV show."
"Don't get hysterical, it's just a pop song."
"Untwist your panties, it's just a book."
"Calm down, it's just a commercial."
"Give it up, it's just a video game."
"Unclench your ass, it's just a joke."
"Who cares, it's just a tweet."
"Cool it, it's just a YouTube video."
"Get over yourself, it's just a common turn of phrase."
"Release your pearls, it's just a costume."
"No one cares, it's just a radio show."
"Give me a break, it's just a t-shirt."
"Come on, it's just a bumper sticker."
"Take a breath, it's just a comic."
"Are you serious, it's just a political cartoon."
"Stop talking, it's just a column in a college newspaper."
"Give it a rest, it's just a convention."
"Collect yourself, it's just a website."
"Cool down, it's just an editorial."
"Take a chill pill, it's just a speaking panel."
"Get ahold of yourself, it's just political expediency."
"Ease off, it's just a magazine article."
"Don't get your nose out of joint, it's just a word."
"Compose yourself, it's just a sporting event."
"Take it easy, it's just an innocent question."
"Don't worry, it's just one piece of legislation."
"Simmer down, it's just an awards show."
"Knock it off, it's just the way things are done."
"Loosen up, it's just my opinion."
"Remove the stick up your ass, it's just good fun."
"Chill out, it's just a prank."
"Calm yourself, it's just a Supreme Court decision."
"Take your meds, it's just the way things work."
"Why do you even care, it's just someone you don't even know personally."
"Shut up, it's tradition."
An Observation
[Content Note: Rape culture.]
I just read an interview with a guy doing good work on challenging violence against women by talking to other men about it—doesn't matter who, because this isn't specific to him, nor a specific criticism of him—and he used the old "wife, mother, daughter, sister" framing.
Which, as you may recall, I hate.
And, as much as I hate it within the general political framework of appealing to men to care about equal pay or whatever, because they benefit when "their women" succeed, I hate it even more when it's used in an anti-violence context.
"What if it was your wife who was raped? Your mother? What if it was your daughter who was a victim of domestic violence? Your sister?"
I hate it because a woman shouldn't have to be a relative of a man for him to give a shit about her being harmed.
I hate it because it implies that all men definitely care when their female relatives are harmed.
(Which is not true. And frankly every time I hear this rhetorical flourish used in this context, it makes me recall painful familial indifference. I suspect I'm not alone in that.)
I hate it because it implies that husbands, sons, fathers, brothers don't themselves ever harm their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters.
And that is a very dangerous implication.
"Don't you care that other men might hurt your women?"
It elides the prevalence of intrafamily violence. It is a dodge from speaking to men directly about not harming women themselves. It creates a hierarchy of women worth caring about. It is potentially triggering to female survivors, whose male relatives were their victimizers or who caused secondary trauma via disbelief or indifference or shaming.
This is not just an insufficient framework. It's an actively problematic one.
It Continues to Be a Real Mystery Why Republicans Aren't Connecting with a Majority of Female Voters
[Content Note: Misogyny; police brutality; racism; gender essentialism.]
"Think big."
Dr. Ben Carson, who is currently polling second among Republicans in presidential polls, has a terrific theory about why police are killing black people:
During an appearance Tuesday on American Family Radio's "Today's Issues," Carson speculated about the behavior that led to the fatal shooting of black unarmed teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.So much wrong in so few words.
"Certainly in a lot of our inner cities, particularly in the black inner cities, where 73 percent of the young people are born out of wedlock, the majority of them have no father figure in their life," Carson said. "Usually the father figure is where you learn how to respond to authority."
He also addressed comments made by host Lauren Kitchens Steward about respecting authority and the entitlement, which she claimed, "dominates" this generation.
"I think a lot of it really got started in the '60s with the 'Me' generation. 'What's in it for me?'" Carson said. "I hate to say it, but a lot of it had to do with the women's lib movement. You know, 'I've been taking care of my family, I've been doing that, what about me?' You know, it really should be about us."
The assertion that children born to unmarried parents necessarily do not have active relationships with their fathers is flatly wrong.
The failure to acknowledge the roles of the criminalization of need, addiction, and mental illness; institutional racism in our legal system; and for-profit prisons in tearing apart poor black families in the US is flatly wrong.
The gender essentialist claptrap about learning "how to respond to authority" from fathers is flatly wrong.
The embedded implication that black people are killed by police because they are insufficiently deferential to authority is flatly wrong.
The contention that empowerment of women underwrites state violence is flatly wrong.
Basically, Carson is arguing that state violence against black people wouldn't exist if only more children were born "in wedlock" and women didn't have so many opportunities. Like the 1950s.
If only there were books about history that could tell us whether state violence against black people happened back then. Oh well. I guess it's a mystery lost to the sands of time.
Question of the Day
Originally suggested by Spudsy: What's the worst album name of all time?
The one that immediately popped into my head was Van Halen's "OU812."
Fart.
If it's not strictly the worst of all time, it's up there.
White Men Defend Making Movie with White Men
[Content Note: Racism; racist apologia.]
