So last night, I'm watching the opening of the Emmys, and it's fucking dreadful. There are five hosts—Tom Bergeron, Heidi Klum, Howie Mandel, Jeff Probst, and Ryan Seacrest, all of whom are nominees in some Best Reality Show Host category or wev, and all wearing tuxedos—and their shtick is just awful, as Mandel, Probst, and Seacrest pretend to have nothing prepared.
Then they leave the stage, and Bergeron and Klum are standing there, engaging in some more painfully stilted banter, when Bergeron invites William Shatner up on the stage, and, then, in what has to be one of the most appalling bits ever conceived for an awards show, the two men proceed to rip Klum's clothes off, revealing a skin-baring ensemble underneath.
Then Klum took down her hair, shook it out like a '70s shampoo model, and, as Sarah at AfterEllen aptly describes it, "smiled, struck a sexy pose, and said, "Now that I've got your attention..." (Because who would pay attention to her with her clothes on?)"
Shaker Sarah in Chicago says, at her place: "Because, you know, there's not quite enough association of violence against women with sexuality in our culture as there is, is there?"
Seriously.
WTF, Emmys?
Debating Points
From the New York Times via Andrew Sullivan:
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.Mr. Sullivan has a few thoughts on the matter:
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.
Are you fucking kidding me? We are now rigging the debate formats to compensate for a know-nothing, mendacious Manchurian candidate drilled in meaningless talking points? And the Obama team agreed to this? And so did the press?Actually, I think the McCain campaign just shot themselves in the foot with both barrels. They are admitting up front that Gov. Palin isn't ready to take the national stage, she's uninformed on the issues of the campaign, and that the standard debate format that the vice presidential candidates have used ever since they've been having the debates is too hard for her. If the Obama campaign had fought them on this, the McCain campaign would have accused them of bullying them into a format that is, for Gov. Palin, unfair. They are undercutting their own message that she's a rootin' tootin' gun-totin' maverick from the wilds of Alaska who can shoot a wolf from an airplane and is ready to shake up Washington, but who in reality can't take the heat of Joe Biden's withering glare on a soundstage. Cluck, cluck.
It's just more proof that their whole campaign is nothing but a fraud, and they just announced it to the press.
(Cross-posted.)
Still More Troopergate and Palin's Apathy to Sex Crimes
As you may recall, the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, who was fired by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after declining to re-open an old investigation against State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was at the time immersed in a bitter divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister Molly McCann, was also the chief proponent and champion of "an ambitious, multi-million-dollar initiative to seriously tackle sex crimes in the state," which was shelved just before he was fired.
You also may recall that the McCain campaign, in order to refute the assertion that Palin fired Monegan because of Troopergate, argued that she had instead fired him because he made an unapproved trip to Washington on his own to try to secure funds for the initiative. As I wrote last Tuesday, that argument necessarily meant that "Palin is shockingly indifferent to rape and domestic violence in her own state and contemptuous of the people who don't share her indifference—and, weirdly, the McCain campaign appears to believe that's somehow more palatable than Palin having simply fired Monegan for insubordination because she wasn't getting what she wanted from a public servant on her personal family matter. That's quite an amazing calculation."
Well, get this: It turns out that Palin's office did authorize the trip. So now they're arguing that their problem was specifically his reason for going, i.e. that initiative to combat sex crime.
According to [Randy Ruaro, another aide to Palin], Monegan asked for -- and received -- approval for the travel without telling Palin's staff his reason for going. "As a matter of routine, the travel was approved by [Palin's chief of staff, Mike Nizich] ... weeks before the actual purpose was made clear by former Commissioner Monegan," Ruaro wrote.You'll no doubt be surprised to hear that Monegan says the travel authorization "was to pursue funding for the anti-sexual-violence program," and, given his track record on this story, I'm sure that's true and Palin's people are lying yet again.
"When you receive permission to travel, it does not mean that you receive blanket authorization to discuss or do whatever you would like on that trip," he added.
