"The President Has Become a Divisive Figure: Compare his start with George W. Bush's."
By Karl Rove.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha—gasp!—ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha—gasp!—ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha—gasp!—ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Karl Rove, the master of divisive wedge politics, would like us to compare the start of Barack Obama's presidency with the start of George Bush's. Okay. Let's do that.
At the start of George Bush's presidency, after a hotly-contested election with widespread voting irregularities that came down to a Supreme Court decision which circumvented our democracy running its course and appointed Bush president, liberals who had the audacity to complain were silenced by the media, conservatives, and Democratic Party leaders who accused them of "sour grapes." Within eight months, there had been a terrorist attack on American soil, and Bush enjoyed an approval rating above 90% with the opposition party signing onto his every responsive proposal with near-unanimity.
At the start of Barack Obama's presidency, after a genuine mandate from the American populace, conservative commentators and Republican Party members tripped over each other rushing to the nearest microphones to announce they hope Obama and/or his policies will fail. Before Obama had even entered office, there had been an enormous economic collapse, and the opposition party has failed wholly to support his every responsive proposal with near-unanimity.
Yeah, hard to believe why there's so much goddamned divisiveness in Washington these days.
Actual Headline
Um...
...why are we still using the term "out-of-wedlock birth" in the year 2009?
First of all, that term is hostile to the millions of Americans who can't get married, by virtue of having the unmitigated temerity to love someone of the same sex, many of whom nonetheless happen to be parents.
Secondly, you've got to be a real full-tilt dunderhead of mythic proportions to still give a flying fuck at this point about whether a child is born inside the confines of a traditional marriage, given the enormous preponderance of evidence that being hetero and hitched doesn't axiomatically mean being a good parent.
What's most important to any child's well-being are security, love, empathy, and the freedom and encouragement to be who they are. The capacity and willingness to provide those things are not limited to people who are hetero and hitched. Those things are not somehow better or more meaningful if they are provided by people who are hetero and hitched. It just doesn't work that way.
It doesn't matter whether security and love and empathy and support emanate from the inside of a traditional marriage, and it doesn't matter if it's two parents or one parent or a mom and a grandma or a dad and an uncle or an older sibling providing that stuff, and it doesn't matter if the person/s providing it are straight or gay or trans or cisgender or biological relatives or a family of choice or any combination thereof. All that matters is that a kid feels safe, and loved, and understood, and allowed to be hirself, whatever that may be.
And maybe, just maybe, "out-of-wedlock" isn't as fucking important as "out-of-a-country-that-cares-about-making-sure-all-its-children-are-healthy-happy-and-well-educated."
Maybe we could more about what happens to a kid after zie's born and less time caring about in what circumstances zie's born. Just a thought.
Quote of the Day
"Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?"—Texas state rep Betty Brown offering her solution to ease the voting process for Asian Americans in Texas.
I have a better idea. I think the entire population of the US should change their names to a wonderfully American, wholesome and easy-to-pronounce name, like "Betty Brown." That way, whenever we post daily about random asshattery, we can attribute the stupidity to Betty Brown.
[H/T to Amanda]
That's so....great!
Back in October of last year, Liss wrote a post about the Ad Council announcing it will be making a commercial regarding the phrase "that's so gay". The commercial has been around for a while, though it's just now getting more airtime. Here it is:
As Liss said:
Naturally, this will elicit the regular complaints of language policing and "political correctness" gone wild, to which I can only say, for what certainly feels like the nine gazillionth time, usually matters of sensitivity aren't about marginalized people being oversensitive, but people who use the slurs that casually marginalize them being not sensitive enough—and if you really feel obliged to complain about having to expand your vocabulary beyond gay and bitch and retard, that says something decidedly more unflattering about you than it does about the people who object to your lexicon. Plenty of us have managed to figure out that refusing to use language which perpetuates oppression is not enslaving oneself to the language police. It's just doing the basic work required of someone who doesn't want to be a fucking asshole.Wordity, word, word, word.
