Girls: Because they "could do things they don't really want to do"—or that their moms don't want them to do.
Boys: Because they "could make some serious mistakes" or—get hurt.
That's according to some hawt new PSAs from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. (If you can't listen, I transcribed them below.)
Shaker Joe sent me the link, noting that he's a father of daughters—and a former teenage boy—and he was struck by the differences between the two ads. As was I, once I gave them a listen. The differences are understated, but undeniable—and what a coincidence that the subtle differences in script seem to reinforce sex-based stereotypes: Girls need to be obedient ("honey, trust me, if you drink, you could do things you don't really want to do, that I don't want you to do"); boys need to be independent thinkers ("just cuz [some kids] drink, doesn't mean you have to"). Girls need protection ("Listen, I'm just trying to protect you., all right?"); boys need stern advice ("You may think you can handle it, but…it's dangerous."). Even the differences in tone in Mom's and Dad's voices are telling.
Also: I'll no doubt be accused of hearing things that aren't there, but "if you drink, you could do things you don't really want to do" sounds to me like rape prevention with built-in victim-blaming. Unless by "do things you don't really want to do," Mom just means "accidentally puking on your boyfriend's dick while consensually blowing him." Or something.
Mom: Careful at the party, hon. Remember what we talked about?
Girl: I know, Mom.
Mom: No alcohol, right?
Girl: Yeah, I knoooow.
Mom: Honey, seriously—I know you're in high school now, but you're still too young to drink and you're still my daughter. I don't want anything happening to you.
Girl: I know. I know.
Mom: Really—drinking is different with kids. You're still growing; you're still developing. It messes with your judgment.
Girl: I knoooow.
Ominous Voiceover: Teenagers know everything. So talk about underage drinking before they know it all, before they're teens.
Mom: And you could do things—honey, trust me, if you drink, you could do things you don't really want to do, that I don't want you to do.
Girl: Yeah, Mom. I know.
Mom: Listen, I'm just trying to protect you., all right? If you're a grown woman, it's different, but you're not.
Girl: I know, okay? I know.
OVO: Start talking—before they start drinking. And keep talking. To learn more about the dangers of underage drinking, and what to say to your kids, go to stop alcohol abuse dot gov. Brought to you by the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council.
Dad: Son, I want you home by ten, all right?
Boy: I know.
Dad: Hold on—listen, we need to talk about drinking.
Boy: [sigh]
Dad: You know how I feel about alcohol.
Boy: Yeah, I know.
Dad: Seriously—you're way too young to drink. I know some kids are drinking, but you're my kid. And just cuz they drink, doesn't mean you have to.
Boy: I know.
Dad: I mean, you're still growing; you're still developing. You may think you can handle it, but you're not a grown-up yet. It's dangerous.
Boy: I know, okay?
Ominous Voiceover: Teenagers know everything. So talk about underage drinking before they know it all, before they're teens.
Dad: Listen, when you drink, it screws up your judgment. I don't want you getting hurt. You could make some serious mistakes.
Boy: I know, I know.
Dad: Listen to me—this is real.
Boy: I know, okay? I know.
OVO: Start talking—before they start drinking. And keep talking. To learn more about the dangers of underage drinking, and what to say to your kids, go to stop alcohol abuse dot gov. Brought to you by the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council.
Why Girls and Boys Shouldn't Drink
Truce
Instadouche has friends: "You are all so far out of your league, it's simply astonishing."
That's actually a league I'm happy to be far out of, thanks very much.
All right, now I'm starting to feel bad. Listen, Instapunk—let me make it up to you. Here's a token of my remorse and generosity. Warm regards, brotha.
Dem Debate
Go see Steve Benen for a good wrap-up. For my money, though (and I may be prejudiced, growing up in an Indiana steel town as I do, where, when I was a kid, the most popular occupation of my friends' fathers was "laid off"), this was the defining moment of the debate:
If you can watch that without getting choked up, you've a stronger constitution than I do. Think Progress has a partial transcript.
That, by the way, is precisely why the Republican candidates will always have "scheduling conflicts" when this debate format is suggested. Spineless shitbags.
Welcome To Interrogation
Read this amazing piece by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker. But gird yourself. It's one of the worst things you'll ever read about your government, and that's saying something:I guess that's something else we can be proud of. The rest of the post is definitely worth a read, so head on over.[...]
"A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the 'takeout' of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location. A person involved in the Council of Europe inquiry, referring to cavity searches and the frequent use of suppositories during the takeout of detainees, likened the treatment to 'sodomy.' He said, 'It was used to absolutely strip the detainee of any dignity. It breaks down someone’s sense of impenetrability. The interrogation became a process not just of getting information but of utterly subordinating the detainee through humiliation.' The former C.I.A. officer confirmed that the agency frequently photographed the prisoners naked, 'because it’s demoralizing."
