Alright you Wholigans, Canada finally joined the rest of North America last night, and we've had a peek at S5E6, Vampires in Venice.
Please remember that spoilers from episodes after S5E6 are explicitly off-topic, and will annoy your friendly OT host (i.e., me) because she hasn't seen the later eps yet.
Also, note that spoilers from any Doctor Who material coming before S5E6 are explicitly on-topic.
So, starting from a progressives' p-o-v: did anyone else have a lovely warm fuzzy to note that the race of the gondolier (Isabella's dad) never came up? I mean, yes, there's a lost opportunity to examine the racism of 16th century Venice, true; but there're also important roles in the episode being earned by actors of colour, and I think that's a positive thing, given the about-to-be-released whitewashed live-action versions of Prince of Persia and The Last Airbender.
I really liked Rory's role in this episode, a lot. I think his common-sense response to the outlandish things he encounters frames the Doctor and Amy in a clearly different light. Rory and Amy hear screams: Rory, like most people would, runs away from the sound. Amy runs towards it. He continually provides a contrast to the march-to-the-sound-of-the-guns approach taken by the Doctor and Amy.
Also, sonic screwdriver healing? That's new, isn't it? I don't remember seeing a sonic screwdriver used for that before?
Also, Moffatt REALLY LIKES FANGS, huh?
Dr. Who Open Thread! S5E6!
Open Thread
Hosted by a cast iron skillet.
This week's open threads have been hosted by awesome kitchen utensils.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
I've got friends coming to visit for a long weekend, including Mr. Deeky W. Gashlycrumb himself, who will be arriving shortly, and then Iain and I are taking the rest of next week off for a much-needed holiday at home, so consider me officially Gone Fishin'.
I'll be available (though less so than usual) by email. Please remember that when I'm away, we're down one moderator, so take extra care in commenting and make an effort to support the other mods who will be picking up my slack.
(And don't worry—I'll post the Virtual Pub!)
To the USian Shakers: Have a nice and safe Memorial Day Weekend.
See you soon!
RIP Gary Coleman
Gary Coleman, pictured above in his iconic role as Arnold Jackson on the late 70s sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes," has died at age 42 after an intracranial hemorrhage earlier this week.
Coleman's death leaves Todd Bridges the sole survivor of the three "Diff'rent Strokes" kids (Dana Plato took her own life in 1999), whose lives were/have been extremely troubled; Coleman was arrested on two occasions for assaulting women, one an autograph-seeker and one his wife. Collectively, the "Diff'rent Strokes" kids were/are widely regarded as a tragic cautionary tale about the cost, to oneself and others, of childhood fame (and the abject abandonment that frequently accompanies the onset of puberty) and its potential to corrupt.
Without trying to excuse or justify or mitigate Coleman's hurtful actions toward others, I have real sorrow for how genuinely difficult I think his life really was.
More Breaking News
Glenn Beck is still a soulless pot of shit who thinks that mocking 11-year-old girls is totes cool, as long as you don't like their dads.
Asshole.
Quote of the Day
"You don't just walk into one of these places like you're getting your nails done. I think we're armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured."—Laura, a 36-year-old woman who opted to terminate a pregnancy in Birmingham, Alabama, where abortion providers are required by law to do an ultrasound and offer patients a chance to view the image.
Although abortion is not a difficult decision for every woman who gets one, it was for Laura, who declined to view the ultrasound image, which she said would not have changed her mind but "would have added to the pain of what is already a difficult decision."
[H/T to Shaker BlueRidge.]
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Deeky's Sparkly Party Favors, for all your partying needs.
Recommended Reading:
Melanie: Today is International Day of Action for Women's Health
Jenn: 10 Facts You May Not Know About Asian-American History
Mar: Kamla Persad-Bissessar is the new Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.
Andy: Christian Iowa GOP Committeeman Threatens Gay GOP Presidential Candidate Fred Karger Over Marriage
Renee: On Hoarders
Melissa: Agora
Leave your links in comments...
You'll Never Know, Dear, How Much We Love You
We all, in the U.S., love our Constitution, don't we? Right, left or center, you will seldom hear anyone say of it, "Silly bit of fishwrap! We should scrap that anachronistic document." We speak of it with reverence. Most of us believe that, despite having been written over 200 years ago, it should remain the foundation of our laws and government.
