Hosted by the center of a golf ball. Don't worry, it won't explode.
Quote of the Day
"Forty-eight years ago in this country we could make fun of Arabs. … We could make fun of people in a general way, and certainly, 'Ahab the Arab' is a general parody. But now we can't. What has changed in America?"—Professional diarrhea-spewing blowhole Bill O'Reilly, lamenting with "Ahab the Arab" singer Ray Stevens the passing of a time in which privileged wankers could openly mock Arabs with impunity, as long as they called it a "parody."
(Hey, Billo—you're out of touch. The modern dudebro reaches for "ironic.")
Well.
This is one of the most tragic and pitiable things I've read in awhile.
Not because I don't believe sexuality is fluid, at least for some people; I do. I've no complaint about the premise. It's the intolerable sneer born of thinly-veiled self-loathing that makes me cringe. And the objectification of women as baby-making machines. And the regard for potential children as things to be possessed. And the tiresome stereotypes, which almost certainly would be justified by a grim explanation about how in reality there are really people like that, for realz!
Saddest of all is the fact that Mr. Muirhead never seems to have considered the possibility that the object of his envious gaze, the strong-handed father of the fair-haired boy, was himself a gay man.
[H/T to Shaker Melusin.]
Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning. And Part 50 in the "Rape is Hilarious" series.]
So I'm watching the most recent episode of Clean House the other night, which features a single dad and his 18-year-old son whose house is, naturally, full of clutter. And a big part of the episode is about how this dad is still hung up on his ex-wife and needs to get over her—leading to a lot of uncomfortable scenes in which he awkwardly flirts with show host Niecy Nash, and culminating in his repeatedly kissing her in what I can only describe as a totally creeptastic scene.
Yet worse was a conversation early in the episode in which the Clean House crew ask if the son and father have many women over to their messy house. As is typical of the show, there is a clip of the conversation followed by inserted comments by the show crew—and "Go-To Guy" Matt Iseman's commentary was, in this case, a high-larious rape joke.
Iseman: Do you ever have friends over?This is a perfect example of the rape culture and how it works. It's just a totally casual "joke" about drugging a woman to bring her back to your home for "romantic" purposes. On a family show. Like it's nothing.
Son: Never.
Iseman: Ladies over?
[laughter]
Nash: Does anybody have ladies over?
Father: Uh, no. The last one that came over, she made fun of my place; I never invited her over again.
Trish Suhr: Oh.
Son: What about the ones that never called you back?
Dad: That's true.
Nash: Snap!
Iseman: No, I don't think you're getting a lot of women in here—unless you're using chloroform.
This is how rape is normalized and its gravity diminished—by flippant "jokes" like this one, everywhere, day in and day out. And the people who object to the relentless treatment of a heinous, endemic crime against women as a punchline are dismissed as oversensitive, instead of everyone ever stopping to collectively question whether maybe being desensitized to the ugly reality of rape isn't really rather worse.
Clean House airs on the Style network, which is a property of Comcast Networks. If anyone can find contact info for teaspooning, please drop it into comments.
lolsob
Shaker John emails: "The Economist's weekly debate is about whether women in the developed world have ever had it so good."
And so it is:
[If you cannot view the image, it's a picture of a woman's disembodied high-heeled feet propped up on a desk with files, pencils, and an engaged phone. It is accompanied by the text: "Women: This house believes that women in the developed world have never had it so good."]
It's an interesting choice of words, isn't it? "Had it so good." It's the sort of thing one says when begrudgingly acknowledging someone else has something they aren't perceived (via spite) to truly deserve, like a jealous parent to a child who has a better childhood than the parent did, or a bitter boss to a junior employee whose workload was made easier through a technological innovation.
You women of the developed world, you've never had it so good. You don't even know! Ingrates.
That is merely the tip of the iceberg of problems with this "debate."
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strips One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97. 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 perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
Two Weeks
[Original graphic here.]
The countdown has officially begun, Losties.
Iain and I have been rewatching Season 5 to gear up for the sixth and final season of the Best. Show. Evarrrr. And as the last season progresses (we just watched "LaFleur" last night), I am getting increasingly quivery with excitement for Lost's return.