But the important point here is that, at every turn, Palin's defense has been predicated on the premise that she didn't give a shit about addressing a sex crime problem that even she agreed was epidemic. That much remains consistent.
And that's not a small thing.
[H/T to Shaker Lena.]
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch, #18
[Trigger warning.]
Why, Sandra Bernhard, why?
In one of the most scathing and arguably vulgar personal attacks on the Republican vice presidential nominee yet, Bernhard lashed out at Palin during opening night of her one woman show in Washington, D.C. on Thursday night. Among other controversial remarks, Bernhard called Palin a 'turncoat bitch' who "would be gang raped by blacks in Manhattan."There is video at the link, should you be so inclined. It does not include her comment that Palin "would be gang raped by blacks in Manhattan," so I have no idea what the specific context is for that line—although I quite honestly can't imagine a context in which it would be anything less than deeply misogynist and racist.
In one particularly abasive [sic] rant, Bernhard attacked everything from Sarah Palin’s fashion sense and hair style to her political views and religious beliefs.
"Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the shit and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat bitch! Don't you fuckin' reference Old Testament, bitch!" Bernhard said. "You stay with your new Goyisha crappy shiksa funky bullshit! Don't you touch my Old Testament, you bitch! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your cheap fuckin' New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bullshit moment."
I also can't imagine a person as clever as Bernhard has always struck me to be honestly believing that making fun of a woman's appearance and calling her a bitch and a whore is somehow "edgy." That shit's about as cutting edge as the fucking wheel, okay?
Meanwhile, I'll leave you to dissect the jaw-dropping irony of a woman calling Sarah Palin an "Uncle Woman" while using the tools of The PatriarchyTM herself.
And once again, I am amazed at the sheer number of comedians who are willing to risk triggering sexual assault survivors in their audience in order to use one of the most horrific things a human being can experience as the butt of a fucking joke.
[H/T to Shakers Katie, Medusa, Juliemania, and Holly in Cincinnati. Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]
Check Your Perspective
Recently, I've read a lot of posts from people who are very angry about the unregulated fat-cats who have been profiting obscenely from our financial system, and whose obscene profits have led to the current financial crisis in the USA.
They are pissed that rich people are whining because they might have to take their kids out of private school, or give up their private jet, or sell one of their eight or ten or twelve houses. They are rightly pissed, I think, when many of them are struggling to keep their only house, or their job, or the pension they worked 40+ years for.
I know that I feel mad when I think about massive corporate bail-outs. Someone suggested that all the CEOs of these "rescued" companies should have to go through the same legally-mandated credit-counseling that any individual considering Chapter 7 Bankruptcy must undergo -- I'd take this a step further, and require that any counseling sessions they attend be televised on C-Span (since it's taxpayer dollars which will cover their debt).
But . . . . . and . . . . .
It's kind of surprising to me sometimes that, when people who have been in the "have-more" class suddenly get to experience what it's like to be in the "have-less" class, they don't take a moment to consider . . . . .
There are people in the world -- many, many, many people in the world -- for whom the thought of even having a house, owned or not -- with actual walls and a roof that keeps the wind or rain out -- is a dream that seems so far away and distant that they may have never even considered it as a possibility -- people for whom the question is not "Will I need to adjust the way that I eat? Will I be able to afford healthful food for my family?", but rather "Will there be anything to eat at all?"
I have a friend who works as a personal assistant to someone whose net worth is over 10 million. My friend works for this person (by choice) on a contract basis -- my friend has no employer-paid health insurance, no other benefits at all -- just her hourly rate -- and she's carrying significant debt. She chooses to work for this person as she does for her own reasons, and recognizes this clearly as her own choice. However, she admits that it was sometimes difficult for her to deal with her employer's complaints when said employer lost a million dollars last year (when my friend's net worth is hovering somewhere between minus-significant-something and her cash worth is a couple hundred bucks).