Oh, sure, some of us think it could do with a few tweaks. Many of us women feel we should be in it! You know, specifically and unambiguously. Then there's the fact that some of us get treated like it doesn't apply to us, even though the 14th amendment says
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.That's pretty clear, right? No state shall . . . any person within its jurisdiction? So if a state makes available a contractual arrangement between consenting individuals - let's call it marriage - which provides access to a wide array of benefits, that state must make that contractual arrangement available to all consenting individuals who are otherwise qualified to enter into legal contracts - you would think.
Or if - purely hypothetically - any state passed a law which, despite covering language, required law enforcement to single out some kinds of people for different treatment than others, based on nothing more than what they look like - or maybe what their shoes look like - well, the 14th amendment really ought to be all over that one.
But despite our seemingly unanimous love and respect for our Constitution, some of us do have more of a soft spot for some of its provisions than for others. Take this bit:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That's the 2nd amendment, and for some people it is their very, very favoritest part. No, seriously. The entire structure of our government is in our Constitution, as well as the guarantees of our most basic freedoms, but for some folks that one sentence about a "well-regulated militia" seems to be the locus of all their Constitutional hopes, dreams and fears.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-mageddon) is one such. Following the shooting at Ft. Hood last year, a new policy was instituted there which requires anyone bringing personal weapons on base to register them, and those living on base to notify their commanding officers of personal weapons in their possession and to keep their weapons in a unit arms room.
The Dept. of Defense (DOD) Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, led by a retired admiral and a former Secretary of the Army, determined that the DOD's policy regarding personal weapons on military bases was "inadequate". The Pentagon is now formulating a stronger policy for all military bases.
But what is the expertise of the Pentagon regarding either weapons or defense of the Constitution, in comparison to that of Sen. Inhofe? Also inadequate, apparently. Because Sen. Inhofe claims that the recommendations of the Pentagon investigators won't prevent future attacks, and that requiring anyone - even those carrying weapons onto a U.S. military base - to register those weapons, is a violation of the 2nd amendment.
How ya gonna keep your militia well-regulated if they can't even take their personal weapons onto military bases without the military sticking their snoopy noses into that?
So the Constitution-loving Senator has introduced S.3388, the Service Member Second Amendment Protection Act of 2010, to preclude the Pentagon from such "gun ownership over-regulation", saying
Political correctness and violating Constitutional rights dishonors those who lost their lives and is an extreme disservice to those who continue to serve their country.And we may be sure that this legislation avoids such errors because "Inhofe worked closely with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the development of the legislation" according to a press release from his office.
Nobody hates political correctness or loves the U.S. Constitution more than the NRA. Not even the federal courts of the United States, which have ruled both that the 2nd amendment "poses no barrier to (gun) registration" and that the military, being a unique society within the larger society, may place some restrictions on its members' rights under certain circumstances.
So Sen. Inhofe's great love of the Constitution may not prevail, even if his bill were to be passed. But he'll have the satisfaction of knowing that he's made the NRA happy. I hear they're very generous with people who make them happy.
Oh, and don't confuse the "extreme disservice to those who continue to serve their country" which is imposed by regulating the terms of their possession and use of personal firearms with the minor inconvenience to gay service members caused by DADT. Because the 2nd amendment does not wanna be in a foxhole with your kind.
Then there's this one:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That's the 1st amendment, and I would have thought it was many, if not most, people's favorite. It sure does get talked up a lot. You can't even disagree with some folks' blog comments without their suffering a fit of righteous indignation about how that's a severe violation of their 1st amendment right to talk shit all over your blog. (This is not an interpretation of the 1st amendment which has ever been upheld in a court of law.)
But one does get the impression that, in general, the people of the U.S. hold this amendment very dear. And it is widely believed that this prohibition against the Congress "making any law respecting an establishment of religion", along with the protections of the 14th amendment, prohibit any governmental body within the United States from encouraging or inhibiting the practice of any particular religion.
Which raises the question of how to account for the fact that Muslim Americans in several locations seem to be having a good deal of trouble getting city councils and commissions to approve their plans to build or expand existing mosques. An attorney for the Islamic Center in Alpharetta, GA seems to feel that the City Council there is showing insufficient appreciation for the Constitution, and says he'll recommend that his clients file a lawsuit, as "the city previously had approved a number of other churches of similar size."
About 150 concerned citizens attended the Council meeting at which this matter was discussed and voted on, showing curiously little love for the Constitution, or for their Muslim neighbors. Although, to be fair, one man said, "“This is not about religion. … It’s about contractural (sic) agreements.” Fulton County had imposed restrictions on the mosque regarding any future expansion when it approved a previous addition. The Islamic Center did not enter into any contractual agreement with the county, but they raised no objection to those restrictions at the time. So I guess this isn't really a Constitutional matter, because it's "not about religion."