Water
When I went to the Organization of American Historians conference, I attended a panel by black women professors telling their stories of what it is like for us in the academy—the challenges, the classroom questioning of authority, the dismissal, the please-can-you-serve-on-every-committee, the isolation, the feeling of being an impostor.
But that is another post. I bring up that panel because of what happened to me when I heard Dr. Ula Taylor speak. She spoke about all those pains and about the hurt that results from the much-too-soon loss of black women like VeVe Clark and June Jordan. But she also spoke about healing, about how she soothes and comforts and heals herself by swimming.
And I started to cry. Because I thought I knew a little of how she felt. For the longest time, I have been trying to write down my feelings about water.
Yes, water.
Because of my heat- then chemically-straightened hair, I was taught that water was my nemesis. I could not lie back and pretend to float in the tub. My sister and I could not run under the water hose or the sprinklers on sweltering Louisiana summer days. I could not play in the rain. On Memorial Day or the Fourth of July, when our family went to the park, the girls could only go so far into the water.
And I could not swim. Never even learned.
I wanted to so badly, because somewhere along the way, I realized I loved water in my hair, on my scalp. I think it was when I first had to wash my hair on my own—I’d always believed I didn’t have the expertise necessary to deal with that “difficult” part of me, but college-induced poverty changed my mind.
That water on my scalp--the first warm rush, the later, slow trickles--made me think longingly of swimming. What it would be like to immerse my whole body, to have water move in its gentle lap-lap-lap as it caressed my skin?
But my "whole body" was the other issue. How could a fat girl learn to swim? What would I wear? I was (am) too fragile to reveal myself like that. I do not want the pitying, disgusted gaze of others.
I am afraid the pitying, disgusted gaze will be mine.
So I learned to suppress the desire to swim.
Mostly. Sometimes it overwhelms me.
Like when my son is swimming and I dangle my feet in the pool, bathe them in the cool, silky water while the sun warms my back.
Or when we spend holidays near the water and I, very quickly, trail one of the babies’ feet or hands through it. Just so they’ll know the delicious feel of it.
Those moments are fleeting, subordinate to my attachment to my bone-straight hair and my internalized body shame.
But I want to be like Dr. Taylor. I want to find healing in the water. It's not that I think water is somehow magical. The appeal is rooted in something both literal and figurative--how the weightlessness we feel in water is a temporary reprieve from all that we carry, all that brings us/holds us down. So, I know there is something there for me.
Why else would I crave it so?
(crossposted)
Lost Open Thread
Last night's episode will be discussed in infinitesimal detail, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, move along...
The Real Deal
by Shaker Seraph, a shameless geek who's getting through the bad times in New York City by doing temp work, playing Dungeons & Dragons, watching lots of movies, and splitting rent with an amiable soon-to-be-ex.
The other day, Paul the Spud gave us the bad news about Coraline: Yet another movie/tv show/whatever where the female lead is built up to be tough, clever, and resourceful, but she still needs a guy – in this case, an extraneous, tacked-on-after-the-fact guy – to save her bacon.
So what else is new, right? A lot of people in the entertainment biz say that they want to create strong female characters, but they either don't really know what that means (Kirsten Dunst's MJ in the first Spider-Man movie, whose much-touted "strength" amounts to "She's Sassy!" Only not really. Dunst was a stronger character as Torrance in the first Bring It On), they don't want too many of them around (the Justice League cartoons, where Wonder Woman and Hawkgirl – a character in her mid-twenties, or the equivalent for a Thanagarian – are the only female members of the Original Seven – which I'll grant is a step up from the comics, where Hawkgirl's place is held by Plastic Man), or they feel some need to undermine the Strong Woman's strength.
Usually, this is done so some male character can have some character development at her expense, but sometimes it's purely for the sake of "humanizing" the heroine, "giving her some flaws," because of course people won't like a female character if she's too cool. Funny how, unlike Superman (the Boy Scout) or Batman (the Asshole), female characters' "flaws" always seem to make them less powerful and competent. Take a look at the later seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer if you don't believe me.