It's amazing to me, though, that even when this is difficult for her, she can say to me: "You know, it's all a matter of perspective. If I lost 10% of what I had, I'd probably be freaked out too -- but I try to always remember that I'm well-fed and well-housed and well-clothed. I'm rich."
As pissed as you might be at people who have more than you do when they may be whining about having to part with something you can barely imagine having, think for a moment how someone in the third-world might consider the fear that a lot of Americans are having about the possible loss of their home or their job (or even just necessary adjustments to their "lifestyle", like no more dinners out or a couple less lattes a week or maybe cutting cable-service from premium to standard) -- think about that for a minute.
Think about it and realize that, in some sense, for someone in this world -- you are the fat-cat.
Now, don't get all guilty about it -- just consider it for a minute, and look around at what you have.
If you're reading this, you have internet access -- and even if you went to the library to get internet access because you can't afford a computer at home -- you have a library to go to. Consider that the very fact that you can have the fear that you will lose something means that you have something to lose.
It's my personal belief that our entire "financial crisis" is a product of fear.
For the greedy, who may have clawed their way up the ladder of "success", perhaps it is the fear that they can never have enough which has driven them to lose all perspective about how their own welfare is tied up with the welfare of millions of other people -- people who make up the rungs of that ladder, and without whom, their wealth cannot exist.
For the working stiff, perhaps it is the fear that the rug can be pulled out from under them at any moment, or their rank fatigue at being stepped on by others as they ascend ever upward, which has led them to a place where they have hocked everything -- their ethics, values, and concern for their own real fulfillment -- in an attempt to climb up that ladder toward the greedy ones -- the greedy ones who they simultaneously despise, and aspire to emulate.
For the desperately poor, perhaps it is the simple, unadorned, and reasonable fear that, when the ladder collapses under the weight of all that fear, it will land squarely and most damagingly on them -- and there will be no food, no water, and no shelter for them.
Bank-runs and stock-market crashes are made of 100% pure, unadulterated, FEAR. Economic advisors may speak delicately about a lack of "confidence", but you and I both know that they're lying.
What they are talking about is a surfeit of fear.
Nearly everyone in this country has something to lose. Which means that we have something. Which means that somewhere, someone out there in the world could quite justifiably look at us (regardless of our relative station of power or status in this country) and think: "What the hell are they complaining about?"
Take that perspective with you, if you like, and if you want to do something -- if you want to stop being afraid -- look around you right now, and find something that you currently have that you aren't afraid of losing (even better -- something that you're completely and totally ready to have move along -- something that has stopped being a treasure to you and has simply become something that you have to "keep track of"), and give. it. the. fuck. away.
Preferrably to someone who would think of you as a fat-cat.
Because, after all, isn't that what you wish the fat-cats would do?
=========================
*h/t to WomanistMusings, whose heads-up about Haitian people eating mudcakes laced with shortening and salt gave me a much-needed perspective check today.
[cross-posted at Teh Portly Dyke]
Jed Bartlet Speaks
Following up on yesterday's remembrance of The West Wing, Maureen Dowd turns her column over to Aaron Sorkin so the former president (if only) can give advice to Barack Obama.
(Cross-posted.)
OBAMA The problem is we can’t appear angry. Bush called us the angry left. Did you see anyone in Denver who was angry?
BARTLET Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family’s less safe than it was eight years ago, we’ve lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I’m a little angry.
OBAMA What would you do?
BARTLET GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!
OBAMA Good to get that off your chest?
BARTLET Am I keeping you from something?
OBAMA Well, it’s not as if I didn’t know all of that and it took you like 20 minutes to say.
BARTLET I know, I have a problem, but admitting it is the first step.
OBAMA What’s the second step?
BARTLET I don’t care.
OBAMA So what about hope? Chuck it for outrage and put-downs?
BARTLET No. You’re elite, you can do both. Four weeks ago you had the best week of your campaign, followed — granted, inexplicably — by the worst week of your campaign. And you’re still in a statistical dead heat. You’re a 47-year-old black man with a foreign-sounding name who went to Harvard and thinks devotion to your country and lapel pins aren’t the same thing and you’re in a statistical tie with a war hero and a Cinemax heroine. To these aged eyes, Senator, that’s what progress looks like. You guys got four debates. Get out of my house and go back to work.
