Stimulus Passes House with Zero Republican Votes

But I thought the era of bipartisanship was over!

Larger than the combined total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, the two-year stimulus plan would provide up to $1,000 per year in tax relief for most families, dramatically increase funding for alternative energy production, and direct more than $300 billion in aid to states to help rebuild schools, provide health care to the poor and reconstruct highways and bridges.

But Obama's personal salesmanship effort failed to secure a single Republican supporter for the spending plan, which passed on a 244 to 188 vote. Just a day after the president spent more than an hour behind closed doors at the Capitol seeking their support, all 177 House Republicans opposed the measure, arguing that it would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on initiatives that would do little to stimulate the economy. Eleven Democrats opposed the bill.
Good thing the Democrats compromised on funding family planning to secure those Republican votes.

Open Wide...

Blog Note

I'm switching over to a new email address: melissa dot mcewan at hotmail dot com.

So please update your contact info for me and use that as my primary email from now on. Thanks!

(If you just click on the "email Liss" link in the sidebar, you're good. It's already been updated.)

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Sapphire and Steel

Open Wide...

Top Chef Open Thread



Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!

He will also eat your liver with fava beans and a nice chianti. Oops, no. My mistake. That's Hannibal Lecter. Chef Tom Colicchio will make you a nice pâté served with a garnish of fresh mixed beans and a glass of the vintage wine of your choosing.

Open Wide...

Sphincter of the Day

Someone far ruder than I would say that Former Rep. Dick Armey of Texas lives up to his first name.



HT to TPM.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

If you could have any celebrity chef cook for you for the rest of your life, who would you choose?

(Or non-celebrity chef, for that matter. Introductions to unknown but brilliant chefs in your life also totally welcome!)

Naturally, I'd have to go with Stephanie Izard, currently reigning Top Chef.

[Inspired by this news item: "Obamas Hire Chef From Chicago: Sam Kass, a private chef who cooked for the Obamas while they were living in Chicago, is now cooking for them in the White House." Avoid rest of article, unless you want some hot new information on how the poor are obese because of "overabundance." Grumble.]

Open Wide...

I Hate Everything

CIA Station Chief in Algeria Accused of Rapes: "The CIA's station chief at its sensitive post in Algeria is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly raping at least two Muslim women who claim he laced their drinks with a knock-out drug, U.S. law enforcement sources tell ABC News."

Serious trigger warnings if you read the whole story at the link, which has details of the alleged crimes.

This is really shaping up to be a mega I Hate Everything day. If I weren't f@#king Matt Damon, I'd have gone back to bed.

Open Wide...

Daily Kitteh

Who wants catnip?



Me! Me!

Open Wide...

I'm In Ur Cultural Institutionz, Disarming Ur Middle America

When normalization* is cause for celebration (as opposed to the context in which I usually have to speak about it, e.g. the normalization of rape jokes or various prejudices):


Relevant transcript:
Pat Sajak: All right, you have over thirteen thousand dollars, including that trip to Lake Tahoe. Somebody broke through our security line (ho ho); who is that up there?

Male Contestant: That's my fiancée, Chuck.

Pat Sajak: Hey, Chuck!
Score another one for the Radical Gay Agenda.

[Via Andy.]

-----------------------

* Meaning to become so unremarkable as to not warrant notice, not to become "normal."

Open Wide...

From the Government Waste Files...

...comes this wonderful little tidbit about how the DHS spends its time and money:

The Department of Homeland Security recently sent out an entire book honoring former Secretary Michael Chertoff's "Select Speeches" from 2005-2008. The 315-page book contains 36 of Chertoff's speeches and press conferences (many of whichif not all — are most likely available online). ThinkProgress recently obtained a copy of the book and contacted DHS to find out how much taxpayer money was spent on the book’s production. However, we received no response.
Seems to me they could've spent a lot less time and money by simply referencing Liss' own compilation which, in my opinion, has a much better cover.

Open Wide...

Impossibly Beautiful

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something ewwwwwww:


I don't even know what to say anymore. Of course, what do I need to say? Just look at the fucking picture! Sigh.

This was featured, btw, on the extremely popular wedding site "The Knot," so millions of women could be informed that they should aspire to look like aliens on their wedding days.

[Passed on by Shaker Natbsat, who hat tips Photoshop Disasters. Impossibly Beautiful: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three.]

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi:

Rape is not a compliment.

Kindly fuck yourself,
Liss

P.S. Thanks to Cara.

Open Wide...

Wednesday Blogaround

These posts are making me jizz! in! my pants!

The Red Queen: A Safe Place to Live Should Be a Human Right

Jill: Ugly Women Are Hilarious to Powerful Men

Ginmar: Ah, the Suspense is Over!