Since the end of last season, I have—in my continuing role as Lost's biggest pusher (Iain, Mama Shakes, Kenny Blogginz, Space Cowboy and Space Cowgirl, as a few familiar names, have all become addicts by my devilish hand)—gotten Deeks irrevocably hooked, and he is bearing down on completing Season 5, just in time for the start of Season 6. And he has, at his place, been diligently blogging every episode, if anyone wants to catch up or dive in and needs a good place to start.
Use this thread to SQUEEEEEE!, make predictions, ask questions, whatever you like. Just please be considerate and add a SPOILER WARNING to the beginning of comments that contain Season 5 spoilers, for those who aren't quite finished with the last season yet. It only just came out on video recently, so there are a few Shaker Losties still getting caught up.
By the Book
The Texas Board of Education is being persuaded to purchase textbooks that give a decidedly conservative slant to history to counteract what they consider to be liberal "propaganda" in the current crop of history books published for the public schools.
The conservative bloc on the Texas State Board of Education won a string of victories Friday, obtaining approval for an amendment requiring high school U.S. history students to know about Phyllis Schlafly and the Contract with America as well as inserting a clause that aims to justify McCarthyism.It sounds like they've removed the word "irony" from their state-approved dictionaries.
Outspoken conservative board member Don McLeroy, who reportedly spent over three hours personally proposing changes to the textbook standards, even wanted to cut "hip-hop" in favor of "country" in a section about the impact of cultural movements. That amendment failed.
The board also voted to delay further debate on the nationally influential standards until March, with a final adoption vote now scheduled for May.
Crossposted.
That's Some Line-Up!
In a great item about how Newt Gingrich fancies himself a 2012 presidential contender, the former Speaker provided a list of whom he views as the other potential candidates for the GOP's top slot:
Among the other Republican candidates Gingrich named as possible 2012 contenders included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Also included on Gingrich's list are Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may also be a potential candidate, Gingrich said.In order: Barf, barf, megabarf, yawn, lol, WTF?, hell no, good luck with that, and wow.
Gingrich said he would make a decision about his own political future next year after discussing the prospect of a presidential bid with his wife.Unless she gets cancer or MS in the interim, in which case he will be discussing the prospect with his next wife. Who is probably his current girlfriend.
Today in FAIL
About two weeks ago, NPR posted this on Facebook:
To which this was the end product published by NPR today:
What I said out loud when I read it: Are you fucking serious?
"Sugar Mama" and "Sugar Daddy" imply an unequal, non-emotional, business-like relationship where one partner is little more than a bank account (or a dupe) and the other partner little more than a someone in search of that account. Neither partner is particularly painted in a good light. The terms are antiquated and offensive. They have no business being used to describe a partnership where one partner simply earns more money or has more formal education than the other--for those situations do not make for an unequal, non-emotional, business-like partnership. I mean, honestly.
While the article has a small amount of interesting information, as comparing 70s PEW studies to now, it's just a whole lot of little fail under that great big fail-filled headline: that old hoary "joke" about women getting a M.R.S being in the article, using the term "marriage market" (again with the business references), the use of just three couples and choosing two who have issues with their situation, having the gumption to criticize "pop culture" for antiquated ideas when using the term "sugar mama" in the headline, and referring to these relationships as "the new economic order" when it's 22% of marriages--hardly a "new order". Oh and we can't forget this which accompanied the article:
Yes, really. That's what they chose to go with this article.
Also, at the very end in the three whole lines devoted to the idea of the husband being the stay-at-home parent, this was said:
Monnig says his wife would love to be a full-time mom. But financially speaking, that just wouldn't make sense.Now, I have no idea if Monnig used the term "full time mom" or if it was NPR. Either way, though, it's wrong. You never stop being a parent, no matter if one works outside the home or not. One doesn't go to "part time" status once the parent goes out the door to work--or the kids go out the door to school. The old line of thinking that a parent (particularly a mother) isn't a "full" parent simply because they work outside the home is flat-out bullshit and needs to go away just as quickly as the Sugar references.
More Illegal "Counterterrorism" Uncovered
Still with the criminal shenanigans that went on during the Bush administration. And—let me guess—no one will be prosecuted for this, either:
The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.How did this happen? Surprise, surprise—it's the return of the Patriot Act-approved National Security Letter!