OBAMA Wait, what is it you always used to say? When you hit a bump on the show and your people were down and frustrated? You’d give them a pep talk and then you’d always end it with something. What was it ...?
BARTLET “Break’s over.”
SNTDBIDW -- Shit Not To Do Because It Doesn't Work
So, I've been thinking recently -- many bloggers have some kind of daily or weekly video theme, or various "watches" that they do, and I thought to myself: "You know, Portly, you could do that. You could have some kind of theme -- a trademark kind of a thingy."
Then I answered a QOD (Question of the Day -- see? that's one of those trademark kind of thingys) -- a QOD about what single sentence summed up your personal political philosophy. I answered with this: "See what is, and do what works" -- and Voila! I knew exactly what I wanted to adopt as a ongoing series/trademark:
SNTDBIDW (pronounced Snot-od-bidow) -- Shit Not To Do Because It Doesn't Work.
I thought about calling the theme: "Pet Peeves", but I realized that this simply did not cut the mustard for me -- I didn't just want to talk about shit that pisses me off -- I wanted to get to the bottom of why it pissed me off, and why I don't want to do it, and why I don't want anyone else to do it.
I already had a list of SNTDBIDW that I had adopted for myself, and in examining that list, I realized that nearly all of them were either a) things that I had tried repeatedly with ineffective or disastrous results, or b) things that I had seen being tried repeatedly by others with ineffective or disastrous results.
When I was younger, I tried out many different forms and systems of "self-discipline", "morality", "philosophy", and "ethics". I always wanted to be a "good" person, but found that the definition of what it means to be a "good" person was so completely fluid from culture to culture, group to group, etc., that this was actually a very crappy guide as an approach to a consistent and effective system of personal ethics or pinciples.
So, I began to approach my personal ethics/principles much more from this basis:
"Does this choice/thought/speech/action actually produce the result that I say I want to produce?"
In other words: Does it work?
I decided to leave good/bad/right/wrong out of it -- and frankly, it's been a huge relief.
Hence, I will be offering my new "theme" (SNTDBIDW) from that standpoint. I will actually name the Shit Not To Do, but I will also offer my insights on why the SNTD doesn't "work" (doesn't produce the result it claims-to/wants-to produce).
Here's my starting example in Shit Not To Do Because It Doesn't Work:
Talking About People Behind Their Backs
OR
Complaining to General Mills When You Have a Problem With General Motors
We all "know" that we "shouldn't" talk about other people behind their backs. Taken from a purely culturally "moral" perspective, we all "know" that doing this means that we're back-bitey, and two-faced, and gossipy, and "bad".
Taken from a purely internal experiential perspective, I think it also probably scares us a bit (or maybe even scares us a lot), because there's always the possibility that our back-bitey, two-faced, gossipy-ness might actually "get back" to the person that we've talked about -- and if we have any sort of relationship to the person we're back-biting, that shit is probably going to result in either a) an uncomfortable confrontation with that person, or b) a slow icing-over of said relationship.
In fact, I believe that the closer the relationship you might have with the person that you are talking about (but not to), the more scared you'll probably feel, because there is more at stake for you when the inevitable shit hits the inescapable fan.
But I'd like to offer you a better reason for not talking about people (rather than to them), when you have a complaint or a bitch or a problem with them -- and that reason is:
Because It Doesn't Work.
If I have a problem with my car, and I write a letter to my cereal manufacturer, chances are very good that said letter will be so much wasted time, energy, paper, and ink.
Cereal-Manufacturer might even write me a letter back, saying how right I am about how crappy Car-Maker is, and how my outrage is completely justified, and what a dip-shit Car-Maker has been, and always will be.
