"I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul [that businesses should be allowed to determine whether they are going to discriminate on the basis of race]. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, 'We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys,' it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America."—Fox hack and total genius John Stossel.
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[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 (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Soaking In It
[Trigger warning for sexual assault.]
I used to run a series called "Rape Culture: We're Soaking in It" (explanation here) which hasn't had an entry in a year or so, and which has essentially been usurped by the Today in Rape Culture tag—but today I was reminded of the "we're soaking in it" moniker by a truly shocking example of how reflections of the rape culture permeate even the most unexpected spaces.
Shaker Muz sent me the link to a massive story in The New Yorker (the abstract for which is here, although you've got to be a subscriber to access the whole thing). The piece is broadly about the trial of Mazoltuv (Marina) Borukhova and Mikhail Mallayev for the murder of Borukhova's estranged husband, Daniel Malakov, but is more specifically about the idiosyncrasies and prejudices of the people involved, and what role those may have played in the trial, which ended in Borukhova's and Mallayev's convictions.
The author, Janet Malcolm, paints an interesting picture in particular of how those idiosyncrasies and prejudices may have damned Borukhova, irrespective of her actual innocence of guilt—the habit of the prosecutor and the judge of demeaning her by calling her "Miss" instead of "Doctor"; the various forms of Othering that went on by virtue of her being a woman, an immigrant, a Bukharan Jew; the conclusions that were drawn because she is well-educated and not demonstrably emotive; the judgments made about her on the basis of her mothering; how she was seen as "unsympathetic" because of all these things. It is, in many ways, a compelling story of the many manifestations of misogyny.
But then, toward the end of this titanic article, comes this stunning passage (emphasis mine), which refers to Borukhova's allegation that she had walked in on her husband kissing their young daughter's vulva—her explanation for why their daughter (Michelle) screamed when forced into visitations with her father, in contradiction to the advocate who asserted in language suspiciously reminiscent of Father's Rights rhetoric, that Borukhova had turned the little girl against her father:
Here we come to another of the questions about Borukhova that blur her portrait and give it its strange tinge. Why did she keep harping on the sexual abuse? If Daniel's "grave misconduct directed at the vagina of his young daughter" (or what [Borukhova's attorney] called "inappropriate touching") actually occurred, it surely wasn't the cause of the child's fear of him - it was merely kinky. It would have served Borukhova better - it would have been rational and logical - to connect Michelle's fearful, clinging behavior during the visits to scary scenes of domestic violence.I am left breathless with astonishment that anyone, anywhere, with any sense of decency, could categorize a father kissing his own baby daughter's genitals as "merely kinky," and in no conceivable way capable of generating the abject fear that would cause a child to cling fearfully to her mother at the prospect of being left in her father's care.
And not only did Janet Malcolm make this stunning claim, but the proof-readers and editors and everyone who saw this piece before it went into print in the pages of The New Yorker all apparently felt it was totally appropriate for publication.
Yikes.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
The Style Council: "Shout to the Top!"
(Mick, you're kind of scaring me in this video.)
This is a real thing in the world.
Meet the London 2012 Olympics mascot Wenlock (left, named after the Shropshire town of Much Wenlock, which hosted a precursor to the modern Olympics in the 1850s) and the London 2012 Paralympic mascot Mandeville (right, named after the Buckinghamshire town in which the precursor to the modern Paralympics was founded):
And their graphical avatars:
If you're looking at these images and asking yourself: Are the mascots to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games a pair of one-eyed monsters? the answer is yes. Yes they are.
Wenlock and Mandeville are pretty great names. I would have gone for John Thomas and Willy Knob, but that's just me.
Dog-Whistling With Lamar
by Shaker Maud, who is currently contemplating whether to become a contributor, or remain Shakesville's world champion guest poster.
Via The Maddow Blog comes this, uh, colorful, if ever-so-lightly veiled, comparison by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R-acist) between the way the people of New Orleans and the people of Tennessee deal with adversity.