Another Young Republicans Charged with Sexual Assault
Just a couple of weeks after Young Republican Michael Flory pleaded guilty to having raped a young woman while she slept at a Young Republicans Convention, Glenn Murphy, Jr., the recently elected chairman of the Young Republican National Federation has been accused of sexually assaulting a sleeping man.
Allegedly, Murphy and another YR were drunk and crashing at Murphy's sister's house. The other man apparently awoke in the morning to find Murphy giving him a non-consensual blow job. The Clark County (Indiana) Sheriff's Department is charging Murphy with "criminal deviate conduct", a Class B felony.The hat tip goes to Pam, who notes: "Taking Down Words, an Indiana blog, has been following this guy for some time. And guess what? Apparently this isn't the first time his mouth has ended up on someone's privates while they were asleep."
This new generation of Republicans sure are interesting. I wonder if "pro-raping people while they sleep" will soon be an official plank of the party platform.
In fact, maybe instead of a platform, they should just switch to a mattress.
Bite Me
You knew this had to happen.
Someone has come up with a dog chew toy in the likeness of Michael Vick.
It just goes to show you that no matter what the situation is, there will be someone who will figure out how to make a buck out of it.In the wake of Vick's federal indictment on dog-fighting charges, www.vickdogchewtoy.com is offering the ultimate opportunity for Fluffy to get his revenge.
According to the Web site, the Vick Dog Chew Toy -- at $10.99 plus $2 shipping -- will be available for delivery starting Tuesday -- but get yours while you can.
The toy likely infringes on rights to use Vick's name and image, as well as on NFL trademarks, since its uniform mirrors that of the Falcons star, minus the logos.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
How to Make Yourself a Laughingstock
Just follow these eight simple steps—and you, too, can be a huge, ridiculous, pitiable, wankeriffic douchehound in no time!
1. Write a post called "Shakespeare's Sister," using my picture, referring to me throughout, and using as dénouement a carefully selected Shakespeare quote, even though the post was written by Kathy.
2. Email me to inform me I've "been InstaPunked."
3. Get totally PWNED.
4. Don't laugh at yourself. Whatever you do, don't laugh at yourself.
5. Send me a rambling, nonsensical follow-up email about how I need to "graciously accept defeat. And don't forget to don your burkah."
6. Spend a bunch of time updating your original embarrassing post, not with a correction, but:
A) The claim that you couldn't possibly tell the difference between Kathy and me (in spite of my helpful graphic) because Kathy's picture isn't in the sidebar here at hurricane headquarters.
B) The assertion you "don't care who's at this moronic blog," despite having written a post specifically about one of our posts, animated my picture, posted every other contributor's picture (plus mine for a second time), and emailed me to make sure I was aware of your clever post; the accusation that I'm "hiding behind" my own name; and a reference to the by now clearly-identified Kathy as "some unnamed co-blogger (still unidentified)" while saying I'm throwing her under the bus simply by pointing out she's the author of the post in question.
C) The explanation that my picture is "obsolete" because "they got rid of" me. Also: Call me ugly and stupid. (Oh, the pain! The pain!)
7. Head over here and leave a rambling missive in comments, including the hilarious contention: "You labor under the misapprehension that people care what names go with what rote entries on this website. They don't," without a trace of irony that you've just spent the past day titling your post with my handle, going to the trouble of digging out a Shakespeare quote because of it, and compulsively updating your post with various excuses for why you can't read a simple byline—a rather long post, by the way, that you penned in response to one of our "rote entries" that supposedly no one cares about.
8. Most of all, at every turn, refuse to admit making a mistake, refuse to acknowledge with a chuckle "Yeah, I deserved that" considering the mocking tone of your original post, and refuse to laugh at yourself, instead desperately trying to turn the tables, even if it means resorting to calling your bespectacled foe "four-eyed," thereby establishing your maturity level somewhere around Grade 3.
This woman is smirking because
you're a complete dipshit.
Fin.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Mama Shakes: What word or phrase did you misunderstand as a child or even as an adult? How and when did you learn of your mistake?
I'm sure this has happened to me dozens of times in my life, but the two that spring immediately to mind are:
1) When I was really little, I thought matzo ball soup was actually called mothball soup. I didn't understand why anyone would want to eat it. (I now love matzo ball soup, btw.)