Then, maybe I'll write a letter back to Cereal-Manufacturer, and say: "Yeah, and you know what ELSE Car-Maker has done to me? Blah, blah, blah de blah-blah!!!!!!" And we might carry this correspondance on for days or weeks or months or years.
But my car will still be broken.
And Car-Maker will never know I have a problem with them.
Let's compound this a bit, now, and say that Car-Maker is my neighbor, and not only am I not writing them my letter of complaint or talking to them about my broken car, but every morning, I walk out of my house and greet them with a cheery "Good Morning! And in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!" -- and then we smile and wave to each other.
Now let's say that Cereal-Manufacturer and I get each other all worked up with our letters, and start blogging about how crappy Car-Maker is, and enlisting others into the CarMakerSucks.com website, so that they, too, can contribute their stories of how completely Car-Maker sucks.
Then let's imagine that Car-Maker is doing what we all do at some point or another -- Googling "Car-Maker", just to have that internet affirmation of their own virtual existence (admit it -- you do it, too), and they stumble upon CarMakerSucks.com, and start reading the blog-posts and the comments where we and our enlisted others ream Car-Maker a new one, and all sorts of thoughts cascade through Car-Maker's mind:
"WTF?"
"They never told me they had a problem."
"If they didn't tell me this, what else haven't they told me?"
"That person can't be trusted."
"That person is a fuckhead."
"That person isn't really interested in getting their car fixed -- they're just trying to ruin my reputation"
However colored with cultural/moral judgments some of Car-Maker's thoughts may be, some actual "That doesn't work" facts remain:
1. My car is still broken.
2. The likelihood that Car-Maker would ever want to fix my car is probably greatly reduced at this point.
3. The likelihood that Car-Maker will ever believe another fucking thing I say to them is probably also greatly reduced at this point.
So, if my real intention was to get my car fixed, I have done something that is actually completely counter-productive to furthering that intention.
I have adopted a personal precept in the past ten years -- a precept which I do not practice perfectly by any means, but which I strive to adhere to and improve with every day -- and here it is:
If I am involved in any relationship in which I claim that I want to experience connection, I will refrain from saying anything about that person that I would not also speak willingly and forthrightly to their face.
I chose this precept because I've found that it works (when I adhere to it) -- it works to create and expand the sense of connectedness that I say I want to experience in my life, and in my relationships.
I also chose it because I'm a big promoter of the Golden Rule, and I hate it when people talk about me rather than to me, so I figure that I have to refrain from doing things to others that I don't like being done to me.
I fuck up with this precept often, but when I do, I come back to adherance by remembering how to fuck up.
Now, there is the possibility that you might actually have written to Car-Maker in the first place, and they didn't fix your car, and you're pissed -- but in that case, tell them that you're putting up CarMakerSucks.com ---------- and stop fucking waving to them in the morning.
Here's the thing: When we bitch about someone else, it's usually because we want them to change something -- but if we never tell them what we want them to change, or we only talk about it behind closed doors with people who are not them -- then it's just energy and time and focus and talking and paper and ink and bandwidth that we're wasting when we think/talk/write about them -- and, quite likely, simply another example of SNTDBIDW.
=========
[cross-posted at Teh Portly Dyke]
More SNTDBIDW to come. Trust me.
A Quick Question
I was just at the grocery store, wandering through the produce aisle. I wanted to buy some fruit. I looked at the oranges and thought, hey aren't these supposed to be… umm… you know, orange?
They were a sickly pale yellow color.
I'd like some decent citrus, please.
Sexism Watchapalooza
by Shaker Pizza Diavola
Y'know, it amazes me that in one item, with one sentence, we can simultaneously have a submission for the Palin, Obama, and Clinton Sexism watches, and also include Cindy McCain in the sexism and Meghan McCain in another instance of sexism. After all, these women have nothing in common other than (a) being women and (b) being somehow related to politics. They disagree on their policies and presidential votes; are different in age, occupation, ethnicity, religion, class background; and their political roles are extremely different. But I guess that's how sexism works: It attacks all women.
