Scary Times

Not one but two men brought guns to President Obama's townhall yesterday. Richard Terry Young was arrested after being found "in possession of an unlicensed loaded gun." He was also carrying a pocketknife. William Kostric was filmed by MSNBC with a loaded gun strapped to his leg, and explained to Chris Matthews that "It is time to water the tree of liberty," referencing the 1787 Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (He then insisted he is "not advocating violence. I'm advocating an informed society, an armed society, a polite society.")

Meanwhile, the same Jefferson quote showed up elsewhere outside the townhall, where a rightwing protester (white man in the white shirt) shouted through a megaphone:

Why are we bankrupting this country for 21 million illegals who should be sent on the first bus, one way, back from wherever they come from. We don't need illegals. Send them home once. Send them home with a bullet in their head the second time. Read what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty — it's coming, baby.

Meanwhile, via Gawker: The AP has just released a report "containing some sobering but entirely predictable information: according to ATF sources, militia groups concentrated in the South, Midwest and Northwest are growing rapidly as wild conspiracy theories fuel the spread of paranoia. ... [The report] cites an ATF official named Bart McEntire who says that he believes it's 'only a matter of time' before we see another Timothy McVeigh-like act of domestic terrorism."

Scary times, Shakers. Scary times.

Open Wide...

Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"



Blank

Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspective. Hilarity ensues.

Open Wide...

Blog Note

We're aware that people are intermittently getting a 502 Server Error from Google this morning. It's a Blogger issue over which we've got no control, so hopefully it will be resolved soon.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

Open Wide...

What The Hell?



Shaker Susan811

What the hell are you doing, trick-or-treating at the Blair Witch house? What the hell are you supposed to be anyway?? What the hell is that on your head??? What the hell????

[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, and yeomanpip.]

Open Wide...

lol your presidential ambitions

lolololol:

Add former Sen. Rick Santorum to the list of potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

POLITICO has learned Santorum will visit first-in-the-nation Iowa this fall for a series of appearances before the sort of conservative activists who dominate the state GOP's key presidential caucuses.
Please tell me those appearances will be performances of the off-off-off Broadway hit and winner of the coveted 2007 Dennis Hastert Excellence in Conservative Theater Award Santorum! the Musical.

The only thing more alarming to me than Santorum thinking he's got a shot at the presidency is that there are conservative voters who agree with him.

Who says Republicans aren't good conservationists? They recycle more useless shit than anyone else I know.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Please Don't Eat the Daisies

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

The logical follow-up to yesterday's QotD: What novel do you vote Best Ending?

As before, since this is essentially the spoiler thread to end all spoiler threads, please start your answer by clearly stating the name of the book, so that anyone who doesn't want to know the ending can skip over your answer.

I can think of a few possible answers to this question right off the top of my head, but the first one that came to mind is Life of Pi—and I'm not going to spoil the ending, which would truly ruin the whole book.

Another strong contender is A Prayer for Owen Meany. I figured out how it was going to end about 20 pages before the Big Thing happens, and I had to just set the book aside and have a good blub, because I couldn't read through my tears once I'd twigged to what was to come.

Open Wide...

Sigh

1. Lou Dobbs calls Howard Dean "a bloodsucking leftist" and says: "You gotta put a stake through his heart to stop this guy."

2. Some people object, and rightfully note this is an example of violent, eliminationist language.

3. Dobbs issues the worst apology ever, by calling his critics ignorant fuckwits: "I'm sorry if a Bram Stoker allusion is too literary for some, and for those who could not make what was seemingly an obvious connection, my deepest apologies and I'll gladly withdraw the latter part of my remark."

Dude, the problem isn't a lack of intellect or being poorly read. The problem is that you said the only way to stop Howard Dean is to kill him.

Open Wide...

Articles of Insouciance

Okay, a couple months ago a new sequel to The Fast and The Furious came out called, get this, Fast and Furious. At the time I thought it was pretty stupid but hey, at least I was comforted knowing something so dumb would never happen again, right? Except now there's a sequel to Final Destination called The Final Destination*. This is beyond lazy. Hollywood is just trying to irritate me now, isn't it?

I can't wait until next summer brings us The Transformers.

(* Note, this is still an improvement over Final Destination 2, which holds the silver medal for stupidest title for a movie ever.)

Open Wide...