Mind you, all of this is going on while the creators are dislocating their arms patting themselves on the back for creating Strong Female Characters. Especially if those Strong Female Characters are in a kids' show, so those Characters can serve as a Role Model For Girls.
The example of this that really broke my heart was Kim Possible. [Spoiler warnings.] At first glance, it seemed to be all it promised to be: Kim was legitimately powerful and badass, and she wasn't the only one. The show was packed to the rafters with female badassery: Kim's obligatory female nemesis (and frequent fanfic lesbian partner) Shego, of course, but also Yori, Zita, Dr. Director, Kim's mother, Kim's grandmother – at one point, Kim's goofy sidekick Ron Stoppable asked, "Are all girls like this, or just the ones I know?"
But you didn't have to watch long before things started to seem a bit…off. First, Ron got His Day in the Spotlight with surprising frequency. Even during their regular missions, Ron seemed to be the one to push the self-destruct button on the Doomsday Device more often than not, albeit accidentally. Could it be that the show's creators, having created a strong, witty, resourceful female character, found her goofy male sidekick more interesting? Hmm…
Then we start to see Kim's flaws. A threat to the planet in the kitchen? Har-de-har. Same joke as every Action Girl from Movie-Eowyn to Akane of Ranma 1/2: Of course the tomboy doesn’t know how to cook! She's worked so hard at learning Man Skills, she's neglected her Woman Skills! Ha ha! Wev. I give it a roll of the eyes and let it go, because you have to admit, there are few rooms with more potential for comic disaster than the kitchen. Besides, do I want Kim to be like her mother, a world-class success at her day job (brain surgery, in Mom's case), then June Cleaver when she goes home at night? Of course not. Hey, wait a second, if it's not okay for Kim, then why – moving on!
Flaws. Workaholic who can't turn down a request for help? Standard hero problem. Clumsy and awkward around boys, especially her crush Josh Mankey? In the tradition of Clark Kent and Peter Parker – I can get behind that. Besides, she's sixteen. Doesn't always recognize or appreciate the talents of others? Well now. That shows hints of a genuine dark side. That could lead to some interesting plots – maybe combine it with the Workaholic Flaw and create a plot where she's tempted to subjugate the world for its own good. Maybe even a "Mirror, Mirror" episode…
Or it could lead to a whole bunch of episodes where other characters save the world and her ass, teaching her – repeatedly – that Other People Have Talents Too (and, not coincidentally, cutting her down to size).
Yep. Option B. It's enough to make you wonder why the title of the show is Kim Possible.
Still, it kept up this uncomfortable balance through three seasons, a finale, and a sequel season, until…
Until.
As a writer, I'm a big believer that the ending defines everything that came before it. Everything builds toward the ending, everything happens in service of it, so you really have no choice but to judge the events of a story in the light of the ending. So when the climax of the Series Finale involves Kim being knocked unconscious and captured by alien invaders as a result of Ron's clumsiness, the aliens discussing having her stuffed and mounted as a trophy, Ron being so enraged by this that his Mystic Monkey Power (a form of mystically-enhanced Kung Fun) flares to godlike levels, allowing him to kill both aliens and leave both Kim and Shego staring at him in awe and some small amount of fear, you can only reach one conclusion: The series Kim Possible is not about Kim at all, nor even about her and Ron growing into a mutual, equal partnership. It's the story of Ron Stoppable's Hero's Journey, as he strives to become worthy of a girlfriend as cool as Kim.
Which left me in a little bit of despair, I must admit. Is this the best kids have available to them? Are Strong Female Characters doomed to be underused, undermined, or just plain fake? What are they feeding the kids these days?
Then I discovered Avatar: The Last Airbender.