At Associated Content, C.M. Paulson writes about ET's segment on dress sizes:
But who would have thought that Sarah Palin's dress size would be the next big thing up for public discussion? Entertainment Tonight brought in their resident expert to "guess" the sizes of Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Cindy McCain. In case you were wondering, the experts think that Sarah Palin is a size 6, Hillary Clinton is a size 10, Michelle Obama is a size 8, and Cindy McCain is a svelte size 4.Paulson makes some good points in saying that it's a double standard to focus on women's appearance, clothing, and size without considering the men in the same way, and that some people reduce women to their appearance because they can't deal with women holding power (i.e. being equal with men). It's a means of diminishing women who dare to be equal by reminding them that hey, they're always going to be eye candy first, and they'd better watch out for their bodies, even if they're a senator, a governor, a hospital VP, a philanthropist, or a fashion designer. The speculation on dress sizes and the fat-shaming of Meghan McCain are all of a piece: Women can be reduced to the attractiveness and thinness of their bodies and those bodies are not their own, but communal property to police.
And, of course, there was no mention of the pants sizes for John McCain, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden.
...But when does this search for information become too intrusive, or even insulting? Did you consider Hillary Clinton's dress size when you made your primary voting decision? So many people talked about Hillary's pants suits during the election season, as if this mattered. But talking about a woman's appearance is an easy way to diminish her and her abilities. If a woman gets too powerful, talk moves to her dress size, hair style, glasses, or the color of her pants suits since that's easier for some men and women to deal with.
On the same day of airing, ET's competitor The Insider interviewed John McCain's daughter Meghan and Lara Spencer asked Meghan about her weight and how she felt about being "plus-size." Meghan displayed great confidence when she relayed how she felt great about how she looked and who she was. I was glad to see that Meghan McCain was so sure of herself in light of increasing media scrutiny.
ET, I get that you're trying to cash in on the new prominence of the campaigns in celebrity media (WSJ). But you can do better—engaging in sexism is old news.
Action Item Update: Charges Dropped
I'm happy to report that the recent effort by FreePress to get charges dropped against journalists who were caught up in arrests at the RNC was successful. Over 60,000 letters sent to St. Paul officials apparently convinced them that freedom of the press is a right that they still need to honor:
The St. Paul City Attorney’s office announced Friday it will not prosecute Democracy Now! journalists Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman also issued a statement Friday that "the city will decline to prosecute misdemeanor charges for presence at an unlawful assembly for journalists arrested during the Republican National Convention."
Both announcements come two weeks after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention where over 40 journalists were arrested while reporting on protests taking place outside the convention center.
Upon learning of the news, Democracy Now! Host, Amy Goodman said, "It’s good that these false charges have finally been dropped, but we never should have been arrested to begin with. These violent and unlawful arrests disrupted our work and had a chilling effect on the reporting of dissent. Freedom of the press is also about the public’s right to know what is happening on their streets. There needs to be a full investigation of law enforcement activities during the convention."
Friday Cat Blogging
Livsy the Pink-Nosed Action Cat:
Sophie the Sleepy Kitten, Still Without a Kitten Face:
If You Don't Want to Be Murdered, You Shouldn't Be Smiling at People
The case against Allen Andrade, who murdered trans woman Angie Zapata, about whose death I originally posted here, is proceeding, and his attorney Annette Kundelius is arguing "that the first-degree murder charge filed against Andrade for Zapata's murder be dropped to second-degree murder."
"At best, this is a case about passion," Kundelius said. "When (Zapata) smiled at him, this was a highly provoking act, and it would cause someone to have an aggressive reaction."Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Because we all know that if someone smiles at us, it is, as Shaker Lena, who gets the hat tip, said via email, "obviously legitimate grounds for bashing their head in with a fire extinguisher."
Victim-blaming in any case is gross, but there's just something completely obscene about asserting a victim's smile was the cause of her death, when her murderer reportedly told his girlfriend that "gay things need to die."
Blub.