Daily Kitteh



"Can I help you?"

Open Wide...

Today In Post-Racial


Georgia congressman David Scott's office was vandalized with a spray-painted swastika early this morning. "The Atlanta lawmaker said he also has received mail in recent days that used N-word references to him." Are you feeling post-racial yet?

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"We believe there should be no impunity for the sexual and gender based violence, and there must be arrests and punishment because that runs counter to peace."Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Congo today, where she "unveiled a $17 million plan on Tuesday to fight the widespread sexual violence in eastern Congo, a problem she said was 'evil in its basest form'."

The idea that impunity for sexual violence is an impediment to peace is one that touches me so deeply and intimately, I don't know if I can sufficiently convey how profoundly meaningful it is to hear my Secretary of State say it. Endemic and epidemic sexual violence without justice is, in its broadest sense, an obstacle to national peace—and then there is this: Surviving sexual assault without justice is not a peaceful life. It decimates all the elements of a peaceful life—one's sense of security, one's peace of mind, one's contentment within one's own skin. I have never again felt the kind of peace I knew before sexual violence without justice.

Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for acknowledging the reality of unpunished sexual violence on a national level, and a personal level, for Congolese women. Thank you.

Open Wide...

Random Thought

Isn't it interesting how a few hundred healthcare reform protesters at town halls across the country are getting nonstop media coverage, but the millions of people who've taken to the streets to protest the invasion of Iraq, before and during the war, have barely ever registered as a blip on the radar?

Go USA!

Open Wide...

Violent Misogyny as Entertainment: Discussion Thread

[Trigger warning.]

Shaker MizElke emailed (which I am posting with her permission):

Hi Liss - So, recently I was laying around on the couch avoiding gross hot weather and shamelessly vegging out in front of the TV. From the On Demand menu I chose a recent episode of the new show "Royal Pains" on USA, which has been rather enjoyable up to now.

Ok, so I really wish I was kidding about this. The story line in this episode (called "Crazy Love") is about a sexy sexy lady who goes to a plastic surgeon for a breast augmentation and while she's under anesthesia the surgeon sneeky implants a GPS tracking device into her chest at the request of her husband. During a subsequent MRI the implant breaks and comes ripping out of her chest, to her horror, shock, and pain. She is then hospitalized for resulting radiation poisoning.

When her insane, lying, manipulator of a husband comes to visit her in the hospital and "apologize" ("I just didn't want to lose you!") she throws her bed pan at his head and calls the police. OH WAIT, no she doesn't. Instead she gazes up at him from her hospital bed and says, "I had no idea you loved me so much!"

I HAD NO IDEA YOU LOVED ME SO MUCH.

I HAD NO IDEA YOUAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHFUCK.

The icing on this delicious cake of fuckery is that as soon as she says that, the two other people in the room, one of them her doctor, smile at her in approval. Good job with that forgiveness, little sexy wifey! Yaaaay!

*weep*

Just had to tell you about that one.
Between receiving this email, Deeky's earlier post about Weeds, and the million-and-one (or so) posts I feel like I've written recently about rape/stalking/domestic violence as entertainment, I thought I'd open a discussion thread with the question: What's the most egregious example of violent (or borderline violent) misogyny you've seen in a television show or film lately?

Open Wide...

How Not To Be a Progressive

(Image warning: the linked article includes an image of a "naked" inflatable sex doll, shaped vaguely like a woman, may not be work-safe - it's not reproduced here, but be careful going over there if you're at work)

It's funny how this goes, sometimes. You get a week where not much leaps out at you, and then there's a day like today, where you can't swing a hologram of a kitty without bumping into some egregious example of ableism, racism, misogyny or some other form of othering.

So you get a link to this page, and looking at the URL, you think, "Hey, good, 538's taking on the idea that world socialism as practiced is a monolithic bloc of political belief and practice!"

And happily you go click on it.

Go on, I'll wait.

Okay, back now? So...what's up with the misogyny, 538?

Let's take it on bit-by-bit. A little ways down the column, we find a picture of an iPhone, and a hockey puck, and an inflatable sex doll. A doll of a woman, of course, not of a man, because who'd wanna see that, guys, amirite, huh, amirite?

We also get the helpful caption: "Things."

Well, maybe I'm overreacting, huh? I mean, they wouldn't really mean to imply that women are things, right?

