Tilsy
Quote of the Day
"By attending the National Prayer Breakfast, elected leaders lend legitimacy to an organization whose ideas and practices are antithetical to the American ideals of transparency and high ethical standards. As a result, CREW strongly urges you to decline to attend the breakfast and to ask those in your caucuses to do the same."—Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in a letter (pdf) exhorting President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner to skip The Family's National Prayer Breakfast this week.
I'm going to go ahead and guess this will be another round of: Sure, it pisses off progressives when Dems attend, but we've got to pander to the ringwing, and, hell, where else are the lefties gonna go har har?
Still, kudos to CREW for laying out the case so splendidly and expecting more.
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, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106. 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.
Meet My Awesome New Sex Bot
No, really.
Yep. Mr. Universe would be so happy.
"She'll chat with you endlessly about your interests. And she'll have sex whenever you please. [...] "She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else," said her inventor, Douglas Hines."Cause what we really need in the world is yet another commercialization of women's bodies for men's sexual desire, yet another way for men to become acclimated to the idea that women aren't really people.
Yay. I'm so glad they filled that gaping need (pun intended).
Isn't it wonderful? Is there anything technology can't do?
/lolsob
Tip of the CaitieCap to Irfon for the "Raise Cranium!" Alert.
Photo of the Day
Michael Emerson. AKA Ben. AKA Benry.
In a boat. Watching a TV. That's not on.
(From the January issue of Paste.)
Why I'm Still Single
by Shaker L
It was our fourth (or maybe fourth-and-a-half) date and we have plans for dinner and gawking at people in L.A. pretending to be cowboys. We always had fun and I expected tonight to be no exception. Except... a pattern had emerged where I felt a little sexually bullied. Not powerfully aggressed on, just a little invisible. As if his approach to increasing intimacy was it's-better-to-ask-for-forgiveness-than-permission.
Suffice to say, I didn't like it.
So we got in the car but, before we took off, I told him, in the nicest possible way (really), that I felt bullied and a little invisible sometimes. I asked him to be more gentle and to check in with me a bit more. I bookended the request with how much fun I was having with him and how I was pleasantly surprised as to how much I liked him and all that good stuff.
Now, how might a well-adjusted, emotionally-mature man who is genuinely interested in me respond?
Yeah, that's not what he did.
He told me that no one had ever expressed such a sentiment to him before and that he was a super gentle guy and would never do anything violent to any woman. Then he said that he never felt like he was aggressing on me in any way. "But if you feel that way, well I guess that's how you feel." He asked me if I could give him an example, so I did. And he said that that was not how he remembered it, "but I guess if that's how you remember it, then that's how you remember it."
Um, so far no good dude.
But even so! I responded reassuringly (even as I noted that he had turned the tables such that I had to respond reassuringly to him when I was the one feeling threatened) and reiterated that I liked him and was telling him these things exactly because I wanted to go forward blah blah blah.
And then he broke up with me!
First he said that he didn't think things were going to work out anyway because I was going on a trip for 10 days. At which I made a confused face and he explained that I'd probably want to do whatever I wanted to do on that trip and, not that we were serious or monogamous or anything, but...
And I made a confused face again.
So then he said that it probably sounded like he was breaking up with me because I wasn't on the fast track to sex (no, not at all!) and that that wasn't the case (even though we were, literally, at the precipe of a date).
Instead, he said, there were just some dealbreakers (that he hadn't bothered to bring up till now). And I said, "oh, ok" (and at this point I'm just plain amused), "um, do you want to run them by me just to be sure or no?" So then he says, well I have this picture of Jesus in my car (which is true) and, you know...
And so I said, "okay so you're religious?" and he was like "yeah... blah blah blah" and also Jesus is white in this picture and I'm sure you're thinking "shouldn't Jesus be dark-skinned because it was the Mediterranean" and stuff...
And I made a really confused face.
Because how could he have known that the misrepresentation of Christ is the reason I have to break up with every guy I ever meet! Curse be oh those gazillion images that ensure my singlehood just because they exist!
Yeah, so then I got out of the car, went home, called my friends, laughed, and went out to see a band.
Budget/Deficit Open Thread
Earlier today, President Obama sent Congress a $3.83 trillion budget that will "pour more money into the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a wide swath of government programs. The deficit for this year would surge to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion, topping last year's then unprecedented $1.41 trillion gap. The deficit would remain above $1 trillion in 2011."