Quote of the Day
"If you don't agree with the feminist scolds, then you're not a real woman, even if you are a very feminine working mom. But even if you're an actual man, never mind a childless feminist who looks like a Bulgarian weightlifter in drag, you're a real woman solely because you nod your head like a windup clapping monkey every time you read the latest editorial from Ms. Magazine."—Jim Quinn, professional dipshit and co-host of the syndicated radio show The War Room with Quinn & Rose. You may recognize Quinn as the charming gentleman who recently referred to NOW as the National Organization for Whores.
You know, it's not like there's a shortage of legitimate criticisms that could made about feminism as a comprehensive movement (which is a perilous vision of feminism to begin with, but that's a whole other post): It hasn't sufficiently recognized intersectionalities, leaving far too much room for racism, transphobia, fatphobia, ageism, ableism, and classism, it hasn't even begun to effectively challenge sexism in the media in an organized way, and it's fraught with generational tensions, just for a start.
So you'd think that anti-feminists would have no trouble finding some basis for their criticisms that vaguely resemble reality—but every time some useless drip of dogwank like Quinn goes off on "the feminists," they always invoke some pile of rubbish to rail against that looks nothing like actual feminism. So tiring. Get a new shtick already.
6 Days Left to Make Your Voice Heard
Click on the image at left (or here) to make your voice heard about the Department of Health and Human Services' Rule Change which would fundamentally alter women's healthcare options and relationships with their healthcare providers. There are only six days left in the 30-day public comment period. If you've already sent a letter, please take a moment to call 1-877-696-6775 and say: "I am calling regarding the proposed regulatory changes released on August 21. I would like to register my strong disagreement with the proposed change."
For more information—and motivation, should you need any—Senator Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards have a must-read op-ed in today's New York Times about the proposed change, outlining why this is not merely an issue for pro-choice women:
The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified "other medical procedures" that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.Make your voice heard!
Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?
The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider's conscience. But where are the protections for patients?
[Previous posts on the HHS Rule Change here, here, here, here, here, and here.]
Shaker Gourmet: Sweet Italian Sausage Stew
The recipe this week comes from Shaker judybrowni:
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me (include a blog link!) at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.comSweet Italian Sausage Stew
* oil to coat bottom of pot
* 1-2 pounds of Sweet Italian Sausage -- chicken or pork, or one of each. (optional -- 1/2 - 1 pound hamburger, if you like stew meatier.)
* 1-2 onions (chopped)
* 1 or more chopped or sliced garlic cloves (use as many of you like!)
* 1-2 large cans of chopped tomatoes
* 1 16 oz bag of frozen green beans (or fresh, or canned) (Optional: substitute -- or add -- chopped celery, green squash, or any other green vegetable you may have on hand and/or 1 or more chopped yellow, orange, red or green bell peppers -- yellow, orange, red add a nice contrast in color, and better flavor than green, in my opinion)
* water or broth
* hearty pinch -- or more! -- black pepper
* salt to taste.
Cut sausage into rounds and brown in oil (also brown hamburger, if using.)
Remove meat, and sautee onions and garlic (and celery or bell peppers, if using) until onions are soft. Add tomatoes, green beans (or any other vegetables and meat), pepper, and enough water or broth to not-quite cover ingredients (vegetables will add liquid when cooked down.)
Bring to a boil, briefly -- and simmer for 45 minutes to 1 hour.
Salt individual portions to taste.
Friday Blogaround
hey your gay blogaround!
Recommended Reading:
Deborah: Celebrating Suffrage in New Zealand
Lesbilicious: "I am outraged at 'teaching gay sex to infants' claims" - Dr Atkinson
Lizzy: Fight Back: Give Swing Voters the Facts about Sarah Palin
Karen Tumulty: McCain Plays the Race Card
Tobes: ND victim of gang rape denied justice AGAIN
BAC: It's the Economy, Stupid
And Theriomorph has moved, so update your blogrolls!
Leave your links in comments...