Lisa: Equal Opportunity Offensiveness [trigger warning]

Renee: First Black Mayor Charles Tyson of South Harrison Township Forced to Resign

Nicola Melville: Out of Tune

Sweet Machine: Fat Is Contagious Again

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

I'm F@#king Matt Damon

Once upon a time, I fell madly in love with Matt Damon because he called James Bond an "imperialist and a misogynist." Then he did a bunch of other shit that made me jizz in my pants. And now, he's taking me back to that place where we first fell in love:

"They could never make a James Bond movie like any of the Bourne films," Damon says scornfully. "Because Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people. He's repulsive."
—and he's bringing me flowers:
[T]he small talk -- if that's the right phrase -- ranged from which New York Times columnist is the worst (conservative William Kristol, according to Damon: "He's an idiot -- he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!") to the proper place of torture in American foreign policy.
—and he's serenading me:
"What we liked about Matt is that he's Harvard educated, so he's a very smart guy," says Hal Weiner, who with his wife Marilyn produces Journey to the Planet Earth, the PBS series Damon has narrated for the past eight years and was working on last week. "But he's also a little political."

The Weiners discovered just how political when Damon started arguing with them about some lines he was supposed to read in one episode, which said rising Chinese soybean consumption was leading to slash-and-burn farming in the Brazilian Amazon.

"He really objected," Hal Weiner recalls. "He wanted to make sure we were not just bashing China. We had to bring in some scientists to talk to him before he'd do it."

A lot of producers would have simply snapped that Damon was being paid to read lines, not write them, but the Weiners -- not exactly apolitical themselves -- were delighted. "I really loved it that he wasn't willing to just say something without it being confirmed," says a laughing Marilyn Weiner.
—so I'm f@#king Matt Damon.

I know what you're thinking: What about Iain? Don't worry about him. He's f@#king Matt Damon, too.

[H/T to everyone in the multiverse.]

Open Wide...

File This Under: Not Change I Can Believe In;
Cross-Reference With: Not Change At All

The irony…it burns:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist as a top aide Tuesday, the same day he announced rules aimed at reducing the role of lobbyists in agency decisions.

Mark Patterson will serve as Geithner's chief of staff at Treasury, which oversees the government's $700 billion financial bailout program. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of that money.
Hello there, foxy. Welcome to the henhouse.

Open Wide...

It Does Matter

*crossposted at elle, phd*

My mom is visiting, which means my T.V. has been on some. I'm having quite the experience. On Sunday, she was watching Keyshia Cole's "The Way It Is." "The Way It Is" is a reality show centered around singer Keyshia Cole's life, but more broadly about a black family reconnecting after having been torn apart by poverty and addiction. Keyshia's sister, Neffie, was speaking to a group of black girls who were pregnant and possibly had high risk exposure to STDs. Neffie shared the story of her own repeated sexual abuse and assault that had begun when she was nine, then encouraged the girls to value their bodies and their sexuality.

One of the girls asked, "What do a female supposed to think, if they've already been touched by eight different people, so it don't matter if I have sex?"

That question, for me, embodied a number of issues, primarily the fetishization of virginity and the horrible silence surrounding the sexual assault of black women.

That girl, 18 and pregnant, believed that because she had "been touched," she no longer had the autonomy, the right to say no. Her "value" was significantly lessened because she was not "innocent."

Every black woman that the camera cut to in that room had tears in her eyes. A symbol of a collective knowing: According to the National Black Women's Health Project, 40% of us "report coercive contact of a sexual nature" by the time we're 18. (Note that's just what is reported.) And no matter our age, we are less likely than white women to report the assault, less likely to seek medical and psychological help.

There are a number of reasons for those facts. Black women have been characterized as "unrapeable" in our society, a stereotype that goes hand in hand with the one that paints us as "insatiable"—always sexually ready and available. These are characterizations that have a long history in the U.S., beginning with the classification of black women as (sexual) property during slavery.

In the aftermath of emancipation, white men justified their continued assault of black women by developing pseudoscientific theories that claimed African Americans were prone to "sexual madness and excess." Thus, while any sexual relation between black men and white women would "damage" white women (because of black men's aggressiveness and large penis size), black women, with their "deep" and "wide" vaginas and their voracious sexual appetites, could not be physically or emotionally hurt by rape.

Rendering black women unrapeable excused the widespread sexual assault and terror that black women and their families experienced during Reconstruction and afterwards. It also thwarted "emancipation"; as Tera Hunter asserted in To 'Joy My Freedom, "Freedom was meaningless without ownership and control over one's own body."