E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.
A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.
...The FBI acknowledged in 2007 that one unit in the agency had improperly gathered some phone records, and a Justice Department audit at the time cited 22 inappropriate requests to phone companies for searches and hundreds of questionable requests. But the latest revelations show that the improper requests were much more numerous under the procedures approved by the top level of the FBI.
Before 9/11, FBI agents ordinarily gathered records of phone calls through the use of grand jury subpoenas or through an instrument know as a national security letter, issued for terrorism and espionage cases. Such letters, signed by senior headquarters officials, carry the weight of subpoenas with the firms that receive them.For a refresher on the scandalous history of the use of the National Security Letter (NSL) under the Bush administration, let's take a trip in the Wayback Machine.
The USA Patriot Act expanded the use of national security letters by letting lower-level officials outside Washington approve them and allowing them in wider circumstances. But the letters still required the FBI to link a request to an open terrorism case before records could be sought.
Shortly after the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001, FBI senior managers devised their own system for gathering records in terrorism emergencies.
A new device called an "exigent circumstances letter" was authorized. It allowed a supervisor to declare an emergency and get the records, then issue a national security letter after the fact.
First, we'll stop in December 2005, when there was a "debate" about "the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans." (The FBI was, at that time, issuing "more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms.") Then we'll stop in May 2006, when it was discovered the FBI was using NSLs to track news outlets' phone calls "in an effort to root out confidential sources." Next, we'll swing by October 2007, when it was revealed the FBI used NSLs to bully Verizon into turning over "customers' telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005." And let's take a swing by March 2007, when an audit by the Justice Department's inspector general found "22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations—some of which were potential violations of law—in a sampling of 293 [NSLs]."
In January 2007, I compiled a list of examples of the use of NSLs, which I described as "the intelligence-gathering equivalent of the presidential signing statement—a stroke of the pen to magically turn dubiously ethical and formerly prohibited actions into perfectly legal maneuvers, with no legislation, no oversight, and no knowledge of the American people required." One of the things I noted about the pattern of their usage is that, in each instance, the breach of law was deemed "an accident."
This time is no different:
Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.Oh, of course not. They never are.
Never mind that the fact some of these NSLs were issued retroactively as an ass-covering maneuver belies that contention entirely. Pay no attention to the NSL behind the curtain! Or something.
On a final note, you may be wondering on whom the FBI was illegally spying in this case. Well:
The records seen by The Post do not reveal the identities of the people whose phone call records were gathered, but FBI officials said they thought that nearly all of the requests involved terrorism investigations.Gee, that's a relief. Wait. No, it's not. Not when the remaining cases could have been targeting media, or antiwar protesters, or liberal activists, on all of whom the FBI spied during the Bush administration.
FBI officials said they are confident that the safeguards enacted in 2007 have ended the problems.Rest well tonight, Shakers.
The Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report - T100119
Time for another Teaspoon Report, brought to you by Shaxco, makers of FakeyFossils, the premium pretend evidence of evolution as a theory: favourite of Gods With an Axe to Grind everywhere! Bury them deep, to fool the paleontologists into thinking it was really a seven-day thing!
Leave comments here that describe an act of teaspooning you encountered or committed. They don't have to be big, world-shaking acts; by definition, a teaspoon is a small thing, but enough of them together can empty the ocean.
If you would like to discuss the teaspoons here reported, or even offer congratulations or your admiration to a fellow Shaker, we ask that you do so over here in the Discussion Thread for today's NQDTR.
Shaker bgk has been kind enough to get a Twitter-pated version out there for you young twittersnappers (and by the way, get off my lawn, you meddling kids! *shakes cane*). You can find the details about the Tweetspoons project right here. That runs all the time, as far as I'm aware (*grumblenewtechnologygrumble*), and we encourage you to let other people know that there's at least one tweetstream talking about just going out and doing good things for the human species.
Teaspoons up, let's hear 'em, Shakers!
ô,ôP
NQDTR Discussion Thread - T100119
Hiya, Shakers, time for another Discussion Thread for the Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report!
