Tilsy, carrying around Iain's slipper, desperate for someone to play catch.
Livsy, so not having it.
Sophie, looking redonkulously cute, as per usual.
Daily Kitteh
Tilsy, carrying around Iain's slipper, desperate for someone to play catch.
Livsy, so not having it.
Sophie, looking redonkulously cute, as per usual.
"Not Helping" Defined
Honestly, I keep trying to come up with something clever, but I loathe wasting the slightest bit of thought or energy on the useless, unctuous, mean spirited bore that is Perez Hilton. Bruce Vilanch once called him a "professional homosexual." If that's the case, I want to know where this bozo received his training, because this:
New York, NY, June 22, 2009 – The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today issued the following statement in response to a video posted by celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, in which he made the following remarks about a confrontation with will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and members of the band's entourage.... isn't what I would call "professional" behavior. Ahem.
"And that is when I made the split-second decision - that I was gonna say what I thought was the worst possible thing that thug [will.i.am] would ever want to hear. As I was standing my ground - without being violent or physical which I would never do - I told him - and you know what? I don't need to respect you and you're a f**. You're gay and stop being such a f***ot."
I can't add anything to this:
"These are vulgar anti-gay slurs that feed a climate of hatred and intolerance toward our community," said Rashad Robinson, Senior Director of Media Programs at GLAAD. "For someone in our own community to use it to attack another person by saying that it is, quote, 'The worst possible thing that thug would ever want to hear,' is incredibly dangerous. It legitimizes use of a slur that is often linked to violence against our community. And it sends a message that it is OK to attempt to dehumanize people by exploiting anti-gay attitudes."Oh wait, I can.
Perez Hilton, please fade into the pathetic obscurity you so richly deserve.
I Am Ms. Unremarkable Fatty
In yet another horrendous dollop of misogynist slop masquerading as journalism at CNN.com, a bride-to-be makes 10 vows to us—"the public," as she deems us—as she embarks on a life of wedded bliss. Predictably, the frame is just another gimmick designed to afford a female writer the opportunity to shame other women's choices and implicitly announce to the world: "I'm not one of those women."
She's not one of those women who (1) publicly disagrees with her spouse, or (2) takes up too much sidewalk space with a stroller, or (3) refers to her husband as "hubby" or "hubs," or (4) calls dinner out with her husband a "date night," or (5) has the unmitigated temerity to politely ask to switch seats on a plane if she and her spouse are separated.
And she's certainly not one of those women who (6) shares a personal email address with her husband, or (7) plays matchmaker unbidden, or (8) engages in PDA (unless she's drunk), or (9) publicly calls her husband by her pet name for him, which is Fatso. Remember that, when we get to #10.
But before we come to the pièce de résistance, I'd just like to note how utterly foolish most of these vows to "the public" really are. Yes, I can understand if people don't care for diminutives like "hubby" or "hubs," but it's hardly necessary to judge negatively the people who use them—and making a public vow never to do so is just a passive-aggressive way of judging negatively the people who do. I'm not a big fan of the "date night" construction myself, but I don't give a rat's patoot if someone else uses the term. Who the fuck cares?
And, hey, if Ms. Exceptional Lady wants to spend a 12-hour flight separated from her husband just to be polite to people who probably won't find it impolite if she asked to switch seats, I guess that's her choice. But I've asked to switch seats when Iain and I were at ass-opposite ends of an airplane once (the gentleman next to Iain kindly accommodated me), and I've also been asked to switch seats on flights, which I've always been happy to do. I can't imagine why it would be considered rude to ask—except if one inhabits a world in which women asserting the merest hint of self-determination is regarded as a brash show of impudence.
The whole list is a sort of bizarro-world homage to genuinely independent women. One gets the idea, for example, that Ms. Exceptional Lady objects to sharing an email account with a partner because it's obvious evidence of subjugation, despite there being perfectly practical reasons for a shared account, like sending mutual birthday or holiday greetings to faraway family—and a shared account is more egalitarian than sticking Ms. Exceptional Lady's virtual signature in a note from hubby's husband's personal email (or vice versa).