Washington Post: "To put people back to work, Obama proposes to spend about $100 billion immediately on a jobs bill that would include tax cuts for small businesses, social-safety-net programs, and aid to state and local governments. To reduce deficits, he would impose new fees on some of the nation's largest banks and permit a range of tax cuts to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year, in addition to freezing non-security spending for three years."
New York Times:
No budget proposal is ever enacted wholesale by Congress, and the spreadsheet-boggling numbers in the White House plan are sure to produce anguished partisan and ideological debates over how best to address the deficit and the nation’s lingering economic problems between now and the start of the new fiscal year next Oct. 1 — if indeed Congress manages to complete its work by then, right before the midterm elections.Mmm, I love the smell of bipartisanship in the morning. Or afternoon. Whatever.
...In brief remarks in the Grand Foyer at the White House, the president outlined the principles contained in his budget, saying: "Changing spending as usual depends on changing politics as usual." He offered several examples of programs he believes should be eliminated and urged Congress to follow suit.
"I'm asking Republicans and Democrats alike to take a fresh look at programs they supported in the past to see what's working and see what's not and trim back accordingly," Mr. Obama said.
LA Times:
"It's not a left-wing budget. It's not a right-wing budget," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a briefing for reporters Sunday. "It's a pragmatic budget. It's a common-sense budget.Oh jaysus. Not that old chestnut again.
USA Today notes that the "losers" in the new budget include the departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development, as well as NASA, making way for important (ahem) expenditures like "funding for up to 1,000 airport body scanners."
In good news, the proposed budget includes a "$4 billion increase in veterans' programs, including continuing an emphasis on brain injuries and mental health needs."
Discuss.
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Liss and Deeky's Lostfan Organic Sedatives. Note: This product has been recalled for poor performance.
Recommended Reading:
Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 87
Chally: The Thirteenth Carnival of Feminists
Resistance: Orphans, orphans, orphans!
Andy: Pope Benedict Precedes UK Visit with Bashing of Gays, Equality
Nura Iro Maaji: Early Marriage and the State of Adolescent Girls in Kano State, Nigeria, Part 1 [Part 2 will be up later today.]
Anna: Action Item (US): Ask your rep to co-sponsor the Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind
LeMew: Blaming the Victim
Melissa: Johnny. JOHNNY. WTF?!!
Leave your links in comments...
This is a real thing in the world.
"Behind the Bell" (Hardcover) by Dustin Diamond
AKA Screech
Hollywood might represent another side of the American Dream, but to many it often embodies a true nightmare, especially for young actors. Dustin Diamond is best known for his character Samuel Screech Powers in the late '80s and '90s on the long-running American TV teen sitcom Saved by the Bell (SBTB). Diamond's new book gives readers the disheartening story of an ex-child star. Dustin faced serious challenges moving his career beyond his comic role as the smart, funny, and endearing nerd of Bayside High School on the show that made him an audience favourite. Through his eyes, we uncover Hollywood's myths and see what happens when the lights go out and career expectations are shattered. Dustin also reveals how working as a child actor on SBTB created emotional turmoil that hurt his life at home and his future. For the first-time, Diamond presents the inside story of the young cast from Saved by the Bell that the viewing public thought were so lucky...In hardcover.
Description from yours truly: Twenty-five bucks you could have spent on socks.
On Bindel's Bigotry
Our friend C.L. Minou has a great new piece up at The Guardian's Cif about Julie Bindel's dangerous transphobia (which we've previously discussed).
What is astonishing about Bindel's writing on transsexuals, which has been published in the Guardian, is how often it resembles the diatribes of anti-gay bigots: the disregard of our own voices, the disbelief that transness is anything but a degeneracy, and the general air of condescension and paternalism.Read the whole thing here.
Gays and lesbians have long known that such diatribes are not merely "offensive," but dangerous – as is transphobic writing like Bindel's, and for the same reason: they support social attitudes that have often proven deadly for trans people. According to the Transgender Day of Remembrance web site, 130 people were murdered in 2009 simply because they were transgendered – and those were only the deaths that were reported. Like gay and lesbian people, trans people face the very real threat of violence every day simply for being themselves. Very often, even in places where legal protection exists for gays and lesbians, no similar protection exists for trans people.