2) The Lutheran Confession of Sins and Absolution is:
"O almighty God, merciful Father, I, a poor, miserable sinner, confess unto Thee all my sins and iniquities with which I have ever offended Thee and justly deserved Thy temporal and eternal punishment. But I am heartily sorry for them and sincerely repent of them; and I pray Thee of Thy boundless mercy and for the sake of the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to be gracious and merciful to me, a poor, sinful, being."
Every week this is intoned by the whole congregation during the service. (To this day, I remember exactly where the "breath breaks" were: "O almighty God, merciful Father (breathe!), I, a poor miserable sinner (breathe!)…") I probably had it memorized before I could read it.
For many years, I wondered why we were all confessing that we were "hardly" sorry for our sins.
Funnily enough, I know of at least one other person with whom I grew up who thought the same thing, and I've met two Lutherans since who laughed with recognition when I shared that story.
Nutty!
Look - I know we're all a bit outrage-fatigued, so I thought it would be time to break up the issues a bit with an interesting tidbit that you're bound to enjoy:
A St. Paul man, complaining of chronic pain, wanted to have his testicles removed. When conventional medical staff refused to do the job, he hired other "professionals" to take off his testicles, according to a search warrant affidavit filed Monday in Ramsey County District Court.I'll just leave it at that. Head on over if you're really interested. If he ever misses them, I'm sure he could find some solace in a pair of these.
UPDATE: Welcome Crooks & Liars readers! As luck would have it, I first arrived in Shakesville exactly the same way, from one of Mike's blog round ups! I've been here ever since. Hope you'll stick around for a bit too!
War on Pervs
Criminal solicitations of minors are serious. Persistent unwanted solicitations are serious. But this strikes me as the equivalent of Teh War on Drugs' insistence on equating pot with highly addictive drugs like cocaine or heroin.
A joint won't actually make you jump out a window in a crazed drug frenzy.
Etc.
A Matter of Trust
Glenn Greenwald has a very cogent follow-up on the Democrats' giving in to the White House to revise and expand the FISA act over the weekend. The biggest fear among the leadership is that by standing up to the administration and demanding that the revisions to the law don't decimate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution or put the power to determine who gets listened in on in the hands of an incompetent hack, i.e. the Attorney General, the Republicans and their campaign juggernaut, led by Karl Rove, will run roughshod over the Democratic candidates next fall and help the GOP regain the House and Senate and keep the White House in their talons.
The problem, though, is that is precisely what the GOP did in 2006 and it didn't work.How did that big, bad, scary "Soft-on-Terrorism" strategy work out? The Democrats crushed the Republicans in an historic election, re-taking control of both houses of Congress, protecting every single one of their incumbents, and vastly increasing their hold over governorships and states houses. Democrats won in every region of the country outside of the Deep South. Karl Rove's strategy of accusing Democrats of being "soft on terror" due to their opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, lawless detention and torture was a complete failure on every level.
There's a lot of excuse-making going around about why the Democrats didn't hold their ground: the bill will expire in six months and between now and then the Democrats promise to really work hard to "fix" it (I've already had my say about that); that the new bill closes a technical loophole in the old law that really did need to be closed, and that the Democrats got bamboozled by the White House when the reasonable compromise that they'd worked out with the Director of National Intelligence was torpedoed by the president. It all sounds suspicously like the dog ate the homework, and even Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post editorial board, who normally rolls over and begs for a bellyrub from the White House, isn't buying it.
Following along with Rove's scheme, numerous incumbent GOP candidates attempted to exploit Democratic opposition to warrantless eavesdropping in order to save their campaigns. Connecticut's Nancy Johnson, a 12-term incumbent, repeatedly ran an ad accusing her challenger, Chris Murphy, of being weak on terrorism because he opposed warrantless eavesdropping. After 24 years in Congress, Johnson lost by 12 points. Murphy, who proudly opposed warrantless eavesdropping, is now in the U.S. Congress.To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law -- or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.
There's also a larger issue here, and that's the matter of trust. To put it plainly, the vast majority of Americans do not trust their government, and in particular this administration, to do the right thing. Whether it's conducting the so-called war on terror that even Newt Gingrich calls phony, sending our soldiers to invade a country that didn't attack us, or rebuilding a city after a hurricane, providing guidance on energy independence, or even hiring and firing the civil servants in the Department of Justice, the Bush administration has, by intent or just plain incompetence, violated the trust of the American people in everything it has touched and then found excuses, scapegoats or political fingerpointing to get away with it. The sheer audacity of the mendacity itself can boggle the mind, and what's even worse, the knee-jerk supporters of the administration accept these weak strains as their version of reality. They've lowered their standards of decency and competency in order to enable and perpetuate the fictions. Clearly it's not limited to the Republicans; we saw the same thing when Bill Clinton was busted for his affair with Monica Lewinsky and a lot of Democrats contorted themselves to make excuses as well, even if they blushed with embarrassment when they discussed it, seemingly knowing that they were pushing the envelope. (Either that or talking about a presidential blow job on CNN is hard to do without cringing.) The Republicans don't seem to be embarrassed by supporting an administration that, by any standards, makes the Harding administration look good by comparison. That tells you these shills are either really good actors or they actually do believe what they're saying.