So, Ridley Scott has made a new epic garbage movie about Moses called Exodus: Gods and Kings. As has been well-documented in this space, I am a person who looooooves a good epic garbage movie, and even I think this looks like trash.
Over the past couple of weeks, lots of people have noted that it has a very white cast, for a film about Middle Eastern people. It stars white Welshman Christian Bale as Moses, and white Australian Joel Edgerton (in brownface? maybe? it looks like?) as Ramses.
I bet you'll be positively SHOCKED to hear that the white men who made this movie and star in this movie are not especially receptive to these eminently reasonable criticisms.
While director Ridley Scott helpfully explained he couldn't have gotten funding for his film if he'd cast "Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such," Fox studio magnate Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to declare Egyptians white, and then "Of course Egyptians are Middle Eastern, but far from black," and then, "Okay, there are many shades of color. Nothing racist about that, so calm down!"
CASE CLOSED, YOUR HONOR.
When, over the weekend, Elon James White was discussing the whitewashed film, it reminded me that I'd seen an interview with Christian Bale on Entertainment Tonight the week before, in which his response to criticisms regarding race in Exodus was so amazing I wrote it down.
I later found the clip; the best quote of all the quotes starts at 2:09:
"l don't know that just the fact that I was born in Wales and suffer from this skin that can't deal with the sun should dictate that Ridley should say well in that case he's not the right man for playing the role."
So, you know, basically you're the REAL racist for saying he can't play Moses because of his terrible sun affliction!
Runner-up for best quote comes at 1:03: "I learned about Moses from Charlton Heston." LOLOLOL. Of course you did.
Anyway. None of this is new or surprising, naturally. But I wanted to take the time to point out how both Ridley Scott and Christian Bale are both effectively throwing their hands in the air like they were helpless. Scott asserts he couldn't have gotten funding if he didn't use white actors: "What was I supposed to do?!" Bale asserts he was offered the role and did his best: "What was I supposed to do?!"
Oh, I dunno. Maybe not make the movie then. Maybe don't accept the role.
It's not like either Ridley Scott or Christian Bale need to work to put food on their families. They are exceptionally wealthy men. Who are posturing as though they don't have any options.
They had options. They had a choice to make. They made the wrong one.
And they believe, quite firmly, that pointing that out is a great injustice. That expecting white people to choose not to participate in systems that oppress people of color is an unreasonable expectation. That saying, no matter how gently, hey maybe you could just not, is a form of discrimination, rather than an invitation to expect more of themselves.
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by snowflakes.
Recommended reading:
Tressie: [Content Note: Police brutality; racism] Riots and Reason
Prison Culture: [CN: Police brutality; racism] To Damo, with Our Love
Nina: [CN: Misogyny; violence; hostility toward agency] #HelmsHurts: How the U.S. Continues to Deny Critical Health Care to Women in War Zones
stavvers: [CN: Rape; rape apologia] I Believe Shia LaBeouf (and Piers Morgan Is a Rape Apologist Rat Turd)
BYP: [CN: Police brutality; racism] White Cop Kills Off-Duty Black Officer During Chase
Kyler: [video] A Look Back at Some of the Many Films that Have Shined a Light on the AIDS Crisis
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley chills out and watches a favorite show about dogs.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Walking Thread
[Content Note: Descriptions of violence. Spoilers are lurching around undeadly herein.]
We have two weeks of terrific episodes to cover, so let us first begin with the briefest of recaps of last week's episode, "Crossed." Filler filler filler. The Grimes Gang hatches a plot to rescue Carol and Beth. Filler filler filler. Michonne and Carl the Hat stay behind to babysit Baby Zombie Whistle Grimes and Gabriel the Priest. Filler filler filler. Glenn and Maggie go fishing. Filler filler filler. Maggie yells at Sgt. Red Bull. Filler filler filler. One of the hospital police officers double-crosses Sasha and escapes.
And now to this week's episode, which is the winter finale, "Coda." We pick up with the officer who has escaped, still handcuffed, running down the street back toward the hospital to warn Officer Meanlady about Grimes Gang's plan to exchange officers they've taken hostage for Carol and Beth. Grimes is chasing him in a police car (because of course he is) and warns him to stop. When he doesn't, Grimes smashes the car into him, then shoots him. RIP that guy.
It's important to note at this juncture that we are definitely meant to side with Grimes here. That gosh darn guy was going to ruin everything! But, for all its exhausting, repetitive, simplistic, eyeroll-inducing attempts to address moral relativism and the ethics of survival in the zombiepocalypse, the show never invites us, in any discernible way, to consider that, if it had been one of the Grimes Gang escaping someone who had taken them hostage for a prisoner exchange, and the person from whom they were escaping shot them, we'd be mad at that person. That person would be presented by this show as a monster. Because the only "my people" who are worth our sympathies, ever, are Grimes' people.
This is, ahh, worth noting. For later in the episode.
Anyway!