Oh, wait. Apparently they did. Because two paragraphs later, we get a line about how Britain not only buys things, they make things! With a helpful illustration again: this one includes Geri Halliwell in a union-jack dress - look! The UK government makes things! Like this woman! Who is quite a thing, amirite guyz? Amirite? Isn't that awesome? See how they made her for you to look at?

Signing off from Canada,

Just A Thing Made In The UK

Open Wide...

Awesome

Iain just forwarded me this trash pile from MSN Lifestyle, a reprint from Cosmo of "The Most Heinous Revenge Stories Ever," which would be better titled "Bitches Is Crazy."

The thing that most struck me about it, aside from its obvious "stereotype fulfillment porn" aspect, is that many of the stories have a palpable urban legend quality to them—cheaters who hand out passcodes, revenge victims who are mystified as to who betrayed their secrets. They don't pass the sniff test.

Which doesn't mean they're definitely untrue, but they're suspect enough that I wouldn't have printed any of them on the blog (even if I were in the business of printing such dreck), yet neither Cosmo nor MSN had the slightest compunction about disseminating them.

But it's feminists who have the nefarious agenda. Yep.

Open Wide...

Attention New York Times and the Entire Rest of the World: Asperger's IS Autism‏

by Shaker Meowser, a hetero fatass in her 40s, born in Brooklyn, New York, currently living in Portland, Oregon with a trio of fat cats and an adorable skinny boyfriend.

Quick quiz. Two questions. 1. True or false: In order to be diagnosed with autism under present DSM-IV-TR criteria, one must have either diagnosable speech delay in early childhood or intellectual disability (i.e. what used to be called mental retardation), or both.

Answer: FALSE.

2. True or false: All persons diagnosed with Asperger's under present DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria also meet the diagnostic criteria for autism.

Answer: TRUE.

Didja get them both right? Congratulations. You're smarter than the New York Times.

And if you didn't, don't fret too much. I probably wouldn't have either, before I got diagnosed. But it's got to come out. Asperger's is not, pace the Times, "complex and mysterious neurological disorder linked to autism." It is autism.

Oh, I'm not going to pick on the NYT too much. They were writing about the new movie Adam (which hasn't come out here yet, thus haven't seen it) and some other projects about aspies and "high functioning" autistic people like Temple Grandin (an HBO biopic starring Clare Danes is in the offing). From the preview I saw, Adam seems fairly inoffensive, maybe even amusing, and I'm sure I'll go see it. (I'm a lot more concerned about the potential theatre-audience reaction than the film itself; are they going to gigglesnort about stuff that's just not funny?)

The article itself wasn't particularly noxious, although someone ought to tell the author, Neil Amdur, that the phrase "autistic savant" is, well, kinda demeaning—isn't that cute? they actually say things! over and over! haha! (And no, I never thought I was much like "Rain Man" at all. In fact, this character being tied in the public's mind so heavily to Asperger's probably delayed my diagnosis by a lot, since I didn't identify with the character—although I thought he was interesting as an individual—and even most shrinks seem to think that's what adult aspies are like, even now, even women. Gargh.)

But let's take a look at that phrase "high functioning," shall we? It gets bandied about a lot, although it's not part of any "official" diagnostic criteria. Back to our quiz in the beginning: You might well have found yourself asking, "Well, if all aspies are autistic, then why is Asperger's a separate diagnosis at all?" And it's a damn good question. I think it has a lot to do with the idea that when I was a kid, and even a young adult, diagnosing a child with autism was fighting words.

Back then they still believed the refrigerator mom stuff, see? Tagging a kid with that label was like saying to a mother, "You are such a fuckup." And even after that theory was largely discarded, the perception of autism was that it was this horrible beast-monster that ate your child's brain and ruined your entire life and busted up your marriage and by the way, your haircut's ugly too.

Enter Lorna Wing, who came up with the Asperger classification (based on Hans Asperger's work with autistic kids in the 1940s) to describe autistic kids who talked more or less on expected schedule and developed "self-help" skills (feeding, toileting, dressing) more or less on expected schedule, albeit possibly going about both in unusual ways. This became a DSM diagnosis starting in 1994. Parents were told that this was "mild" autism, that their children weren't completely hopeless like Those Scary Kids With Autism, just a little flaky maybe. What they meant, of course, is, "Your kid won't strike anyone who knows nothing about autism as obviously autistic."