Avatar is a fantasy cartoon on Nickelodeon – well, was. It ended last summer, but you can find it on DVD anywhere (unlike Kim Possible). [Spoiler warnings.] It takes place in a world much like our own, except…except it isn't much like our world at all, really. In fact, it's a truly brilliant achievement in fantasy world-building. The biggest difference is this: A huge portion of the population, perhaps as much as 25% (certainly no less than 10%) are elemental "benders." That is, they can control one of the four classic elements – earth, air, fire, and water. All other differences are extrapolated from that.
Arthur C. Clarke said that "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," and that may well be true, but this show proves that sufficiently commonplace and dependable magic is indistinguishable from technology. Each form of bending is explicitly treated as a martial art (based on real-life ones, for verisimilitude), so the most common use we see is fighting, but it goes far beyond that: Earth Kingdom cities have no gates – why should they, when a guard can just open the wall? – and we see trains and mail-delivery systems made entirely of stone and powered by earthbending. The Water Tribes live at the North and South Poles, where the waterbenders control virtually the entire environment (yes, they can control ice and vapor, not to mention non-water liquids), building cities out of ice. The Fire Nation takes to hot-air balloons very quickly, and they never need to build actually cannons on their tanks – just a hatch for a soldier to throw fire through. The Air Nomads…
Are all dead.
For this is a world at war. One hundred years ago, the Fire Nation attacked the other peoples of the world, and wiped out the Air Nomads in a devastating first strike. That's exactly the sort of thing that the titular Avatar – the only bender in the world who can control all four elements – is supposed to prevent, but the last known Avatar vanished just when the world needed him most.
But now he's been found.
As you can probably tell, I love this series. It's a remarkable piece of fantasy and, especially by the standards of kids' shows, a remarkable piece of feminism. It's true that the titular character is a boy (in this incarnation – of the four previous Avatars we meet, two are men and two are women), but Avatar is an ensemble show, where each of the characters gets their own story and character development. The Avatar may be the most powerful among his group of companions and the lynchpin of the plot, but they're no more secondary or subservient to him than the Fellowship was to Frodo.
The women of Avatar display the fullness of variety and humanity that fictional women are so often denied: They're brave, funny, gross, wiseass, overbearing, smart overall with moments of extreme stupidity, vengeful, angry, as sexual as kids' TV will allow them to be (they actually get a fair bit past the radar) – the only thing they have in common is they are all extremely (in some cases terrifyingly) badass. Their power level ranges from "God-stomping" to "Badass Normal," and for once there's more of the former (not that the Normals can't more than hold their ground). What's more, they get to use that power in effective ways, rather than being reduced to really impressive damsels in distress so the boys can look heroic. Better yet, they're not mere tokens: Except for the first season, when the core cast totaled three, the ratio of men to women has been kept scrupulously equal.
Perhaps most important of all, it's made clear that while these characters are exceptional, they are not unique. Where another series would use male characters as their "generic person," filling every role with men unless they wanted to make some sort of point by using a woman, we see women "generically" filling in roles from front-line military to government clerk to Random Peasant Helping with the Defense of Her Town. Men take orders from these women as if there was nothing unusual about it. And yet, the series doesn't pretend that sexism doesn't exist.
The creators of Avatar did it right, and they did it, to the best of my knowledge, without all of the public self-congratulation of Joss Whedon or the creators of Kim Possible.
Over the next few days, I'll be reviewing the series in greater depth, season-by-season. Thanks to Liss for letting me post this, I hope you all enjoy.
Zombie Newt Still Talking
It appears that Zombie Newt has decided to use the thin veil of undeserved credibility which separates him from disreputable conservadouches like Rush Limbaugh to confer verisimilitude on the pronouncements he makes as Bizarro Translator for the Republican Party, in which he takes a political reality, flips them 180°, then talks about its opposite as if that's reality.
Today's Zombie Newt Bizarro Emanation: The Obama Administration is Anti-Religious.
Newt Gingrich said Tuesday the Obama administration is "intensely secular" and "anti-religious," the former House Speaker's second hard-hitting criticism of the new administration this week.Of course it is. It fits perfectly in the pattern of campaigning with a homobigot preacher, inviting a misogynist homobigot to do the inaugural invocation, and asking a homobigot to join the White House Faith Council, just for a start.