I'm old enough to remember a time when trusting the government and the president was a matter of course. Even if we disagreed with the policy, we felt that we had elected a man who had our best interests at heart and not those of his political party. That trust was eroded when we engaged in another war that was commenced under false pretenses and escalated on deliberate deception and fearmongering by the Johnson administration. This thread was picked up by the Nixon administration; opponents of the war were demonized as unpatriotic and the fault lines between the hawks and the doves were exacerbated. Vice President Spiro Agnew drew the line very clearly: those who do not support the president are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And it was the same administration that distrusted our system of government -- of fair elections, of the rights of freedom of speech and protection from warrantless and illegal searches -- that it tried to circumvent the law.
Since then, we as a nation have had a very hard time trusting our elected leaders. The scandals and human failings are a part of it; most of us forget that the people we look to as stewards of our nation are just as human as we are, heir to the same stupidities and faults as anyone. And we have become very adept at seeking and finding the ulterior motive behind anything that is done supposedly for the greater good but smacks of cronyism or the fulfillment of an agenda for someone else. (And it's not like we haven't had good reason to be suspicious; there have been plenty of examples of cronyism and agenda-fulfillment at all levels.) And despite promises to restore trust and honor and dignity, it always comes with the caveat that we must first overcome our mistrust and elect the promise-maker. The chicken and the egg strike again.
There is that in all of us that wants us to believe what we're told by the people we put in power. We would like to believe that they have our best interest at heart and that if there are sacrifices that must be made in order to fight a war or protect us against a sworn enemy, we accept them and support them because we trust them to do what is good and right. But in this case, the trust we are asked to endow on the expanded FISA law and everything else that this administration has put forth in the name of fighting terror has not been earned by judicious and balanced administration. Instead it has been destroyed by the methods to which they have gone to obtain these powers in the first place. Trust isn't earned by demonization, by overtly bragging about breaking the law, or by using the power of the office to exact political revenge on your opponents, nor is it earned by saying "trust me and don't ask any questions."
Whoever the next president is, he or she will have a nearly insurmountable task to overcome not just the current administration's setbacks in our standing both among the citizens here and our allies abroad, but to bring back that feeling of trust in ourselves and our own ability to choose leaders who represent more than just a political party and its philosophy and who do things -- or don't do them -- just to ensure the next election is in their favor. You can go a long way in restoring trust and getting things done if you don't care about who gets the credit for it.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
The Pentagon: God's Military Stronghold
It seems some officers have gotten themselves in a wee bit of trouble by appearing in a Christian Embassy fundrasing video:
The Army and Air Force are considering disciplinary action against seven officers — including four generals — who violated ethics rules by assisting a Christian group in the production of a fundraising video.This comes as a result of an inquiry made by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation upon reading about the expose of this video made on Pentagon grounds. What's scarier than the blurred line of church/state separation is how one of the taped officers viewed the evangelical organization:
The Pentagon inspector general found the officers were interviewed in uniform and "in official and often identifiable Pentagon locations," according to a 45-page report.
Catton's response was similar. Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," he told investigators, and he believed he was taking part in a program approved by the Defense Department.Now that's just plain fucking loopy. Quasi-federal entity? Task list:
1. Write Catton a new excuse for being in the video. All Shakers welcome.
2. Kick the CE out of the Pentagon on their asses to go evangelize somewhere that's not on federal government grounds.
3. After investigation, ask Michael Palin to perform the fish-slapping dance on the offending officers.
[H/T to Attytood]
Reading Problems
Dear LocoPunk,
I was so pleased to get your email informing me that I'd been "InstaPunked." It was titillating to be informed "as a courtesy" that you "linked to [my] site and took issue with one of [my] posts." Hmm—what could it be?! thought I, excitedly.
I can't even begin to express how thrilled I was when I saw all the trouble you went to! Nicking my picture—and animating it to look like I was laughing—was sheer genius. My nipples are hard at the mere thought of your manipulating me in such a forceful fashion!
And spending time finding a special Shakespeare quote, just for me?! Well, that's the kind of thing that makes a girl blush.