In a column in defense of Congressional earmarks posted yesterday on the blog Tennessean.com, Alexander writes:
Just last week, the president asked for specific appropriations for the Gulf Coast oil spill, but not for flooding in 52 Tennessee counties. I did ask, and the Senate Committee approved. I did not want Washington to overlook the worst natural disaster since the president took office just because Tennesseans are cleaning up and helping one another instead of complaining and looting.The flooding in Tennessee was apparently not viewed by the national media as being as sexy a story as the big oil blowout in the Gulf, and received far less coverage than it likely would have if that event had not preceded it. It did not, however, cause anything like the number of deaths nor as widespread destruction as Hurricane Katrina. But Sen. Alexander suggests there's also a danger that Tenneseeans might receive less help in the clean-up from the federal government simply because they are so - what's the word? - civilized - and therefore easy to overlook. Unlike some people, if you know what he means. And I think that you do.
In fact, as the Maddow Blog post points out, there were some minor incidents of Tennesseeans attempting to take advantage of flood victims by relieving them of possessions, or of cash, through price-gouging. There were not, however, the extreme, false stories of wild criminal behavior by Tennesseeans that the media spit out about residents of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
But Sen. Alexander just seems to have a natural affinity for cross-cultural behavioral comparisons which he feels reflect poorly on pretty much any group of which he is not a part of. In February, Sen. Alexander said the potential use of the reconciliation process to pass some elements of health care reform legislation would be a "Political Kamikaze Mission" by Democrats.
Dear Abby and Disablism
by Shaker Lydia Encyclopedia
[Trigger warning for dehumanization.]
I don't often read newspapers. I depend on the internet for my news, but when I'm home in Hawaii, I'll often read through the newspaper, more out of bored curiosity than the expectation of hard-hitting news. Among those time-fillers is Dear Abby, advice columnist. One of yesterday's letters provided an example of jaw-dropping disablism that I had to comment on (it's a perfect demonstration of that disablism and eugenic overtones towards disabled people I was addressing in this post):
DEAR ABBY: My husband and I have a 24-year-old developmentally disabled son who lives with us. Three months ago, he met a nice girl at the mental health program he attends. They hold hands, go to the movies and occasionally smooch.Where to begin? Let's start with the language the 'friend' in the letter used. "Fixed". When someone talks about getting 'fixed' in that sense, it is usually directed towards a household pet in need of spaying/neutering so that they won't spray on furniture or display aggressive behaviour. Do I even need to explain the history of comparing people who are developmentally disabled to animals, and using such logic to justify their horrible treatment, including but not limited to torture, deprivation of essentials, and yes, sterilization? How far have we come in how we view disabled people? If this friend's attitude is any indication, not very far.
Recently, "Jasper" had a mark on his neck. We were over at a friend's house for dinner when my best friend noticed the mark. She then proceeded to tell me I should consider getting Jasper "fixed." At first, I wasn't sure I'd heard her correctly, so I asked her to repeat it. I am shocked that she thinks I should have my son sterilized.
Jasper is diagnosed with ADD and Asperger's syndrome. According to his mental health counselor, he could someday be married, have children and lead a productive, independent life. It just may take him longer to get to that point in comparison with his peers.
How should I respond to my friend about her suggestion? When she made it, I didn't know what to say. -- SPEECHLESS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
The general attitude is problematic as well. There is this long-standing bias against the idea of people with developmental disabilities having children, labouring under the notion that since we "can barely take care of ourselves" we could never be expected to raise children. It is assumed that only the neurotypical populace is capable of raising children.
As someone who has long wanted to have children, but was for many years pressured not to because of the stereotypes surrounding the nature of autism ("you won't bond with the child, you won't be able to be there for them emotionally, you might hurt them without realizing it, how will you manage when you can't drive/use a public restroom/do your taxes on your own?"), this type of rhetoric disgusts me and shakes me to my core.
Developmentally disabled children are treated as special "burdens" to be borne by saintly neurotypical able-bodied parents, and as adults, we are denied the chance to become parents ourselves, because we've shifted in neurotypical eyes from being an adorable burden to a worrisome burden. No thoughts or considerations on what we desire in terms of our reproductive rights and parenthood; it's frequently assumed these topics are beyond our understanding.
I understand perfectly. I am a person with autism, who deserves the chance to make my own choices about my body and my future. It's a matter of human rights and dignity which have been denied to us for far too long.
Abby herself gives a somewhat problematic response:
DEAR SPEECHLESS: If you still want to maintain the friendship with the woman, tell her what your son's mental health counselor said about his prospects for the future. But first, if you haven't already, make sure Jasper clearly understands everything he needs to know to protect himself and his nice girlfriend from premature parenthood.While explaining that her son is capable and has a health professional confirm this is fine, it reinforces this idea that only select, "high functioning" (a problematic term in itself, hence the quotation marks) people with disabilities deserve to make these decisions, rather than it being a blanket issue of human rights.