I can see how this diagnosis has had its uses. I have to admit it would have been harder for me to swallow it if my therapist had said, "You are autistic," instead of "you have Asperger's." Because I, too, would have thought autism was "those people," who couldn't hold a job or make themselves a meal or have a relationship. Never mind that people all over "the spectrum" have varying levels of skill at different things. Which is why the phrase "high functioning" misses the mark; it's not like we're good at everything, or good at nothing. But did I know that? Of course not. Never mind Kool-Aid, it's shower water, those ideas about what a "normal" brain is supposed to be like are what I and the New York Times and the rest of the world have been soaking our heads in, lo these many decades.

But now? I wonder if splitting "the spectrum" into Real Autism That Needs A Cure versus Those Kooky Lovable (But Only At A Distance!) Aspies isn't just another form of divide-and-conquer. The stated goal of Autism Speaks is to come up with a prenatal test for autism similar to the one for Down syndrome. Which basically amounts to cure-by-selective-abortion, should it come to pass.

The curebies tell us that it's only Real Autism they want to squash like a giant cockroach they're trying to find a big enough swat-sneaker for, not Asperger's, and that we "aspies" (who they consider to be any autistic person who can write and isn't in the mood to be stamped out) just couldn't possibly understand what life is like for kids with Real Autism and their poor, beleaguered parents. (Neurotypical parents, that is—they know of no other kind.)

Leaving aside that they're perfectly happy to use aspies to pad their numbers to make autism look like more of a "tsunami," leaving aside the fact that it's unlikely a prenatal test is going to be exact enough to distinguish Real Autism from Asperger's, and leaving aside the fact that it wouldn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies if it did...so an autistic adult who presents differently from a 7-year-old knows less about autism than a parent who's not autistic at all? Talk about a total waste of resources.

If they actually bothered to communicate with a wide range of autistic adults, they'd find out that a surprising number have been exactly where that 7-year-old is, or pretty damn close, because—whaddaya know—almost all adults present differently and have more skills than kids. And that the kid's brain cooties hardly need signal the end of the world. Yes, a kid who has speech delay and/or intellectual disability lacks a certain amount of privilege that others of us have, and probably has somewhat different educational or environmental needs, and that does need to be acknowledged. But not by drawing a thick line in the road going in opposite directions between Real Autism and Those Aspie Poseurs. It's all autism.

So yeah, I'll probably go see Adam; even if it sucks, if it's a hit it might well inspire others to create more films with autistic characters, maybe even—gasp—written by autistic people (dare I hold my breath?). There's just one little problem I have: Professional hatebag Rex Reed liked it. And he doesn't like us aspies one little bit.

Open Wide...

The slow road home

Yet another update on that Canadian citizen languishing in a Kenyan jail. You may recall I've written on this topic a couple of times before.

As of yesterday, though a government-paid DNA test has confirmed that Ms. Suaad Hagi Mohamud is, in fact, the Canadian citizen she claims to be, and as should have been obvious to anyone after she offered to have a DNA test to prove she's the mother of her son, who's still at home in Toronto with his father.

Now she's proven her citizenship (which, again, big problems here - or do any of you really think this whole thing is unrelated to her ethnicity and/or her names?), she's coming home right away, right?

Not quite. Canada hasn't even asked the Kenyan government to drop the charges that it asked her to be prosecuted on - the Canadian government voided her passport after it was challenged, and claimed she wasn't the Canadian citizen she said she was - so she's still in Kenya, waiting for her government to get its damned thumb out of its collective Harper and BRING HER HOME!

I flatly do not believe that a white Canadian would be facing this kind of appalling treatment. Much as Canada wants to pride itself on being multicultural and post-racial and shit, it's an odd sort of coincidence that it's only Canadians with notably non-English names who end up being deported, jailed, and tortured.

If we want to live up to the reputation we claim we want, we need to do better at this.

Bring our fellow Canadian home, Mr. Harper*. Pick up the damn phone and get someone to feel some urgency about this. Do something to help me feel less ashamed of my country.

* The current Prime Minister of Canada is the (to me) loathsome Stephen Harper. I use "Harper" here as a euphemism for a human body part known for emitting faeces. It seems an apt analogy.

Open Wide...