In an interview with FOX News, Gingrich said he strongly disagreed with Obama's choice of Harry Knox — an outspoken activist for gay rights — to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives.
"I think their goal is to have a very secular America in which government dominates everything," he said. "Why wouldn't you put an anti-religious, left-wing zealot on a faith-based group? It's a perfect pattern for this administration."
The reality is that it's one thing that doesn't pander to conservative, gay-hating evangelicals. It is, unfortunately, the exception rather than the rule. But to acknowledge that would be to undermine conservatives' intractable hatred of Obama, to inject reason into their own faith-based initiative, so enter Zombie Newt with a well-placed Bizarro Emanation to reframe the situation as its precise opposite, fanning the fires in indignant conservative bellies.
It's pathetic—and it's efficacy is dependent on blind fealty, a total void of critical thinking, and an utter lack of even the most basic scrutiny of actual facts. Is it any wonder the Republican Party is desperate to prevent the Obama administration from improving the educational system they've decimated? An educated populace is their death knell.
Because only the catastrophically ignorant can believe this shit.
Number of the Day
53%. The number "of American adults [who] believe capitalism is better than socialism. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better."
I literally burst into laughter when I read that number. Fifty-fucking-three percent?! LOL. That sound you hear is the heads of millions of conservatives exploding.
As a personal fan of an economy balanced by both socialism and heavily-regulated capitalism, I would like to personally thank former President George W. Bush and his cabal of superfuck free-marketeers for so thoroughly discrediting capitalism and corporatism among the American populace that we might one day get an economy that isn't centered on the invisible hand giving most of us the finger.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Recession Is Causing Anxiety
Especially if you have a vagina. If you have a penis, you are probably helping Vagina-Americans with their stress, because your penis insulates you against dumb things like "emotions."
It's probably because I have a silly little girl head, but I just can't figure out how to reconcile this news with the other New York Times article I read recently that told me the recession is hurting men more than women. And it's not even just the Times! I mean, heck, I thought the bad economy is good for women because it opens up the world of stripping and porn to them.
Shucks, I wish I had a penis so I could figure all this stuff out.
[H/T to Shaker Siobhan.]
Here We Go Again
An Alabama man named Kevin Garner killed his wife, Tammy Garner, their 16-year-old daughter, his sister, and his 11-year-old nephew before shooting himself. In court documents seeking custody of their child, the woman told officials her husband was abusive, both "physically and emotionally." One of the relatives Garner killed was his sister, Karen Beaty, who had sided with Tammy Garner in their divorce proceedings and was staying with her when Garner went on his rampage.
I'm pretty sure you know where this is going.
The media has had two spins on this story. First, "No one could have seen it coming." "No one" referring not to Tammy Garner, of course--who most certainly had cause to be afraid of her husband--but court officials, neighbors who didn't know Garner, and Garner's attorney, all interviewed after the fact.
From the AP:
A man who police say shot and killed his estranged wife, their daughter and two other relatives before burning down his house and committing suicide on the eve of their divorce trial gave no hints of the mayhem to come, police and court officials say.No indication, huh? Let's look at the evidence. On one side: A history of abuse; a contentious divorce; a custody battle; a sister who was about to testify on Tammy Garner's behalf in court; and a pile of statistics showing that the risk of rape or homicide increases dramatically when a woman leaves an abusive relationship--precisely the reason so many abused women are afraid to leave.
While Kevin Garner's wife accused him of being abusive in court filings, authorities said the 45-year-old chemical company worker gave no indication that their split could result in the violence that occurred Tuesday.
Garner's behavior didn't seem odd during a brief court appearance Monday, Circuit Judge Sherrie W. Paler said, and the divorce wasn't considered particularly contentious by courthouse workers or the lawyers who were involved.