For black women, then, there was no legal definition or protection: "'Rape,' in this sense," noted Angela Harris, "was something that only happened to white women; what happened to black women was simply life."1

This historic lack of legal recourse is but one factor that discourages us from seeking legal justice. Inviting police into our communities is an attempt fraught with danger—they might disrespect us, paint us as liars, dismiss the significance of our assaults, act violently against community members.

Then there are the barriers that African Americans experience in attaining medical and psychological care—our complaints are not taken seriously, many of us don't have health insurance, we are part of a community that has been regarded as "dirty" or "diseased," treatments and interventions have been typically based on the experiences of white women.

There is often a hesitance to bring negative attention to our communities. No, not because we're "obsessed" with appearances or not airing our dirty laundry, but because we know that we will be treated as a monolith, all cast as violent or criminal. And, so often, black women remain silent, even as Aishah Shahidah Simmons noted, at our own expense. (Also see related video at her site.)

Finally (though this list is not complete), there is the persistent stereotype of the black woman as somehow superhuman—able to "take it," tough, affected differently by assault than other women. Within my community, for example, assault and incest are cast as something that black girls and women just have to deal with. It is not just the victims of sexual assault remaining silent, but whole families and communities. It's as if it is "normal," it happens, there's little we can do, so we must learn to cope.

I wonder how much of that this young woman had internalized, this idea that it "just happens," that it's not a big deal.

And I wonder how much she has internalized the idea that her worth as a sexual being is totally defined by her status as "non-virgin."

When her mother was asked what she had taught her daughter about sex, she replied, "Not to have it." That is a response, I believe, rooted in the influence of religion in African Americans’ lives and a defense mechanism, an attempt to combat the persistent Jezebel stereotype that haunts black women. For example, in the first two minutes of this clip from "Luke's Parental Advisory, Luther Campbell not only tells his daughter to abstain under threat of disease, but also explains to her how many partners will put her in "H-O territory," delivering a double-threat of fearmongering and slut-shaming.

So, what happens when we do "have it?" How many of our parents tell us simply not to have it and leave it at that? I mean, there are plenty of people out there telling girls that having sex makes them "used" or "soiled," that virginity is a gift, something that belongs to a future husband long before they've even met him. Once it is gone, they are dirty and have nothing to offer. They are less desirable as partners.

They are worthless.

It's not as if exemptions are made for rape victims. Sure, people speak of rape as more traumatic, more damaging if the victim was a virgin, but survivors of rape are often characterized as damaged or irreparably harmed, less than whole.

Less, in general.

And, as has been so frequently discussed at Shakesville, the persistent conflation of rape with consensual sex means that young women, in particular, who have been told to "hold onto" their virginity and associate their personal value with it, don't make any distinction when they are raped before consenting to sex. They view themselves as diminished not only by virtue of their victimization, but also by having lost their highly-valued virginity. And they are left with no reason to abstain—because no one's ever given them any reason other than fiercely guarding their virginity.

So, what happens when we do "have it?" My black mother told me, "not to have it," too. But that is a woefully shortsighted reaction, especially given that kids who take chastity pledges tend to break them. For black girls, who are sexually active at an earlier age than other girls and who have higher rates of STIs, we need to answer the question.

We need to help them break the silence surrounding sexual assault.

We need to help them negotiate hostile health care institutions—black girls don't report engaging in riskier behavior than their peers, but barriers to health care prevent diagnosis and treatment of STIs in black communities.

We need to talk to them about healthy, guilt-free sex—when I read that teenagers who take chastity pledges are less likely to use birth control methods, it made perfect sense. Birth control requires forethought, an admission that you plan to have sex, something many teenagers who have simply been told "don't have it," can't do.

We need to tell them that no matter how many times they've "been touched," or how many partners they've had, they still have bodily autonomy, the right to say yes or no. That the language used to fetishize virginity—"saving it" or "giving it" to someone—is not accurate. Their sexuality, their bodies are their own.

We need to tell them that their worth is not tied up in their virginity.

I never want to hear another black girl say, "It don't matter."

--------------------

1 Angela Harris, "Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory," Stanford Law Review, February 1990.

Open Wide...

John Updike -- 1932-2009

I think I was about twelve or so when I first read a short story by John Updike. I think it was in The New Yorker. I don't remember the plot of the story, but I do remember how he told the story; how he used ordinary images -- the graceful curves of the tire tracks of cars backing up in a snow-covered parking lot -- to illustrate and small movements to vividly fill my imagination and bring me into the moment.

“Snow fell against the high school all day, wet big-flake snow that did not accumulate well. Sharpening two pencils, William looked down on a parking lot that was a blackboard in reverse; car tires had cut smooth arcs of black into the white, and wherever a school bus had backed around, it had left an autocratic signature of two V’s.”
He wrote prolifically -- sixty books, plus hundreds of articles, reviews, essays -- and shamed those of us who aspire to reach readers with one or two. He never overwhelmed; he spoke softly and gently, and in doing so he inspired, enthralled, and gave us pause to stop and enjoy the actual little moments.