But these are the sorts of things that don't occur to a woman who only wants the outward appearance of feisty independence, masking a anodyne center of safe, self-imposed conformity and rigid adherence to cultural narratives about What Women Should Be.
Which brings us to #10 (emphasis original):
10. I will not let myself go. (Okay, so this is really more a vow to myself than to you, but if you had any idea how bad I could let myself go, you'd thank me for not going there.)
Of course.
Leaving aside the reality that many fat people are not fat as a result of having "let themselves go," let us all take a moment to profusely thank Ms. Exceptional Lady for working so hard to keep herself in alignment with arbitrary beauty standards so that we don't have to look at someone who is in some way less than perfect.
Except for those of us who have "let ourselves go," and are in some way less than perfect, who should, evidently, in addition to our thanks to Ms. Exceptional Lady, be offering our profound apologies that we have "gone there." Because, you see, being fat/ugly/less than perfect is an imposition on all the Perfect People. That's why we should be grateful to Ms. Exceptional Lady for promising never to be such a hideous burden.
This, this expectation that fat people—and fat women in particular—are meant to be contrite for their fat, is exactly what I was talking about when I wrote:
If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world. You are certainly not meant to be bold, or assertive, or confident—and should you manage to overcome the constant drumbeat of messages that you are ugly and unsexy and have earned equally society's disdain and your own self-hatred, should you forget your place and walk into the world one day with your head held high, you are to be reminded by the cow-calls and contemptuous looks of perfect strangers that you are not supposed to have self-esteem; you don't deserve it. Being publicly fat and happy is hard; being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery.
Which is why I just love the stereotype of the Lazy Fatty. Totally aside from whatever factors caused Teh Dreaded Fat—which may in some cases include a lack of exercise, for a multitude of reasons, one of which might be physical laziness—being fat, living the life of a fat person, is not a life for a lazy person. It is hard work to move every day through a world that hates you.
I recently got a bike, which I am having to re-learn to ride in a whole new way because of a back injury that left me with severe nerve damage in my left foot. (It's hard to ride a bike when you can't totally feel the pedal; in fact, it's hard to do lots of things—I pretty much had to re-learn to walk, too.) And I had literally just ridden it out of the garage for the first time, and was still in my driveway, when someone yelled at me from a passing car.
I guess that's just my punishment for "letting myself go."
And I know there are people who expect me to apologize for myself, for taking up so much space in the world and forcing them to gaze upon my wretched form, but, the truth is, I'm not sorry I'm fat.
I'm sorry the rest of the world is full of assholes—including assholes who make promises to never look like me.
Quote of the Day
"McCain's bleatings are either for domestic political consumption or self-satisfaction, a form of hip-shooting onanism that demonstrates why he would have been a foreign policy disaster had he been elected."—Joe Klein, on Senator John McCain's insistent criticism of President Obama's approach to the situation in Iran.
Last night, visiting with Larry King, Klein admonished McCain: "Be quiet. … What you're doing is a self-indulgence at this point. Senator McCain, if he's going to talk about this, should also talk about the fact that the United States supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war for eight years. Every one of those protesters out in the streets, every last one of them believes the United States supplied Saddam Hussein with the poison gas that has debilitated tens of thousands of Iranian men.... They blame us for identifying them as part of the Axis of Evil, with two countries that they disdain, the Iraqis and the North Koreans."
Insert your own "Even a Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day" quip here.
Amazing Women
by Shaker Maud
There are two people I want to bring to your attention, if you haven't already heard about them.
The first is 14-year-old Caroline Moore, who is now the youngest person to discover a supernova. Caroline and her dad are part of a supernova search team, and Caroline last November detected in a photo taken by a computerized telescope what seems to be a previously unknown type of semi-supernova. Rachel Maddow interviewed Caroline briefly the other night, and she was entirely charming. (That word tends to be coded as how-girls-are-supposed-to-be, which isn't how I mean it. That's just how she struck me. Clearly excited to be on Rachel's show, but remarkably self-possessed.)