Only God Can Make a Healthcare Plan

Cal Thomas thinks that God and his minions, not the secularists, should be the ones writing healthcare reform.

The secular left claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by "natural selection" stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. Why spend lots of money to improve -- or save -- the life of someone who evolved from slime and has no special significance other than the "accident" of becoming human? Policies flow from such a philosophy, though the average secularist probably wouldn't put it in such stark terms. Stark, or not, isn't this the inevitable progression of seeing humanity as maybe complex, but nothing special?

The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal God, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that God made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life's value and our approach to affirming it until natural death.

It is between these two distinctly different worldview goal posts that the battle is taking place. Few from the "endowed rights" side are saying that a 100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor should be given extraordinary and expensive care to keep the heart pumping, even after brain waves have gone flat. But there is a big difference between "letting go" and "snuffing out." The unnatural progression for many on the secular left is to see such a person as a "burden." In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible. But by doing so, we assume an even greater burden: the role of God in deciding who gets to live and who must die. Anyone who has seen the film "Bruce Almighty" senses how difficult it is to play God.
Except that no one in their right mind is proposing rationing health care or suggesting that the government be involved in those kind of end-of-life decisions; if anything, the proposals being put forth are trying to make it easier for people to make these decisions on their own. So if he's worried about "death panels" -- something even a conservative Republican senator from Georgia dismisses as being a nutty extrapolation of a good idea -- then he'd be better off talking to the insurance companies, who already exercise that power every day in hospitals across the country. And if Mr. Thomas is so deeply concerned about such choices and their cost, then certainly he and all his friends would be happy to spare no expense whatsoever to make sure that everyone -- from granny right down to the little child of an immigrant who needs neo-natal care -- gets it. Come on, you right-to-lifers; turn your head and cough up.

Mr. Thomas, as he is prone to do, is taking an unfounded rumor cooked up by his friends on the right and turning it into another one of his ponderous fact-free sermons which usually includes his agenda for turning America into a Christianist nation free of feminists and gay people. And he sees healthcare reform without the Baby Jesus as just another way of keeping God out of the public square.
If there are no rules and no one to whom one might appeal when those rules are violated, we are on our own to set whatever rules we wish and to change them in a moment in response to opinion polls. Any appeals to a higher authority stop at the Supreme Court.
Except that there are rules, and we do our best to live by them. They're set forth in this little thing that we like to call the United States Constitution. Do you have a problem with that?

If Mr. Thomas is truly and deeply concerned about the state stepping in and dictating such things as medical procedures and interfering with life-and-death decisions that should only be made by the family, their doctor, and perhaps, if they choose, their spiritual counselor, than he certainly must believe that also applies to something like a person's right to make decisions when it comes to having a legal procedure such as an abortion, right? Right?

HT to Creature.

Cross-posted.

Open Wide...

Weeds and Rape

[Trigger and spoiler warning]

I'm a big fan of Weeds. It's a fun and silly show about a suburban housewife turned drug dealer. Okay, it's about as fun and silly a show as that can be. There are the occasional murders, as that type of thing is, I assume, a fairly common occurrence in the drug business. Murder victims on the show are, generally speaking, drug dealers and the odd dirty cop here and there: You know, bad people. Because the show is ostensibly a comedy.

As I said, I am a big fan, but show is not without its problems. I'm not going to go into them all here, but I will point out the one that's relevant to the post: At least once a season there's a rape joke thrown in somewhere.

Five seasons in Nancy Botwin (played by the always brilliant Mary-Louise Parker) is no longer a suburban housewife turned drug dealer. She's moved on to different things, and in last season's climax it was revealed that she was pregnant with her Mexican drug-lord boyfriend's baby. After that things took a decidedly dark turn on the show, for reasons I'm not going to go into. Let me just say it really doesn't matter to the discussion here.

Somewhere early this season Nancy, still pregnant, was raped by Esteban, her Mexican drug-lord boyfriend. It was out of the blue, and turned the already dark season five decidedly black. What the fuck was that all about? I don't know. It was a profoundly disturbing moment, and completely out of place in our fun and silly little show. You may want to argue that point, but don't.

Because in last night's episode Nancy and Esteban got married.

And it saddens and angers me that the whole rapist-and-victim-find-true-love-and-get-married meme has played out again.

Discuss.

(See also.)

Open Wide...