Go in peace... and thank you.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Matthews' Mendacity on Family Planning Continues

Following up on Monday's debacle, in which Chris Matthews said that federal funding for family planning "sounds a little like China," and related to rrp's guest post below, Mr. Hardballz took to the airwaves yesterday, after the funding had been dropped from the stimulus package, and continued to misrepresent it as an attempt by Democrats to dictate limits to American families:

Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. Leading off tonight: Leave the kids out of this! Barack Obama gets Democrats in Congress to drop contraception from his big stimulus bill. It turns out the idea of getting people to have fewer children didn't sell as national policy. Maybe people don't like Washington, which has done such a bang-up job regulating the sharpies on Wall Street, to decide it's now time to regulate the number of kids people might be in the mood for.
It's amazing how much he can get wrong in 81 words—though not remotely surprising, given the contempt with which he spits the word "contraception" out of his mouth like it's a piece of shit. Why do I imagine that Matthews is the sort of fella who doesn't think the federal government should be paying for birth control when the womminz should just learn to keep their legs shut…?

I'll skip quickly past the fact that funding family planning also means funding sex and reproductive education, not just contraception, and the mendacious conflation of the Republican's lack of regulation of Wall Street with the Democrats' alleged attempt to regulate reproduction, and move on to more appalling bit of deception that providing people with contraceptives is equivalent to "getting people to have fewer children."

The particular irony about that misrepresentation is that giving women the ability to plan for children when they want them may have the effect of a higher birth rate—because women who delay childbirth until they are ready are likely to have more children. A woman who becomes a teenage mother, indefinitely delaying her higher education and entry into a secure career, may struggle with her one child for 18 years. That same woman, had she delayed motherhood until she was an established adult in a stable partnership with a willing co-parent, might have become a mother to two or three kids.

(Please note that I am not suggesting that education, nor career, nor relationship are prerequisites for parenting. I'm just offering the hypothetical to show the inherent flaw in Matthews' logic.)

The problem is that Matthews doesn't understand the concept of choice. The availability of contraception does not suggest, to any woman with a desire to control her reproduction, that she shouldn't have children. It means that she will be able to have children when and if she is ready. It puts the regulation of her reproduction in her hands—not the government's.

Despite Matthews' claims to the contrary.

This whole segment, all thirty seconds of it, is an Orwellian masterpiece, really. It asserts that providing women with contraception takes away their choice—and casts the Democrats as the villains who want to control the wombs of American women.

And that damnable lie would be sufficiently objectionable on its own, but is made exponentially more infuriating by the reality that it is Republicans who have endeavored for 36 years (and then some) to leave American women with no choice at all.

Where is Matthews' outrage at the lack of choice intrinsic to criminalizing abortion? Where is the incensed rant about the Republicans' attempt to regulate women's bodies after they did such a piss-poor job regulating Wall Street? Where is the righteous indignation on behalf of "people" who don't want children?

That's some Fox News-style fairness and balance, right there.

Open Wide...

The State of Our Media; the Shape of Our Discourse

by Shaker rrp

I'm not sure what to do with this post of Tristero's, but I think he's onto something here on how the media shapes the discourse. This popped into my head yesterday when I was reading the thread on Obama's tossing the family planning provisions overboard to appease those Republicans (who, face it, are never going to be happy with anything for the next four years).

Even here, among a pretty savvy bunch of folks, we're accepting some mainstream frames:

So 'bipartisanship' still means doing what the Republicans want?

That's all it's ever meant, and all it ever will mean until we get a new class of Democrats in that realize that the Republicans don't want to work with them because they know they don't have to, they can just go on Fox News and talk about how any Dem-supported bill or issue helps the terrorists/let the homos destroy marriage/turn America communist. The Dems need to figure this out and start kicking some ass.
and:
So 'bipartisanship' still means doing what the Republicans want?

All they have to do is THREATEN to filibuster and the Dems CAVE.

You know what I want to see? I want to see the dems TRY to do the right thing, and have the republicans block it and try to explain to the country why we're not getting our jobs."
—the frame being that there's a big difference between most Democrats and most Republicans.

Although the outer ends of the distributions are nearly in other universes, there's a lot of overlap of wealthy (mainly white, mainly male) folks whose interests are not those of the people they "govern," not even close.

So, the question up for discussion is this: How realistic are our expectations, and, in whatever measure they deviate from what's reasonable, how much of that divergence is attributable to the media dictating the frames?

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Red Dwarf



Coming (back) soon to a telly near you! Woot!

[Thanks to Misty for the heads-up.]

Open Wide...