"I was terribly shocked and saddened by this unexpected tragedy," said Jerry Knight, an attorney who represented Garner in the divorce, which was scheduled to go to trial Wednesday.
Knight, in an e-mail to The Associated Press, said Garner "had a terrific work ethic and value system."
On the other: A judge who didn't know Garner (and, in truth, said only that "his behavior didn't appear odd" in court, not that there was no indication he was capable of violence); unnamed "courthouse workers" whose anonymous opinions apparently outweigh allegations of abuse made under oath; and an attorney for the accused killer, whose wackadoo quotes ("terrific value system"?) would make his credibility pretty suspect even if he wasn't working for the murderer.
The second media spin, predictably, is: What did she do to set him off? Nearly every account of the story--including the AP account quoted above--mentions Kevin Garner's allegations that his wife had been unfaithful and "misappropriated" money from their joint bank account when she left, as if those charges were in any way relevant to his decision to murder his family. And few accounts fail to mention the fact that the murders came "on the eve of the divorce trial"--as though she could have stopped him, if only she hadn't left him, if only she hadn't pissed him off.
No, not every media outlet has engaged in outright victim blaming. Some have even focused on Tammy Garner's allegations of abuse. Perhaps that's because, unlike the similar case this week in Washington State, this woman didn't survive her husband's rampage. But even so: Not one story I read connected the dots between leaving an abusive relationship and subsequent violence. Not one tried to see the whole picture. Different day, same infuriating story.
h/t to Shaker Kathy.
Question of the Day
If you were a character on a crappy sitcom, what would your catchphrase be?
Mine, naturally, would be:
More Good News on the Same-Sex Marriage Front
The Washington, D.C. City Council has voted unanimously to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. What that means, in practical terms, is that a same-sex couple married in Boston, for example, can move to D.C. and still have their marriage legally recognized just like the marriage of any straight couple legally married anywhere else in the country would be, which is exactly the thing that DOMA was passed to allow states to avoid doing.
This is another Very Big Deal.
At the link, you can find video of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty discussing the council's decision, as well as the fact that a vote to legalize same-sex marriages in D.C. is both inevitable and also likely to be unanimous. The thing that's amazing to me is how casually and matter-of-factly he discusses the whole thing, which maybe even more than the decision itself shows how far we've really come.
As I've said before, all social progress really is, in the end, is making the extraordinary seem ordinary.
And damn if the yawn-inducing noncontroversial ordinariness of same-sex marriage doesn't make me blub.
[H/T to Shakers JR_JR and Hannah.]
Supprt the Troops
I don't even have the words to convey how indescribably angry this makes me: Army psychologist Douglas McNinch was inadvertently caught on tape by his patient, "Sgt. X," explaining that he and other Army clinicians were "being pressured to not diagnose PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] and diagnose anxiety disorder NOS [instead]," and revealing that the Army's medical boards were rejecting "his diagnoses of PTSD, saying soldiers had not seen enough trauma to have 'serious PTSD issues'."
Why the discouragement from correctly diagnosing PTSD? Money, of course. PTSD doesn't just go away. It's a serious anxiety disorder that its sufferers learn to manage, if they're lucky—but because it's also "a condition that obligates the military to provide expensive, intensive long-term care, including the possibility of lifetime disability payments," the Army is extremely interested in denying the diagnosis, no less the appropriate treatment, meaning there isn't a hell of a lot of luck to be had by returning soldiers suffering this life-fucking disorder."Unfortunately," McNinch told Sgt. X, "yours has not been the only case ... I and other [doctors] are under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD. It's not fair. I think it's a horrible way to treat soldiers, but unfortunately, you know, now the V.A. is jumping on board, saying, 'Well, these people don't have PTSD,' and stuff like that."
SMASH.
...A recently retired Army psychiatrist who still works for the government, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said commanders at another Army hospital instructed him to misdiagnose soldiers suffering from war-related PTSD, recommending instead that he diagnose them with other disorders that would reduce their benefits. The psychiatrist said he would be willing to say more publicly about the cases and provide specific names, but only if President Obama would protect him from retaliation.