[By way of warning: When I viewed the footage of this interview on Maddow's msnbc.com site, the player just continued with the following segment, which was Kent Jones' jokey little treatment of several things, beginning with the prospect of adding separate subway cars for women and men in Japan, because men groping women is so widespread, followed by a violent video game someone has created starring Pres. Obama. Also, Rachel Maddow, though extremely cool in many ways, has not gotten (or heeded) the memo about ableist language.]
The second person is an utterly amazing woman named Leymah Gbowee. She created a Liberian womens' peace movement which contributed powerfully to bringing the years of civil war there to an end and ousting the hideous Charles Taylor from power. Lynn Sherr interviewed her on Bill Moyers Journal Saturday night, where I learned not only her remarkable story, but why I've never heard of her before.
Two American women have made a documentary about her movement and shown it to women in similar war-torn situations around the world, in Bosnia, Sri Lanka, and in the Americas, and it will be shown next spring as part of Women, War & Peace on PBS's Wide Angle. One of the filmmakers, Abigail Disney, was also part of Sherr's interview, and she explained that the news photographers and videographers who photographed the political events in which the women were movers did not photograph them, because they did not view these working-class women as important—not the sort of people who should be in the news, even as they were central to the creation of the political future of their nation.
Relatedly, Gbowee, who has generated a veritable flatware wholesaler's worth of teaspoons, and continues to do so, initially believed she was not fit to lead the movement she created because she began it within her church, from whence she, an unmarried mother of several young children, had internalized sufficient slut-shaming to feel she was unfit for a position of leadership. She went on to bring Christian and Muslim women together for the first time to work to end Liberia's civil war, and now she is Executive Director of Women, Peace and Security Africa.
Video of the interview, a transcript, and info about the documentary, Pray the Devil Back to Hell, are on this page of the Bill Moyers Journal site.
Yes, We're Gay
Shaker bekitty sent me this video, which is an ideal complement to yesterday's Question of the Day:
[Transcript below.]
Scotty: Yes, I'm gay.
Miguel: Yes, I'm gay.
Marcellas: Yes, I'm gay.
Derrick: Yes, I'm gay.
Carlos: Yes, I'm gay.
Davey: Yes, I'm gay.
John: Yeah, I'm gay.
Dan: So, yes, we are gay. But there are some things we'd like you to know about us.
Michael: I like figure skating.
Scotty: I like fashion.
Davey: And I don't know who Bette Midler is.
Carlos: I really like Madonna.
Michael: I like my pink Blackberry.
Scotty: I like playing football.
Dan: I like to wear a ridiculous v-neck shirt.
Davey: And I like penis.
Michael: I like YouTube.
Derrick: And I do not like rainbows.
Scotty: I don't want to bang every guy I see.
Carlos: At rock concerts, I like going into the mosh pit.
Dan: I'm an atheist.
Derrick: And I don't like every single dude that walks right by me.
John: But I don't wear pink.
Dan: I'm one of those really awesome radical feminists.
Carlos: I don't like techno sometimes; it gets a little too annoying.
Michael: I like gymnastics.
Scotty: I like shopping.
Miguel: And I hate shopping.
Marcellas: But I like to fight.
John: And I'm not a slut.
Carlos: I like to build things, with like woodwork and plastics. Ah, so amazing.
Scotty: I like musicals.
Dan [wearing hoodie]: I like wearing hoods when the weather isn't necessarily hood-appropriate.
Miguel: And I respect myself.
Michael: I don't like cleaning.
Scotty: I love Kathy Griffin.
Davey: And I eat carbs.
John: And I really enjoy watching and playing almost any sport.
Carlos: And I like Britney Spears.
Derrick: And I don't like having a lot of hair.
Marcellas: I hate Paris. I hate Britney. I hate Kim Kardashian.
Michael: I like chasing cars.
Derrick: And I don't like musicals.
Michael: I like musical theater.