That Stonewall, an organisation named for riots that were led in part by a trans woman, Sylvia Rivera, should honour a writer with such disdain for the transgendered was a profound insult. Its action deserved protest, but protest is not censorship, as Campbell argued. Neither is the NUS applying its "no-platform" policy to Bindel nor other groups who no longer want her to appear at their functions. This is more a sign of an evolution of the modern feminist movement away from its historic transphobia towards an inclusive model; one that, as Laurie Penny puts it, "...holds that gender identity, rather than being written in our genes, is an emotional, personal and sexual state of being that can be expressed in myriad different ways that encompass and extend beyond the binary categories of 'man' and 'woman'".
Actual Headline
New York Times: Forces Pushing Obama on 'Don't Ask, Don’t Tell'.
Not the armed forces. Not the radicalized marching forces of the Gay Agenda's Sod Squad. Political forces:
It is undeniable that a variety of 21st-century forces — a new generation in the military, a change in climate at the top levels of the Pentagon, pressure on the president from a critical interest group, even Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand's anticipated Democratic primary battle in New York — converged to begin repeal of a 1993 law that has led to the discharge of more than 13,000 gay men and lesbians, including desperately needed Arabic translators.Awesome to see forces like "decency" and "fairness" and "equality" still not making the list. But those are silly words for babies, not concepts with which Important Grown-Ups Who Do Politics concern themselves.
And because the Republicans must always distinguish themselves by being worse than the Democrats, whose foot-dragging is pathetic enough, the GOP response to the president's vow to work on repealing DADT this year is just priceless.
"In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat," Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Sunday on "Meet the Press" on NBC, "why would we want to get into this debate?"Good question. How about we just not debate it and repeal the ban tout de suite? No, no—Boehner's right. We should definitely wait until there are no more security threats in the world and then have the debate. As soon as there's World Peace, then we can talk about gays and lesbians joining the military!
I just love (where love = find utterly contemptible) the idea that being in two wars means that we should be holding onto a policy that diminishes the number of people who can serve. Genius. It's no wonder the Republicans are considered the party of national defense. They're fuckin' brilliant.
Antiques with Deeks: Lunchboxes
I saw some pretty intersting items up for grabs at the antique mall this weekend. I'm not sure there are rules for what does or doesn't qualify as "antique" but I'd hazard a guess some of these aren't "antique," so much as "old crap."
I snapped some images of a few antique lunchboxes. And by antique, I mean, beat to shit.
Okay, this one is cool. I'd have bought it if it wasn't beat to shit and I actually took my lunch to work. I wonder about the image though. That boy appears to be all of twelve years old. And his dancing partner looks easily two or three times his age. Maybe it's his mother. Who knows? But she's got awesome feathered hair.
Even better than the first one! Look at it! You've got Cornelius and Dr. Zaius. And General Ursus has two humans tied up. They must be Ponch and Jon. Neither of them look like Charleton Heston. Maybe it's Bo and Luke. Or Coy and Vance. I think maybe this was based on the TV show. In which case it can go to hell.
Why the fuck was this even made?
(Continued tomorrow.)
[Cross-posted.]
Comments Links Working Again
The comments links on the main page are working again.
The Disqus threads look kinda funky at the moment, but just bear with me, and I'll try to get that back to normal as soon as possible. I'm also aware that the number of comments isn't showing up in IE, and I'm trying to resolve that.
Thanks for your continued patience as we play with the template and try to get everything working and looking good again.
My profound thanks to Portly Dyke, who has been a serious rockstar this weekend trying to get this thing figured out and creating a workable template for us. And also to Iain, who is totes a champion and provider of reserve patience when mine wears out.
Update on Blog Fuckery
We're futzing around with the template a lot today, trying to figure out what's disabled Java in the main column of the main page, or figure out a workaround, so you may occasionally see the template looking different or comments temporarily disabled.
At the moment, clicking on the comments link below the post title takes you to Blogger commenting, which we don't use. So just ignore that link.
Disqus is still accessible via the individual post pages, so click on the post title to get to the post page, and then you'll be able to read and leave comments.
Again, my apologies for the inconvenience, and thanks for your patience.
Happy Birthday, SKM!
Happy Birthday to youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
Happy Birthday to youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
You look like a purveyor of the radical feminazi agendaaaaaaa!
And you smell like one, too!
(Mmm, saffron!)
I wasn't sure I was going to be able to top last year's Very Special Cake, but how can anyone resist Chuck Norris personally announcing that it's Cake Time! on her birthday...?! Secret Ingredient: Fist.