...Last year, VoteVets.org and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released an e-mail from Norma Perez, a psychologist in Texas, to staff at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility there. In addition to the Army, that department also provides veterans with benefits. "Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I'd like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out," Perez wrote in the e-mail dated March 20, 2008. She suggested the staff "consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder." As opposed to those with PTSD, veterans with adjustment disorder, a temporary condition, typically do not receive disability payments from the government.
In a thoughtful country with serious, grown-up debate, sending soldiers to risk life and limb for a nation that refuses to care for them upon their return would not only be considered an enormous scandal and unconscionable ethical lapse, but would also be discussed as yet another planning failure of the two wars we fight with no exit strategies. The architects of this war thought it was going to be a cakewalk; they didn't in their wildest dreams consider the war would last this long, and thus failed utterly to prepare contingency plans in- and outside the war theaters, including the military healthcare system, which isn't designed to manage a constant influx of wounded soldiers.
I would, frankly, be amazed if even a passing thought had been given to readying the creaky, understaffed, underfunded system for that then-possibility and now-reality, because, as you'll no doubt recall, both wars were going to be walks in the park and last six weeks apiece and we'd be greeted as liberators and all that nonsense. Instead, we've been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade, Iraq not much less, and the two wars have produced (pdf) nearly 40,000 injured and dead soldiers.
Those soldiers were first casualties of the utter lack of competent post-war planning on the battlefield, and are now casualties of the utter lack of competent post-war planning at home.
It's a fucking disgrace.
Contact the White House and genuinely support our troops by requesting proper healthcare for them.
Not Yet Rain Debut and Chat with Filmmaker
A couple weeks ago, I posted about the new film Not Yet Rain. Not Yet Rain is a documentary exploring the experiences of Ethiopian women in regards to the new(er) abortion laws and the current reality of access to care. It's a small spotlight on a global issue--and well worth checking out: You can watch the 30 minute film here.
Earlier this morning I participated in a chat with filmmaker Lisa Russell and Anu Kumar, Executive Vice President Development and Communications, for Ipas. Ipas is a producer of the film. Below is an incomplete transcript, as I didn't get a chance to copy all the remarks due to time constraints and trying to keep up with the conversation. It was mentioned that some of the remarks may be put into the Q&A section on Not Yet Rain's site. Ipas: A question submitted before the chat--How willing were the women in this film to share their stories?
Hopefully this helped shed a little light on the film and issues. I found some of the answers to be a bit unsatisfactory in terms of depth but I'm fairly sure that was an issue with limiting space of the chat format itself and not with anyone involved. If/when there is a complete transcript, I'll update the post.
Lisa Russell: Because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, I had asked the clinic staff to explain to the women what I was doing there. All 3 at the Zeway Health Center offered to share their stories in an effort to help other women in Ethiopia.
--
Regina: why did you choose to focus the film in Ethiopia exclusively and not illustrate the problem through several countries or continents? Perhaps it was time or money. But if not I'd love to hear why one place only?
Anu Kumar: Indeed, it was primarily time and money. We also wanted to highlight a country where is change is happening, though challenges still exist.
--
Emily Douglas: Ethiopia's abortion law is far more progressive than abortion laws in most African countries. How was the country able to advance? Is there something unique about its political culture? And what hope is there for other countries liberalizing their laws?
Anu Kumar: The Ethiopia law was changed through a process of constitutional reform and involved a wide array of stakeholders. In fact, South Africa served as an example for Ethiopia and we are hopeful that other countries in the region will also follow.
--
Dilly Severin: It seemed there was a sub-theme in this movie about women's vulnerability to violence. From a rights perspective, do you think there is a link between lack of access to abortion services and violence against women?
Anu Kumar: Sexual violence and access to abortion services are connected in that they both represent violations of women's human rights.