Carlos: I don't like Cher, or her music.
Derrick: I don't like Britney Spears.
Miguel: And I'm healthy.
Derrick: And I like eating food. A lot.
Carlos: I know some think that gays are clean, but I'm really messy.
Dan: When I get older, I wanna have kids, and I wanna name the first one either Olive or Oliver.
Michael: Oh! I like Patty LuPone in Gypsy!
Miguel: And I think it's okay to be friends with straight people.
Marcellas: And I despise the circuit lifestyle.
Scotty: I don't enjoy awards shows.
Carlos: I don't quite fancy musicals that much.
John: And I don't sound gay.
Michael: I don't like cooking.
Dan: I am so a cat person. [holds up cat]
Carlos: I don't like to smoke.
Michael: I don't like that I don't have a housekeeper to cook and clean for me.
Carlos: I don't understand football at all. Ugh.
Scotty: I believe in god.
Derrick: And I like playing football.
Davey: And I don't like musicals. Except for High School Musical.
Derrick: And I like Pokemon games!
Scotty: I like action movies.
Dan: I love Will & Grace and Roseanne.
Carlos: I don't like to wear high heels or dresses.
John: But, like, musicals make me livid. I just can't watch them.
Derrick: And I like strategy board games.
Scotty: Sex is more than a physical pleasure to me.
Davey: And I like cheerleaders.
Dan: I don't like Cher.
John: And I do not use the word "fierce" in my daily vocabulary.
Carlos: I don't aspire to be a hairdresser or a make-up artist when I grow up.
Marcellas: And I like shopping.
Miguel: And I'm not promiscuous.
Dan: But most of all, when you're getting to know us, there's one thing in particular that you really should know about.
Davey: But this isn't because I'm gay—it's because I'm Davey Wavey, bitch!
Derrick: But this isn't because I'm gay—it's because I'm Derrick.
John: But all these things aren't because I'm gay—um, it's because I'm John.
Scotty: But this isn't because I'm gay—it's because I'm Scotty.
Carlos: But this isn't because I'm gay—it's because I'm Carlos.
Michael: But this isn't because I'm gay—it's because I'm Michael.
Miguel: This isn't because I'm gay; this is because I'm Miguel.
Marcellas: But this isn't because I'm gay—it's because I'm Marcellas Reynolds.
Dan: We're people, too. And our actions, likes, and dislikes shouldn't have to be explained by our sexuality. So, yes, I'm gay—but, most importantly, I'm Dan.
Ruling vs. Governing
Ross Douthat chortles now that that Democrats are in power, they actually have to run things instead of having to bollix things up for the Republicans.
In recent years, liberalism has profited from the impasse. Liberals torpedoed the Bush administration’s attempt to trim Social Security benefits. They demagogued John McCain in 2008, when he proposed a market-based health care plan and hinted at means-testing Medicare.The difference is that the Democrats, by and large, actually want to govern, not just win elections. The giveaway is that President Obama is taking on the tough stuff right out of the gate -- which led to the Republicans claiming he was taking on too much. For them, that's too much like actually governing instead of just planning your next fund-raiser with the NRA and the Church of I Hate You. By the way, it wasn't the liberals who torpedoed Bush's half-hearted attempts to reform Social Security. He couldn't get that to fly when he had control of both houses of Congress in 2005; even the Republicans couldn't get behind it.
But now it’s their turn to actually run the country. And just as Bush-era conservatives couldn’t really make tax cuts pay for themselves, Obama-era Democrats aren’t really going to be able to finance universal health care without substantial middle-class tax increases, or substantial spending cuts.
They’re looking for both, and maybe they can pull it off. The Bush administration saved its hard choices — on health care, entitlements and taxes — for the second term, and then ran out of political capital. The Obama administration is trying to tackle the hard stuff early, while it still has that first-term glow, and the power that comes with it.