There is also the matter of condescending language: "his nice girlfriend" sounds like something you say to a child, not an adult who is going to be discussing contraceptive techniques.
And by being silent on the idea that "Jasper" and his girlfriend could some day become parents when they are ready, Abby reinforces this idea that developmentally disabled people having children is not recommended or appropriate. It's not exactly the strong response to such horrible eliminationist, dehumanizing rhetoric I was hoping for. Very rarely do people who have neurotypical privilege consider the horrifying implications of such rhetoric, as it doesn't affect them and their reproductive choices like it does mine.
I, as a person with autism, am not an animal in need of being "fixed". "Jasper" and his partner do not need to be "fixed". No developmentally disabled person is in need of "fixing". We're not going to tolerate eliminationist, disablist rhetoric telling us that our own bodies and minds cannot be trusted to our own judgment.
Shaxco Presents
[Trigger warning for Polanski shit.]
Inspired by noted douchebag Xavier Beauvois, our Anti-Polanksi Tee is available in four styles:
Organic Women's Shirt
Women's Plus Size V-Neck
Women's Plus Size Scoop Neck
Organic Men's Fitted Shirt
Buy one today.
Rand Paul: Not Just an Ignorant Disablist; An Unapologetic Racist, Too!
Rand Paul, Kentucky's Republican nominee for the US Senate, is a multifaceted fellow. He's not merely a Tea Partying dipshit, nor is he just an ignorant disablist; he is also an unapologetic racist!
Below is an excerpt from a recent editorial board interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which Paul discusses with the interviewer his disagreements with the Civil Rights Act. Sure, he supports the idea of abolishing federally mandated segregation and discrimination, but the Civil Rights Act had to get all ZANY and require private enterprises to allow non-white people into their establishments. And that's anathema to FREEDOM!
[Full transcript below.]
To assert that rescinding (the most obvious) government-sanctioned racism was the end of institutional racism is necessarily predicated on an absurd misunderstanding of what constitutes institutional bias and thus what is required to solve it.
The other piece that particularly interested me was this:
I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so you understand that people can say bad things; it's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior. But, if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups, we don't associate with those people.By the rationale Paul is using here, he not only doesn't support the Civil Rights Act; he also doesn't support the criminalization of murder. We should just deal with murderers by giving them a stern talking to and defriending them on Facebook.
I don't guess I need to point out how truly, deeply stupid this argument really is.
Relatedly, this isn't the first time I've seen a Free Speech Absolutist compare behavior and speech without seemingly any regard whatsoever for the fact that we, in fact, don't respond to the most egregious behavior of our fellow citizens merely by criticizing them or shunning them, but by making those behaviors illegal.
And no one goes around caterwauling about slippery slopes because we've criminalized murder. "Next thing you know, they'll be putting people in jail for using airhorns!" No, we consider ourselves eminently capable of discerning between behavior that is merely obnoxious and behavior that is a menace to the public good.
Even regarding crimes about which many people, myself included, argue that criminalization and imprisonment is absurd (see: possession and/or personal use of recreational drugs that did not involve operating a vehicle or in any way endangering others), no one's arguing we should criminalize no behavior at all to avoid overreaching. We debate the merits of criminalizing individual crimes.
So the idea that Free Speech must be treated as an all-or-nothing right, even if that speech includes the linguistic equivalent of a violent community menace (e.g. hate speech), is just a cop-out to avoid the admittedly challenging task of ensuring that marginalized populations aren't targeted by unduly privileged speech.
I'm not surprised that Paul doesn't care about speech that entrenches the marginalization of non-privileged people, but even I'm shocked that he would be so daft as to unintentionally suggest that his Free Speech Absolutism would be applicable to "objectionable" behavior, in the course of trying to defend "Whites Only" policies.
Interviewer: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.
Interviewer: But…?
Paul: [laughs heartily] You had to ask me the "but." Um, I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.
Interviewer: And then it was extended by most localities to include all—
Paul: Right.
Interviewer: Would you have favored those local— [crosstalk]?