This is the thread in which you may offer congratulations or admiration for a teaspoon or teaspooner. If you're posting with just congrats or admiration, though, do take a moment and check the thread to see whether other people have said so a number of times already. Remember that no one is required to read here just because they posted over there, so there's no guarantee you'll get a response to a given comment.
Bread and Teaspoons Twenty
Good morning (unless it isn't where you are, in which case I wish you Good $TIME_PERIOD), and welcome to this week's installment of Shakesville's networking post, Bread and Teaspoons*.
This is a (theoretically) weekly post, usually Tuesdays, providing a spot for Shakers to network a little with one another, see if we can help each other out some.
Also remember, if you’re running or part of a small business, you’re encouraged to drop links here for that. I’m happy to see Shakers makin’ their own way in whatever manner that is.
Here's how it works: There should be four sorts of comments here.
1) You comment here with any details of work you're seeking: where, what, that sort of thing. You give an e-mail address at which you can be reached - feel free to set up a special e-mail for it, if you don't want to post your regular one for the world to spam - and if another Shaker has a lead, they can contact you directly to pass it along.
A work-seeking comment should include:
Please do NOT include information such as your full name or telephone number, as this is and will remain a public post, and once posted, there's no taking it back (because it'll be spidered by a search engine, not because we don't want you to).
It is explicitly alright to comment to this each week with similar info.
For example, I might post a comment saying:
I'm a professional translator of French, German and Russian, with nearly 17 years of experience. I'm looking for basically any translation job, academic, commercial, personal, genealogical, you name it, with one exception: I do not currently have certification, so if you need a certified translator (usually for legal docs: birth certificates, divorce decrees, wills), you need someone else.
I am also available as a writer or editor, for academic, journalistic, creative, marketing-oriented or any other type of written communication. Basically, if you'll pay me, I'll write or edit it. My company website is found here.
You can contact me for business purposes through my business address, cait@cogitantes.net.
2) The second type of comment would be task offering: if you've got a job you think might suit someone here, consider posting it as a comment. Use the same guidelines as above: give general information here, and specific information when you exchange e-mails. An offered task might look something like this:
I have a doctoral thesis which needs proofing and editing by Thursday, is anyone available? You can reach me at ABDShaker@shakesville.miskatonic.edu.
3) The third kind of comment I'd love to see is success stories! We’d love to know when this works out, and people actually find some employment through our efforts. If you feel like sharing, tell us how it worked out for you. :)
**NEW CATEGORY ADDED**
4) If you’re a progressive working for or running a small business and would like to include a pointer to your business, you may do so. If you’ve never otherwise posted before here (i.e., you’re a lurker), I may check in with you to be certain you’re a Shaker and not a spammer. If it turns into a spamfest, or we start getting businesses that are of dubious progressive credentials, we may need to revisit this one, but let’s give it a try.
So, that's what we'd like to see.
What we do NOT want to see:
So there. Have at it, Shakers, for Bread and Teaspoons!
Important disclaimers: Shakesville makes no endorsement or claim as to the capabilities of anyone commenting to this post, and anyone considering hiring someone should be prepared to treat it like any other business situation: DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. We're not doing any screening of this, so you'll want to make sure you check references, use safe-payment procedures (e.g., ask for a deposit), all the things you'd do when working with any stranger on the Internet. While this is intended for Shakers in general, remember that there is no real obstacle to being able to comment here, and do the things you need to do to keep yourself safe.
* As might be evident, this is an intentional reference to Bread and Roses, a longtime slogan of the left. In this case, though, my hope is that if we achieve steady bread, we will use it to power our teaspoon use.
The last several Bread and Teaspoons: Fourteen. Fifteen. Sixteen. Seventeen. Eighteen. Nineteen.
Question of the Day
What film features your favorite special effects?
That doesn't necessarily mean your favorite film with special effects; it could be a film you don't really love anything about except the special effects. Any kind of special effects qualify: CGI, miniatures, bigatures, stop-motion, etc.
And, naturally, this isn't a question meant to start an argument about The Best Special Effects Evarrr! but about what you love, for any reason.
Like, a perfectly cromulent answer, ahem, could be: Tron (nerd alert!) because the special effects were like whoa for its time.