The GOP has always been very good at knocking down the ideas and programs put forward by the Democrats, but when it comes to coming up with counter proposals, they've got nothing. For the last two weeks we've heard a segment of the GOP taking President Obama to task for not jumping into the Iranian election aftermath, but they're not really specific about what he should -- or can -- actually do that will accomplish anything other than just cement the propaganda that the protesters are American-led stooges. On health care they are quick to get the vapours over "socialized medicine," but they've yet to come up with any alternative ideas that they haven't been trotting out since the Truman administration. As Steve Benen notes, government-run health insurance and health care, as demonstrated by Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration, are models of efficiency that the HMO's can only dream of.
Mr. Douthat concludes, "To govern is to choose. But with choices like these, liberals may find themselves pining for the days when somebody else was the decider." And the people chose, and they decided to go with a president who would rather govern than rule.
Cross-posted.
A Slip In The Polls
I'm from a predominantly Hispanic family, and as such, people often ask me "Hey, what do your relatives think of this?" I usually shrug, and make something up, because uno) I don't know what every single one of my relatives thinks, dos) experience has taught me that my family, as with most families, does not always agree on every subject y tres) I'm mostly interested only in hearing my own opinion.
I got one of those questions today, about the GOP's continued playing of the Let's Hate On Mexicans Game, specifically, their opposition to Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. And yes, I know Sotomayor is not Mexican per se, but I think that is splitting hairs as far as the GOP is concerned. The GOP, it seems, is suffering a bit of a backlash.
[O]pposition to Sotomayor seems to be hurting the party among Latinos in a big way.So, what does my family think of this? Let me just say, they're not at all surprised.
The latest numbers ... find that only eight percent of Latinos view the party favorably, while an astonishing 86 percent view it unfavorably.
Seriously, how long does the GOP think it can demonize an entire race before that comes back and bites them in the ass? And just to put that slip in perspective, the drop is a loss of about 25% of their support from whatever few Hispanics the GOP was still able to court. Of course, the next question is, who are those remaining eight percent? That one I don't have an answer for.
It's Time to Change, It's Time to Rearrange!
Climate change bill to hit House floor this week:
In a surprising development, House Democrats have reached an agreement to bring a sweeping climate change bill to the floor by the end of the week, Democratic aides announced late Monday night.Meanwhile..."the costs of cap-and-trade are very, very low."
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has brokered enough of a pact with wary Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) to pave the way for a bill to be voted on by week's end. But it remains to be seen whether the measure has the votes to pass. Most Republicans are expected to reject the bill while some conservative Democrats, such as Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.), are firmly against it.
...Waxman filed the bill with the House Rules Committee Monday night. House Democrats had previously suggested the measure would be voted on after the July 4 recess. The vote, whenever it occurs, will be one of the biggest roll calls of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) political career. She has labeled climate change her "flagship issue."
"There are some issues still under discussion, but we are confident we can resolve them by the time the bill goes to the floor on Friday," said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi. "The Speaker, [Majority] Leader [Steny] Hoyer [D-Md.] and Chairmen Waxman and Peterson have all agreed on this approach for moving this historic climate change and clean energy jobs bill."
Move Along, Nothing to See Here—Unless You're Gay, and Then It's a Totally Inappropriate Parrrtayyy!
As if the Obama administration's pathetic failures on LGBTQI rights isn't bad enough, their attitude toward LGBTQI advocates is, quite possibly, even more appalling:
As advocates for gays and lesbians intensify their criticism of the White House, President Obama has invited some of their leaders to an East Room reception next Monday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 Greenwich Village demonstrations that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement.I know what you're thinking: Why, Liss—that sounds great! What objection could you possibly have to that, you crotchety old sourpuss?
The White House has not publicized the reception, and officials did not respond to e-mail requests for comment. But gay leaders from here and around the country said they had received either telephone calls from the White House or written invitations to the event, and were told Mr. Obama is expected to speak."They want people to [feel] welcome," said an anonymous White House staffer, dressed in a hooded cloak and Dalek Voice Changer Helmet, who quickly disappeared into the evening fog without a trace after blindfolding this reporter and spinning her around in a circle seven times.