Paul: Well, on a local basis, it might be a little different. And the thing is, is I would speak out in favor of it, I mean—I'm, I look at like the speeches of Martin Luther King and, I tell ya, I become emotional watches the speeches of Martin Luther King. I loved it, because he was a great, transformative figure, but he was a believer. What I don't like most about politics is almost none of them are believers, and he was a true believer, and he fought government injustice—and those were governmental rules and laws that forbid people, you know, from riding the bus or sitting in certain parts of the bus, or drinking water from public fountains. All of that should have, should have ended, and I think was a, a great occurrence that it did.
Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say it's abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example, you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. And, uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, you know, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so you understand that people can say bad things; it's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior. But, if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups, we don't associate with those people.
Interviewer: But it's different with race, because for, certainly for 100 years, uh, discrimination based on race was codified under federal law.
Paul: Exactly. It's institutionalized. And that's why we had to end all of the institutional racism and, um, I have, uh, I'm in favor completely of that.
For All of Us
by Shaker EastSideKate, a feminist teacher/scholar/mother/partner/derbygirl from Upstate New York.
[Trigger Warning for intense transphobia, violence, and suicide. Trigger Warning applies to all links.]
So. Yesterday afternoon I came across a particularly depressing piece of news via Helen (by way of folks at FORGE). Two weeks ago, Dana Larkin (also known as Dade and Chanel), a 26-year-old transsexual woman from Milwaukee was murdered. Before I say anything further, I want to send my condolences and best wishes to Chanel's friends and family, as well as to my trans brothers and sisters in Milwaukee and throughout Wisconsin.
Um. So, first of all, fuck. Second, when I was a 26-year-old transsexual woman hanging out in the outskirts of Milwaukee, I sure as hell didn't have the courage to be a leader in my community.
And third: Again? Really? Again?
It wasn't supposed to be like this. It shouldn't have to be like this. Before I came out, I spent a ton of time listening to GenderTalk, the indispensable radio program (and podcast) out of Boston. One of the things I remember are the fatalistic references to the ways that violence and death surround trans peoples' lives. I didn't quite get it back then. I was still a young white kid, college educated, raised in the suburbs. Clearly, I was part of a different world.
Perhaps I am. Transsexual people, as a group, are exceedingly diverse. My many privileges and interests do keep me disconnected from large segments of trans communities.
However. I present to you a brief timeline:
In 2006, I begin the process of coming out, with the help and support of therapists in Milwaukee and the (largely older, white) trans people who could afford their services.
In 2007, a mile from my house In Madison, Nigel Head stabbed Bret Turner (who was dressed in women's clothing, which I recall being described by the local press in excruciating detail at the time) 14 times, after 'becoming upset during sex.' I'm not sure what was more rattling, a hate crime in the middle of my formerly cozy neighborhood, or the disinterest of the local media.
In early 2008, Felicia Melton-Smith, a trans woman and active member of the LGBT community in Madison was murdered while vacationing in Mexico.
On November 14, 2008, shortly after I had moved to Syracuse, Dwight DeLee murdered Latiesha Green (and wounded her brother, Moses Cannon) outside of a party a couple of miles from my new home. I remember my frustration turning to tears, my partner and I racing down one-way streets in the hopes of finding the candlelight vigil, thinking for a moment that being there would make everything all right. The trial of Dwight DeLee colors my summer of 2009, and I still carry the scars on multiple levels.
And now Chanel Larkin is dead.
I didn't know any of these people, and in many ways, I was disconnected from their lives. However far apart our lives were, we shared many bonds. We shared acquaintances, hang outs, communities. And it saddens me that I'll never get to meet any of them.
It's truly odd, the sensation I feel in processing this violence. I feel like I should have known these people. Why wasn't I active in the trans community in Madison? Why didn't I get out more? It's a bizarrely selfish yet selfless thing—I've lost so much in the deaths of these strangers. They could have done so much in this world, I could have learned from them, laughed with them, and...
That bizarre, shallow, guilt is not really the thing that lingers with me, though. I wonder who's next. I wonder why I'm so lucky. Someone I know will be murdered. Who? When? Me?
Maybe someone I know already has been murdered.
As I've grown, I've drifted in and out of various friendships and communities. Sad news makes me wish I was a more consistent participant. I should really talk to all the wonderful trans people I know, lest this be the last chance I get. How are all the wondrous friends and acquaintances I've made over the years, often in the dark, dank corners of the internet? I should get off-line, too; there are trans people in my own neighborhood. Even though I may not have much in common with many strangers, who knows, maybe we'd hit it off? And seriously, Milwaukee is a kick-ass town. I didn't even try to make friends when I was out there, though.