Not to mention using my name no fewer than five times, including "The blogger who calls herself Shakespeare's Sister is a perfect case in point" and—my personal favorite—"All that's left is wondering about what's really going on inside the head of Shakespeare's Sister. Is she a flat-out dolt?" Awwwww.
So you can imagine my disappointment, LocoPunk, to find out that the post to which you were responding wasn't actually written by me at all. Sigh.
I know you're probably not the kind of person who likes to get a girl's hopes up for nothing, because that’s just cruel, and—what with sending me that email "as a courtesy" and everything—I can tell you're a nice person. So, for future reference, a post written by me looks like this:
See how it says "Posted by MelissaMcEwan"?
That's me. Melissa McEwan. Formerly known as Shakespeare's Sister.
But I guess your real crush is on Kathy, anyway. That's fine. I'm used to it. It's always
Love,
Melissa McEwan
aka Shakespeare's Sister
Bush: "I Really Mean It This Time"
In what's become a traditional pose, Preznit stood among the remains of yet another mess, this time in Minnesota, to tell everyone what he does and doesn't promise:
I make no promises on the timetable. I do promise that Mary Peters, the Secretary of Transportation, is going to be in charge of this project. I do promise she's going to listen to the local authorities to find out what the folks here need. I do promise that when she sees roadblocks and hurdles in the way of getting the job done, she'll do everything she can to eliminate them.Translation:
I promise to stand in front of the collapsed bridge in such a way so as to make me look really cool. I promise to delegate this entire project to someone else so I don't have to deal with it. I promise to be happy when things go wrong because the person I've delegated will be responsible, not me. I promise to brush my teeth before bed.
More Beauchamp
FYI: Though The Weekly Standard reported this morning that Scott Beauchamp has recanted, The New Republic has now issued a new statement possibly calling into question the veracity of that report:
We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."Thanks to John Cole for the heads-up. I'm now officially sick to the tits of this story.
Duh
In Things I Could Have Told You For Free:
A new report reveals what women already know: Men get rewarded for getting angry at work, while women who do the same thing are penalized and regarded as incompetent and "out of control."In the first video test, all the candidates' scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting. Participants gave the highest status to the man who said he was angry, the second most to the woman who said she was sad, slightly less to the man who said he was sad, and least of all, and by a sizable margin, to the woman who said she was angry.
When asked to estimate the average salary for each candidate, the participants assigned almost $38,000 to the angry man but only about $23,500 to the angry woman while the other two candidates were estimated to earn approximately $30,000 each.
Are You Kidding Me?
"These censure resolutions will let future generations know that Congress stood up to the destructive policies of this administration that have weakened our national security, cost more than 3,600 American lives, and undermined the principles on which our country was founded," Feingold said in a prepared statement.You know, it's bad enough that they want to go through the motions of a censure, but really. THIS is how they "stand up to the administration?"
Well, ain't that a huge stinking crock'o'something.
Opinion Journal: Total Rubbish
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has always been an embarrassment, but lately it's turned into a proper cesspool. Today's offering, care of Ion Mihai Pacepa (who, the author note explains is "the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November.") is titled Propaganda Redux and bluntly subtitled "Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush."
My oh my! I guess "old KGB hands" don't pull their punches.
There are a lot of problems with the ensuing article, which I'll leave to you to hash out in comments, but I will point out this one bit from the opening section:
I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America's own respect for its president.That's probably right, though it's an issue of correlation, not causation. Pacepa is asserting that America's global reputation is influenced by how much domestic respect Americans give our president, but, realistically, America's global reputation and America's own respect for its president are directly proportional because Americans and non-Americans respect presidents who do well by America and the world, and don't respect presidents who don't—and non-Americans increasingly conflate their views of the American president with America. (Though they mostly afford the American people a more generous separation from our leaders than we sometimes deserve.)
If anything, Pacepa isn't making an argument that Americans need to withhold criticism from their president; he's making the argument that America would benefit from a separation of offices between the head of state and the head of government. (And we do.)
Although, coming from someone who also notes that "It is America's leader that counts. Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies," I'm quite certain that argument was unintentional.
Times to Abandon "TimesSelect" Content
If you believe the Post, anyway:
The New York Times is poised to stop charging readers for online access to its Op-Ed columnists and other content, The Post has learned.I never paid for "TimesSelect," and I didn't miss any of 'em. When I wanted to read someone (Krugman), I could usually find them somewhere.
After much internal debate, Times executives - including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - made the decision to end the subscription-only TimesSelect service but have yet to make an official announcement, according to a source briefed on the matter.
…While other online publications were abandoning subscriptions, the Times took the opposite approach in 2005 and began charging for access to well-known writers, including Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Thomas L. Friedman.