…[One invitee] said the invitation included an offer to bring a guest. "They want people to understand that their partners are welcome," said this person, speaking anonymously because the White House has not announced the event.
(The White House did eventually confirm the event.)
One person who received the invitation said the White House was billing the event as a celebration, akin to the festive affairs the administration holds on St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo.Now, I'm about the last person who will ever be heard complaining that an event isn't formal enough, but, I've got say, it strikes me as just a wee bit (where wee bit = colossally) irreverent to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion with a "festive affair akin to" a St. Paddy's Day or Cinco de Mayo party, given that, y'know, hate crimes against queers aren't exactly what one would call a distant memory. Party down like you've got equality, bitchez!
Pam wants to know: "[I]f the gathering is like Cinco de Mayo or St. Patrick's day, what should the decorative theme be at the White House for Stonewall if it's supposed to be festive from their POV—floats and circuit boys dancing on them?" lolsob
Megafail, Obama. Megafail.
RIP Ed McMahon
Ed McMahon, former sidekick to Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show, host of Star Search, and American Family Publishers' Sweepstakes spokesperson, has died at age 86 from undisclosed ailments.
Here's Ed, half in the bag, on The Tonight Show many years ago:
I always heard he was kind of a jerk IRL, but I loved him on The Tonight Show when I was a kid.
Where's Sanford?
There's a very bizarre situation in South Carolina this week, as Republican Governor Mark Sanford has gone missing and had no contact with his staff, security detail, lieutenant governor, or wife since he was seen last Thursday leaving in a black Suburban SUV.
[Transcript will be here, when available.]
His office first said they had contacted him, then refused to confirm they actually had contacted him, and there were varying tales about his needing to get away from his kids (on Fathers' Day?) to write something or to recover from a bad legislative session, and late yesterday said he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, which, as Josh Marshall points out, covers the length of most of the Eastern US.
I also noted the same glitch in the reporting that Josh did:
A number of news outlets have headlines up with some variation of 'mystery solved' or 'governor located'. But all of these stories, when you dig into them, have the same basic facts. Which is that the governor's spokesman now says he's off hiking. But they admit they don't know just where he is on the Appalachian Trail. And that no one has been in touch with him since last Thursday. That seems like a lot less than solved.Indeed. A very strange story. I hope he's all right. And I wonder who's running the state in the meantime...?
UPDATE: Sanford reportedly called to check in and says he's mystified by all the hubbub: "The governor was somewhat taken aback by all of the interest this trip has gotten, according to a statement by Joel Sawyer, communications director for the governor's office. Given the circumstances and the attention the governor's trip has garnered, the governor communicated to us that he plans on returning to the office Wednesday, according to the statement."
If he's really that baffled, then he's a fucking idiot. And if the best spin they've got is that he's a fucking idiot, then the real explanation is probably way worse.
[Recently on Gov. Mark Sanford.]
Question of the Day
To what stereotype(s) do you conform, much to your chagrin and/or amusement? And what stereotype(s) do you defy?
(In case it's not patently evident, this question and its associated answers are not intended to suggest that these stereotypes are true.)
I suppose the most obvious stereotype to which I conform is that I'm a feminist who's fat (and has a bit of the crazy cat lady thing going on). Also: I hate men and have no sense of humor.*
The most obvious stereotype I defy is that I'm a small-town Hoosier who's progressive. That shouldn't really be a humongous surprise, given that we've spawned Eugene V. Debs and Kurt Vonnegut, but there you go.
I can't even get started on all the woman stuff. I love shoes, but I can parallel park like the dickens. I have no sense of direction, but I'm great at math. I love babies, but I don't want to have one. Zany!
------------------------
* See what I did there?
I Write Letters
Dear American Advertisers, Marketers, Makers of Films and Television Shows, and Other Purveyors of Pop Culture Imagery and Narratives:
I am a fat person.
See? That's a picture of me bein' all fat and stuff.