Speaking of drifting off the internet, I wonder about one of my dear, dear friends in particular. She was probably the closest friend I've had, outside of my own sweetie. For a good year or so, we'd chat online for hours at a time. We had both recently come out, and were still actively finding ourselves. We'd talk about the usual things; politics, pop culture, the times she'd be assaulted, that time I nearly was. I even let her hear my voice, as I was actively trying to unlearn the damage puberty had wrought. It wasn't much use; regardless of gender, Skyping with a Brit can be a disorienting experience.
One day my friend vanished from the internet. She had done this from time to time, plagued by the depression that stalks me and so many of my trans brothers and sisters. This time she didn't return. She was heading away to start university, and my optimistic interpretation is that she was "going stealth", dropping of the grid in a bid to survive. A week doesn't go by when I don't think of her. I hope she's okay; the world needs more women with quick, caustic wit.
In my experience, news of death travels slowly, if at all, in the trans universe. When the media bothers to acknowledge our existence, they rarely get our identities right. Blood relatives may or may not be family.
I still remember the unusually warm day I heard about Sarah. I had been in Syracuse for the better part of an hour. I was in town to interview for the job I now hold, educating largely working people who have decided to return to college. Sarah and I had long chats about her returning to college. She was several years younger than I, and full of excitement on many levels—I remember her going on and on about getting a career in fashion. We did talk about some of the other things trans people are wont to speak of—the isolation, the fear, the violence, the frustration in obtaining medical care. Her parents had found her several weeks prior to any of her online acquaintances connecting the dots. It shook many of us; I still think of her often, although on some level, it's necessary to get over such incidents.
Why is any of this necessary at all? It shouldn't be like this. Wondering who the violence will strike next, who is in what psychiatric ward, trying to keep it all together.
And yet here I am. Here all of us are. Stuck in a society that views some people as less than, and therefore, disposable. The issues that affect women, LGBQ people, people of color, poor people, working people and people with disabilities aren't actually different from each other, or from the issues facing trans people. Indeed, all of these identities intersect. It's an idea that's been around for some time, but it's urgently important one. We need to find a way to stop treating people as less than. For Chanel, for Sara, for all of us.
It Ain't No Way
by Shaker Maud, who is currently contemplating whether to become a contributor, or remain Shakesville's world champion guest poster.
There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell law, which punishes lesbians and gays in the military not only for being themselves but for being outed by anyone wishing to harm them, through including the repeal in this year's Defense Reauthorization bill.
Rachel Maddow reported last night that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-noMO) said Wednesday that's not going to happen. Rep. Skelton says he and the Committee's ranking Republican, Howard McKeon, have "agreed to support (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Mullen and (Defense) Secretary Gates' request for time to study this issue". The Pentagon is studying how to implement the end of the policy.
That study is scheduled to continue until December; the Defense Authorization bill would take effect October 1.
Skelton was one of the authors of DADT and has opposed its repeal. But, pride of authorship aside, Rep. Skelton is perhaps just heeding the constant exhortation to "think of the children", and following the prudent example set by young Zachary Preenworthy, who has taken the following official position:Mother, Father - it is my earnest intention to cease my regrettable habit of neglecting to do my homework in favor of spending all my time following the twitter feeds of random people I do not know. I will, however, need the rest of the year to study the best method of implementing this plan. I know others have committed themselves to this course of action without fuss, notably my fellow students in Canada, Belgium, the UK and more than 30 countries around the world. But you have always encouraged me to see myself as exceptional, and I feel it would be irresponsible of me to rush into such a radical shift in policy without carefully preparing the way, lest celebrities like Justin Bieber misunderstand my action and unnecessarily alarm their fans.
Rep. Skelton is taking a similarly self-interested studious approach to allowing military women to receive credit for combat assignments. Female service members in Iraq and Afghanistan are risking death and injury just as their male counterparts are, but because they are officially not eligible for "combat assignments", their service records do not reflect that and they do not receive the same credit toward promotion. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) introduced an amendment to correct this discriminatory policy. Rep. Skelton, however, yesterday pushed through alternate legislation requiring the Dept. of Defense to "write a report on the implications of such a change."