--
Misty, Shakesville:I was wondering about how life is like for women like Tigist after they return from having the procedure. Will a woman be able to go on and have a "normal life" or will there be a stigma attached to her? Have the new laws helped lift any stigma?
Lisa Russell: Tigist life will has changed remarkably after having the procedure. She can go on to get a job, get an education, and pursue her goals. We made all attempts to keep her story and experience private.
--
Jessica, PPFA International: How common is it that women who do not fall into the stipulations (minors, been raped, etc.) are able to access safe abortion services?
Anu Kumar: We don't have specific data that would answer this question. The law permits abortion for many reasons incuding for women under 18. Regardless of the law, Ipas is working to make sure women have information and the ability to get the services they need.
--
Dilly Severin: Other than the new abortion law, is anything being done (policy-wise) to improve women's access to other forms of family planning in Ethiopia?
Lisa Russell Excellent question...While there are efforts to increase awareness about the law, more work needs to be done to ensure women, particularly in the rural areas, are getting the information that safe services exist.
--
Misty, Shakesville:The film highlighted Asnaketch's son and he espoused some progressive views--does it appear the views regarding empowering women are becoming more common among younger generations?
Lisa Russell: Asnaketch's son is educated and therefore he is getting information about what can be done to improve women's health in Ethiopia. Asnaketch has also taken great care to inform her son of her experiences which has helped to define his point of view.
--
Emily Douglas: What are the prospects for overturning the Helms Amendment? It seems like so much of the advocacy around repealing the global gag rule made clear that the US would still not fund abortion. Taking on Helms would force us to make a bigger argument for the need for safe abortion and abortion as a human right.
Anu Kumar: In the near term, the administration can re-interpret the Helms amendment to make it more open. In the longer terms, we need a discussion in this country about the health impact of unsafe abortion and what we can do as a nation.
--
Dilly Severin: The two women in the video were quite young. Would you say this issue is not just an issue of a needing to empower women but to empower youth as well?
Lisa Russell: Yes, definitely. And I think that is true for young people all over. Educating and empowering young people about their rights for reproductive health, will help create a healthier global society.
--
Ipas: Another question submitted earlier-- What would you say is most needed in Ethiopia right now to prevent these deaths?
Anu Kumar: Ethiopians need wider access to family planning and access to safe abortion care. But to achieve lasting change, Ethiopian society (like others) needs to value the lives of women of girls and invest in them.
--
Misty, Shakesville:I was wondering about the training of medical providers. We are facing a shortage here due to lack of training and doctors retiring--what is it like there in terms of getting medical personnel trained in abortion care? I mean, are medical personnel looking for this training and finding a lack of teachers? Or is it like here with "conscience" objectors also being an issue in getting enough people to provide for care?
Anu Kumar: In Ethiopia, thousands of women die from unsafe abortion. The government has prioritized the training of medical personnel and Ipas is assisting them, but this is a complex and difficult task.
--
Ipas: One more question submitted early-- How do you hope that the film will be used?
Lisa Russell: We will be distributing the film in many ways. Besides a large online presence, we will be working with advocacy partners on screenings and other events. We are also aiming to put the film into the hands of young people, to create a conversation about progress for international women's health. Check out our site at http://www.NotYetRain.org for updates.
A Timely Video...
...considering my post yesterday on skin bleaching. Via Kameelah, a clip on "A Family of Skin Bleachers in Jamaica."
No transcript, but I want to point out a few things the daughter says:
Nothing sells in town like rubbings [meaning the skin bleach], hair, and clothes. Even food doesn’t sell as much as bleaching. Everyday you talk about being hungry, but if I have $1.50, I will go and run to buy one of them. They say beauty brings pain. Style is what we want, so we just have to bear it.*And later, she smiles as she describes how the bleach has its desired effect:
…nobody can say anything; we are white*.The video also talks briefly about men who have begun bleaching.
(crossposted)
________________
*All emphases mine
Attention Feminists
I now speak for all of you. Expect your marching orders from me soon.
That is all.