I'm not a little bit fat. I'm a lot fat. I'm the sort of fat woman you wouldn't normally think about except as a punchline or a cautionary tale.
For the record, I'd like to let you know a few things I've never done as a big fat person:
• Sat on a chair and had it break.
• Jumped on a diving board and had it break.
• Broke a bed frame while fucking.
• Busted out of my clothes while eating.
• Exploded an inner tube with my powerful fat.
• Sunk a boat with my tremendous rotundity.
• Blown out a vehicle's tires with my colossal girth.
• Broken a fall with my enormous gut.
• Bounced off something with my gut, boobs, or ass.
• Sat on another person accidentally.
• Sat on another person maliciously.
• Unwittingly crushed an animal under my fat ass.
• Been in a food-eating contest.
• Grabbed food with both hands and shoved it in my mouth.
• Spoken while my mouth was stuffed with food.
• Ripped food out of someone else's hands.
• Gotten stuck in a chair, doorway, or any other small space.
• Emptied a pool with a bellyflop.
• Fallen through a floor.
• Stunk, just because I'm fat.
• Discovered food stuck in a fat roll.
• Discovered a remote control stuck in a fat roll.
• Discovered anything stuck in a fat roll.
• Eaten an entire gallon of ice cream.
• Eaten an entire bag of potato chips.
• Eaten an entire box of cereal.
• Eaten an entire cake.
• Eaten an entire pie.
• Been friendless.
• Been unable to get a date.
• Been unable to get laid.
• Hated other fat people.
• Hated thin people.
• Hated myself.
• Ceased having dignity.
• Ceased being human.
• Existed for a single moment blissfully unaware of my fatitude and the contempt it elicits in folks just like you.
There are more, but I'm going to guess you've gotten the picture.
There are fat people—even big fat people like me—who have experienced these things. And there are thin people, and medium-sized people, who have experienced these things, too.
But it's funny how it's always the fat folks who seem to get the wonky chair in the movies and adverts, who are the last ones to step on the weakened floorboard before it cracks, the ones who can't stop shoving that entire package of delicious cookies in their mouths because they're so gosh-darn tasty.
And it's funny how rarely we're seen doing anything else. It's almost as if you aren't aware that we struggle to figure out what to be when we grow up, that we go on crappy dates, that we have shitty jobs, that we make discoveries and commit crimes, that we become presidents and stay-at-home-parents, that we're every intersectionality one can imagine, that we are couch potatoes and athletes, that we fall in love and fuck and make babies, or not, that we are smart and dumb and nerdy and fashionable and sophisticated and mellow and all kinds of disparate and complex things. It's almost as if you think we don't live full, rich lives.
So take a memo, my friends: We do.
Love,
Liss
Professional Fat Cunt
Really, Justice Thomas, You Don't Have to Go that Far to Prove a Point
Whatever that point is:
Clarence Thomas casts lone vote against Voting Rights Act
In your haste to show all of us unambitious, whining, dependent black folk up, do you even know what the point is anymore?
Blog Note
A bunch of people have emailed me recently with problems commenting on the Disqus system. If you're having a problem where you're getting a message that your password is wrong, or if you're being sent into a seemingly endless log-in loop, here's the solution: Go to your internet options (under "Tools" in your browser menu) and make sure that the box allowing third-party cookies is checked. That should solve the problem.
If that doesn't solve any problems you're having, please don't hesitate to email me, and I'll try to help you figure it out.
Number of the Day
865. The number of people who, despite being matched during a background check on the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System with a terrorist watch list record, were nonetheless allowed to purchase guns or explosives, between February 2004 and February 2009, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.
"Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list," wrote the GAO's director of homeland security and justice issues, Eileen R. Larence.What's terrifying is that there's no way to know if this is a good or a bad thing, because the terrorist watch list is filled with people who don't belong on it…and people who do.
"Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor (i.e., prohibiting information) pursuant to federal or state law, such as a felony conviction or illegal immigration status."
Of the 963 background checks, 865 were allowed to proceed, and 98 were denied, the report said.