You may risk, ladies, and you may die. But we must ponder at length the implications of recognizing and rewarding your doing so.
Gosh, it's no wonder that not everyone is feeling the exhilaration about keeping company with the Dem-Dems that once they may have.
Teh Gays have written an open letter to the Democratic Party, to be delivered by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action. They're feeling unfullfilled in their relationship:For the longest time, I thought we had something special. Remember how much fun we used to have back when we were young, and control of the Congress and the presidency was just a crazy dream? You always used to ask me for help, and you knew I'd never turn you down.
They really, really need to feel some love, in the form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. If you do, too, you can read the rest of the letter and sign it here.
You were so adorable when we were courting. Sure, you never really understood me, but I liked that you seemed to try. The White House cocktail parties were totally fun, and that Easter Egg Roll is something I'll always cherish. Or remember the time you let me march in the Inaugural parade! Other than that whole Rick Warren thing, I really thought we had a connection.
I know you kept telling me that you weren't ready for marriage, but I was willing to wait since you had promised so much else in the meantime.
But now, I've kind of had it. I'm just not getting what I need out of this relationship. You rarely call me anymore, and when you do it's to ask for money. We talked about joining the military together -- but now it seems like you are flaking on that commitment. You promised to protect me from the homophobes at work, but you don't seem to be in a hurry to actually do it. And that Department of Justice brief thing was just cruel. I'll never understand why you did that.
It almost seems like you're embarrassed by me in public. I know not everyone in your family approves of us, but before you got your new job, it seemed like you didn't care what they thought and were always ready to fight for me. Now, it's like you're a different person. . . . I still worry every day that I can be fired in 29 states just because I'm gay. And my friend who is transgender can be fired in 38 states.
P.S. - Ms. Aretha explains it to you another way.
Big Oil
The latest video footage of the leaking Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico show that oil is escaping at the rate of 95,000 barrels — 4 million gallons — a day, nearly 20 times greater than the 5,000 barrel a day estimate BP and government scientists have been citing for nearly three weeks, an engineering professor told a congressional hearing Wednesday.Raising concerns? Insert a caustic chuckle here. I just love how no one in public office is willing to call out a corporation on anything anymore, no matter how patently obvious the offense is. There is no question here. BP, like every other profit-driven corporation who prioritizes public relations management to keep its stockholders (or board, or owner, or whoever's reaping the profits) happy, is spinning like a record, baby, right round. Corporations are not altruists. They are plunderers. That is their nature. And it's absurd that the government continues to tiptoe around this shit.
The figure of 5,000 barrels a day or 210,000 gallons that BP and the federal government have been using for weeks is based on satellite observations of the surface. But NASA's best satellite-based instruments can't see deep into the waters of the Gulf, where much of the oil from the gusher 5,000 feet below the surface seems to be floating.
Federal officials testified in hearings on Tuesday that they were putting together a crack team to get to the bottom of big the spill really is. That effort comes a month after the April 20 explosion that triggered the unprecedented oil spill in deep waters of the United States. Experts say knowing that amount is crucial for efforts to cap the broken wellhead and to monitor and clean up the oil.
..."The true extent of this spill remains a mystery," [Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chaired the hearing] said. He said the BP had said that the flow rate was not relevant to the cleanup effort. "This faulty logic that BP is using is … raising concerns that they are hiding the full extent of the damage of this leak."
And for all the lipservice to how BP's going to pay for the cleanup (yeah, right), the US is going to invest billions and billions of dollars dealing with this environmental catastrophe, money that could have (should have) been spent on green energy development.
What a clusterfuck.
Question of the Day
If a group of clever and rockin' folks were to flash mob you with a song to celebrate some milestone in your life or just let you know you're awesome, what song would you like them to sing?
("I would totally hate getting flash mobbed!" is a perfectly cromulent response to this question, although liking the concept isn't technically a requirement for answering. It's just a conjured conceit, and if you would prefer to answer with what song you'd like to be serenaded by one trusted person, or answer what song you most love to sing to yourself in the shower, that's okay, too.)
I've definitely got to go with the theme from Laverne & Shirley on this one.
Impossibly Beautiful
Angelina Jolie, widely regarded as one of the most beautiful women in the world, is still not beautiful enough to look like herself on the poster of her upcoming film, Salt.