Back at Grimes' Church, Gabriel is fucking around out in the woods by himself, and naturally gets besieged by zombies. He runs back to the church, where he claws at the front door and begs to be let in, JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE HE LEFT TO DIE, IN CASE YOU FORGOT, KARMA KARMA HEAVY-HANDED KARMA. But, of course, Michonne and Carl the Hat let him in, and then somehow can't keep out the influx of zombies like they have a zillion times before, so they have to beat a hasty retreat.
Luckily, Sgt. Red Bull, at the helm of the fire truck, appears just in time (huzzah!) and drives into the door, barricading it shut. What a serendipitous and happy reunion! Maggie is delighted to hear that Beth is still alive and that everyone else has gone to rescue her. Uh-oh.
Meanwhile, back in Atlanta, Beth and Officer Meanlady have Meaningful Conversations. Beth rescues Officer Meanlady from a rogue officer, by pushing him down the elevator shaft of zombie doom. Beth accuses Officer Meanlady of using her, to which Officer Meanlady responds, "That's how things get done here: Everyone uses people to get what they want." Beth gives Officer Meanlady major "I Will Have My Revenge" face.
Later, Officer Meanlady's contingent and Grimes Gang Prime meet in a hallway in the hospital. It's a real showdown at the Oh Good Grief Corral. Everyone holsters their weapons. I think this should be tense? But it doesn't feel particularly tense to me. As per every single finale of The Walking Dead ever, the big showdown to which every interminably slow episode has been leading now feels rushed and contrived.
The two groups exchange prisoners—two officers for Carol and Beth. That should settle it, except Officer Meanlady demands that Noah, the young man whom Beth helped escape who later hooked up with Carol and Daryl, be returned to his indentured servitude at the hospital. Grimes refuses, insisting that wasn't part of the deal. Officer Meanlady says, "Then we don't have a deal." OH SHIT.
Tensions start to escalate, and Noah volunteers to go back to the hospital group, in order to keep the peace. NOT FAIR! Beth is super pissed. She sidles up to Officer Meanlady and says, in a real "They're screwing with the wrong people" moment, "I get it now."
If there's one thing the writers of this show know how to do PERFECTLY, it's spectacularly flub moments begging for powerful dialogue.
Anyway, after uttering the woefully unsatisfying, "I get it now," Beth pulls out a tiny pair of surgical scissors she'd concealed in her arm cast and stabs Officer Meanlady in her riot-gear protected chest. Surprised by this impotent attempt to murder her, Officer Meanlady accidentally discharges her gun, shooting Beth in the head.
She looks up, horrified, pleadingly. Before she can even argue it was a mistake, Daryl shoots her in the head.
RIP Beth. RIP Officer Meanlady.
Now, remember that whole thing about how Rick Grimes is Superhero #1 for killing the cop who was risking their plan to rescue Carol and Beth? He killed that dude deliberately, when the guy was trying to save himself and "his people." Officer Meanlady, on the other hand, is immediately slaughtered by everyone's favorite character for accidentally killing a member of Grimes Gang who was trying to murder her.
Was Officer Meanlady a nice person? Nope! She made some highly shitty decisions, which she justified under the auspices of keeping their ragtag group of assholes together and functioning and safe. Which, you know, sounds an awful lot like how I could describe some other RICK GRIMES I won't mention.
The best commentary this show makes is the unintentional commentary embedded in asking us to always side with Grimes Gang, for the arbitrary reason that they're the group of which we're (effectively) a part. We see them as "good" because "they" are "us."
This is a true thing about life: We tend to see groups of which we're a part, by choice or circumstance, as "good," not necessarily for qualitative or quantitative reasons, but just because they're "ours."
It would be awesome if The Walking Dead ever made any attempt to explore that theme, but nope! It's way easier and way more fun to cheer at Daryl shooting a lady who's definitely a total bitch for acting just like Rick Grimes who's definitely a hero.
Anyway.
Just as the fire truck arrives carrying the rest of Grimes Gang—is this a fire truck or a GETTING PLACES AT THE PERFECT TIME truck?!—Grimes Gang Prime walks out of the hospital, Daryl carrying Beth's body in his arms. Maggie collapses on the ground and screams, and that would be a genuinely moving moment, if only Maggie had seemed to give two shits about Beth missing at literally any point before this.
Everyone is very sad, and that is the end of the episode.
WAIT NO IT'S NOT. Because here is a three-minute clip of Morgan (hey, remember that guy?!), who's been trailing Grimes Gang for awhile, showing up at the now-abandoned church. He finds the coolest note ever, and his eyes widen with delight (?), as anyone's would, upon learning that Rick Grimes is alive, making good decisions, and within one's reach.
And that is the end of the episode.
But it is not the end of this post, because immediately following the airing of the episode on the US East Coast, the show's Facebook page posted the MAJOR SPOILER, way the fuck before people on the US West Coast and everywhere else it airs got to see the episode! Whooooooooops! Way to reward your fans, dipshits. Yeesh.
And, with that, we will reconvene in February, when part two of this season begins.
In the words of a flannel shirt wearing zombie, "ARGLE BARGLE." Fin.