Quote of the Day
"While I've long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status ("civil unions") and full marriage rights. The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. … But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn't a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore."—Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), explaining why he has changed his stance on same-sex marriage and is "proud to now count myself among the many elected officials, advocates, and ordinary citizens who support full marriage equality for same-sex couples."
It never was a good enough reason, but wev. Welcome to the rainbow, Senator.
Cruise Culture
[Trigger warning.]
So, I'm reading this article about the FBI reporting that "sexual and physical assaults were the leading crimes committed onboard cruise ships in recent years," and it's the usual depressing litany of failures to properly protect people from sexual assault and subsequent failures to properly serve resulting victims. And then there's the Blame Game, in which everyone who has a finger to point points it, in a wild attempt to identify who's really at fault for all these failures:
The number of attacks on ships is probably higher than reported, sexual assault experts say, because rape victims are afraid to come forward on an isolated ship with perpetrators in close quarters.Note the vague "involved the use of alcohol," which could mean a victim was drinking or that a rapist was drinking (or both), but because, of course, we can't actually ever have a real discussion about how alcohol might lower the inhibitions of rapists, most readers will naturally go immediately to the well-worn trope of drunken sluts deserving to get raped.
They also say cruise travelers are at a higher risk for attack because of readily available alcohol and a partying mentality on the vessels, which haul an average of 2,000 passengers each from across the globe. Of the attacks investigated by the FBI, a majority involved the use of alcohol.
Cruise lines disagree, saying people are safer on the ships than they are in their own communities. The companies provide 24-hour security and screen passengers' belongings.Note the complete ignorance of what actually causes rape—not a lack of security, not people being allowed willy-nilly to carry unexamined junk around with them, not a sense of community, not being known to authorities, but the presence of a rapist who's determined to rape someone, a rapist who knows that the illusions of safety thought to insulate "good people" from rapists, coupled with massive canons loaded with victim-blaming and set on a hair-trigger, will make raping someone and getting away with it incredibly easy.
"The cruise ship is a closed community," said Michael Crye, executive vice president of the Cruise Lines International Association. Security officers "have absolute access to everyone onboard," he said, because each person has been documented before boarding the ship.
Who's responsible for sexual assault on cruise ships? The same people who are responsible everywhere else—rapists and rape enablers, the people who see a borderline-incapacitated person being plied with more alcohol, who see someone already incapable of giving enthusiastic consent being dragged off to private quarters, who see someone being hounded by a stranger whose attentions they don't want, who see someone being bullied into dancing, sitting near, kissing, spending time with a person with whom they clearly don't feel comfortable, who listen to someone telling rape jokes, who hear someone making inappropriate comments about what they'd like to do to someone younger, drunker, more vulnerable, who see someone slipping something into another person's drink, who see any one of a million different clues that Something Bad Is Going to Happen, and do nothing, say nothing, just let it go. Or worse: Egg it on.
All the muttering about stepped-up security and making sure there are rape kits on board and blah-blah-blah isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to stop people getting raped (except insomuch as some of it may well help prosecute rapists and stop them raping again). What could make a difference is fundamentally changing the culture of cruise ships to one in which the possibility of rape is not an ominous shadow in the background but its prevention is an actively, openly addressed issue: "We encourage all our guests to have a raucous and rollicking good time—but not at the expense of anyone's safety or dignity. Be a responsible and respectful partier, make sure your partner says yes, and speak up if you see someone in danger. We have a zero tolerance policy on sexual assault."
The only possible excuse for not putting that shit everywhere on board a ship, knowing that rape is a problem, is because you don't want to be a downer and ruin all the carefree fun of your passengers. Except…there's only one kind of passenger who'd really have a problem with that, isn't there?
You can't claim to care about discouraging rape if your main priority is making sure you don't lose rapists as repeat customers.
Anyway…in a final bit of cluelessness, there is this:
Authorities say passengers should report crimes immediately to a cruise line security officer or staff member on board.Never mind that the first rape recounted in the article is a woman who was raped by a crew member.