Lest anyone be under the misapprehension that her character is inexplicably meant to look like a video game avatar of her actual self, the previously released teaser poster puts paid to that possibility.
In case anyone needs a reminder of what Angelina Jolie actually looks like...
I find it particularly objectionable that the face of a woman who has publicly spoken about being in recovery from an eating disorder has been made to appear more gaunt. Just UGH.
------------------------
By way of reminder: Comments that try to suss out what changes, exactly, were made, and even comments noting that, for example, the removal of laugh lines because they are ZOMG wrinkles actually robs a face of its character or humanity, are welcome. Discussions of how "she looks handsomer/hotter/better in the candid picture" and associated commentary (which would certainly make me feel like shit if I were the person being discussed) are not. So please comment in keeping with the series' intent, implicit in which is the question: If no one can ever be beautiful enough, then to what end is the pursuit of an elusive perfection?
[Impossibly Beautiful: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40.]
It Can't Be Terrorism
Because Muslims are the terrorists, not the terrorized.
And anyone who suggests anything different—anyone who says that it definitely was terrorism, and evidence of a virulent racism inextricably tied to anti-Muslim sentiment, and is a deeply anti-American attack on a community that is as integral and valuable a thread in our national fabric as whatever group the despicable xenophobic fucknecks who perpetrated this action—is a terrorist-sympathizer with 9/10 thinking.
...
Where are we headed, USA? Where the fuck are we headed?
[H/T to Shaker BlueRidge.]
Rand Paul: Republican Senate Candidate and Ignorant Disablist
by Shaker Maud
"Paul Vows to Remain True to the Tea Party", says the New York Times headline.
Oh, good.
Rand Paul is now Kentucky's Republican candidate for the Senate . His political views follow closely those of his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, deviating only by a recent move somewhat vaguely away from the elder Paul's advocacy of bringing home all of the several hundred thousand U.S. troops stationed around the world. Not wanting the U.S. to dominate the planet militarily just doesn't fly in Kentucky (or any other) Republican circles.
Rand Paul (he was not, as I initially suspected, named for Ayn Rand, but it seems perhaps not wholly coincidental that he goes by Rand rather than Randall or Randy, either) is an ophthalmologist who has never held political office. His past political activity, other than campaigning for his father, has been rooted in the oppression he suffers as a well-off, cis, straight white man who is expected to pay taxes. So wounded was he by this scourge that he founded a group called Kentucky Taxpayers United, presumably consisting of people who hope to cease being Kentucky Taxpayers and be left in peace to enjoy only those amenities of life each of them has provided for hirself individually, with no governmental support of any kind.
Of course, this might require Dr. Paul to give up his medical practice. The internet tells us that Dr. Paul has devoted his career to doing eye surgery. The commonest eye surgery done is LASIK, I believe. The Excimer laser used in this procedure was developed at the Northrop Corporation Research and Technology Center of the University of California, and I would hazard a guess that there was some, perhaps considerable, gummint research funding involved somewhere in the process. But presumably Paul is planning on leaving ophthalmology behind to become a full-time government employee, anyway, so no more profiting at the taxpayer's expense for him!
Expecting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is the very best thing you can do for them, libertarians will tell you. It encourages them to work hard, first to acquire some bootstraps, and then to learn to pull themselves up by them (unless their daddies are doctors and politicians, and can give them plenty of nice, shiny bootstraps and pots of tuition that they may themselves become physicians and then use their daddy's mailing list of well-endowed political donors to also become politicians, but wev). Fighting gravity will make a man of you! (Unless you're, you know, that other one. No, there's just the one other one, I'm pretty sure. Dr. Paul may be "100-proof libertarian" according to Newsweek's Howard Fineman, but he's a proud Tea Partier now. Men on this side, other one on that side, and no switching off.)
But, you may wish to know, what of people who require assistance in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, due to disability? What about those who cannot interact with bootstraps by any means, and therefore require alternative gravity-defying technology?
Well, Dr. Paul understands that you, being disabled, are probably all emotional about this bootstrappy-assistance shit. But try not to be so selfish - think of the poor business owner. This video shows an unidentified person briefly interviewing Rand Paul at an event in Lexington, KY last weekend. A transcript follows.Interviewer: Could I ask you a question?
Dr. Paul seems to be under the impression that the ADA specifies the particular accommodation which must be made for every disability in every situation. Which is not only not the case, but would be stupid. But perhaps he's just never given the matter the tiniest thought, and when he speaks off the top of his head, stupid is what he comes up with. To be fair, he is not alone in this regard, when it comes to questions of disability and accommodation.
Rand Paul: Sure.
Interviewer: Do you support the Americans With Disabilities Act? Or do you think that's the federal government getting too involved in things (inaudible)?
Paul: You know, I think a lot of things on employment should be done locally, you know, when it comes to figuring out what's right or wrong locally. Some of the things - you know, for example, I think we can come up with common sense solutions - like, for example, if you have a three-story building, when you have someone apply for a job, you might get them a job on the first floor if they're in a wheelchair as opposed to making the person in the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean? So things like that I think are unfair to the business owner. But I think we should try to accommodate people (inaudible) jobs.
Interviewer: (inaudible) voted against that?
Paul: You know, I - I've never looked at the whole thing and see, but I don't like the idea of telling a business owner that they have to put an elevator in versus (inaudible) making an accommodation to make it worse than what it was. So, uh, it's a very emotional issue for people, you know, but I think better to decide things like that locally rather than from Washington.
Interviewer: Now, do you think that Americans, based on the Second Amendment, do you think they have a Constitutional right to violently overthrow the government if they feel that –
(At this point a hand reaches from the side and partially covers the camera's lens, and the voice of an off-camera Rand Paul associate of some sort, is heard.)
Voice: Stop recording on this.
Interviewer: Public place, sir; this is a public place.
(But alas, the associate and Dr. Paul are already fading into the distance.)
The law does not impose a specific requirement on any business to build an elevator to the third floor. It requires reasonable accommodation be made to allow all facilities necessary to the hiring and work of disabled individuals to be available and accessible, and also to make that access available to potential clients of a business. If a business chooses to allow a disabled worker to work on the first floor, say, rather than install an elevator, that's not only not disallowed by the ADA, it may be a better solution for the worker, because the use of elevators with heat-sensitive call buttons makes using the elevator in case of a fire not such a good idea.
What the ADA does mandate is that you not refuse to hire a wheelchair user to work in a given department because that department is currently on the third floor and you don't feel like making a reasonable accommodation so as to permit a qualified candidate for the job who uses a wheelchair to work in that department. "Getting them a job on the first floor" which is not the job they have applied for and are fully qualified for is not an appropriate solution, however.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However many of the signatories to that document actually believed that all men are created equal, it was certainly far less than all of them, and we as a people have been struggling ever since to get that "self-evident truth" recognized by the government we founded to replace the one we declared ourselves independent of with that document, and struggling further to expand the concept to include those of us not included in that otherwise fine assertion – women – and to recognize that those rights are inherent in all humans independent of the existence or definition of a "Creator."
The ADA is part of that struggle. You cannot say that all are equal in a society until all have an equal opportunity to employ their skills and effort in supporting themselves, and until all have equal access to public accommodations. That's why accessibility is "a very emotional issue for people", Dr. Paul. Public spaces either welcome all of us as equals, or they accommodate one kind of person or a limited range of people as equals, and either disallow the rest or begrudgingly allow them a lesser, limited access, all the while moaning about how "unfair" it is to have to recognize their lesser, limited humanity at all. And so long as just how limited or unlimited - how much lesser - some people's humanity is judged to be varies from one locale to another within these United States, we self-evidently are not all created equal, and do not all enjoy equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I am almost inclined to be sympathetic to Republicans in the state of Kentucky. They had a choice between Rand Paul, endorsed by James Dobson* and Sarah Palin, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's protegeé Trey Grayson, endorsed by Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. But with candidates, not to mention policies (or lack thereof) like those being offered by the Republican Party, I can't feel sorry for anyone who still is a Republican. Rather, I feel sorry for the people of Kentucky and the United States who didn't vote for either of these sorry suits, yet may well have to live with Paul's presence in the U.S. Senate anyway, given the uncertain prospect of Kentucky's sending a Democrat to Washington come fall.
"The Tea Party movement is huge," Mr. Paul said to the crowd at his victory party. "The mandate of our victory tonight is huge. What you have done and what we are doing can transform America."
So it can. If we let it.
--------------------------------------
*I don't know how a "100-proof libertarian" reconciles himself with the Dobson position on abortion and gay/trans rights, but I'm betting there's no good news there.