And in Brentwood, TN, it's not about religion, either. It's about terrorists! And about how anyone who is Muslim might be one! A group of Brentwood residents who had applied to rezone 14 acres to allow them to build a mosque have withdrawn their application, after an organized plan to prevent it continued strong despite their having agreed to limit the size of the mosque, not use outside loudspeakers to announce the call to prayer, and limit outside lights.
One of the organizers of the opposition, Matt Bonner, who lives in Nashville, not Brentwood, but evidently considers it his business which houses of worship are erected in Brentwood because he is a member of the Brentwood United Methodist Church, says, "The fact is that the mosques are more than just a church. No one can predict what this one will be used for." Unlike Brentwood United Methodist Church, I guess, where all activity into the distant future can be known, and all of it will be pure, and good, and Constitution-loving.
The difference lies in the fact that Islam is "not really a religion", according to the person whose writings have shaped Mr. Bonner's understanding of it. Instead, "Islam is a dangerous political ideology" according to one Bill French, who for some reason writes under the name of Bill Warner. Mr. French/Warner runs a publishing house in Nashville which for some reason is called the Center for the Study of Political Islam, despite the fact that it does not appear to be a Center for Study, but a Center for Selling Books by Mr. French/Warner.
So don't let any of this lead you to suspect that the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution is held in any lesser reverence than its frequent invocation in blogular disagreements would suggest. The people of Brentwood, determined though they are to keep out mosques, love that amendment so much that they are truly hurt when some attorney takes its name in vain. Like, say, when he mentions to mosque opponents at a meeting "that federal and state law gives religious institutions special protections when it comes to zoning."
Says Mr. Bonner: "What kind of neighbor is that who comes in threatening lawsuits?"
We here in the U.S. do love and respect our constitution. But we hate terrorists, especially if they are sneakily attempting to pass off a political ideology as their religion. And we really hate folks being unneighborly.
More Advocacy Fail
[Trigger warning.]
Copyranter just tipped me to an anti-rape campaign in Britain which features an image of a disembodied woman's lower torso, clad only in panties, with the text: "Have sex with someone who hasn't said yes to it, and the next place you enter could be prison." The image, which I'm not going to post in-page, is viewable here.
Noting that the campaign, which started as ads in lad mags in 2007, has now graduated to posters hanging in public men's restrooms in the UK, Copyranter says: "Call me confused, but showing a half-naked woman in a rape awareness ad being viewed by plastered horny pissing men is just bloody stupid, right?" Right.
Where do I begin with the failfulness? A key part of the rape culture is the dehumanization of women, so featuring a faceless, disembodied, woman's lower torso in an anti-rape campaign is utterly counterproductive—which is to say nothing of the titillation of showing a near-naked faceless, disembodied, woman's lower torso.
And the text. Oh, Maude, the text! Euphemizing rape as "having sex" in an anti-rape campaign is positively absurd. There's no such thing as "having sex with someone who hasn't said yes." The appropriate way to convey this idea without reinforcing narratives of the rape culture is something like: "Sexual activity without consent is illegal" or "Sexual activity without consent is rape."
While I'm certainly not against the idea of noting that going to prison can (should) be the consequence of raping another person, I am decidedly unthrilled with its being communicated as "the next place you enter could be prison," with the victim's body being obliquely invoked as the first "place you enter." Suffice it to say, I don't share the opinion that an anti-rape campaign is the best place for cheeky wordplay, no less cheeky wordplay that reduce a rape victim's body to an inanimate "place" (more dehumanization) that can be equated to prison.
And, really: With an abysmal 6.5% conviction rate, are there any British rapists who are going to be deterred by the threat of prison? Somehow I doubt it. Which means we can "ineffective" to the heaping garbage pile of fail.
What we're left with, then, is an ostensible anti-rape campaign whose only success is more deeply entrenching tools and language of the rape culture. Huzzah.
[Previously in Advocacy Fail: On Exploitation, and Anti-Exploitation Messaging; Calling Cut on Domestic Violence.]
Good News
[Trigger warning for female genital cutting.]
Earlier this month, I wrote about an American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement that proposed a "compromise" on female genital cutting in the form of a "ritual nick," a minor incision of the clitoris to satisfy the urge to ritualistically disfigure a female child's genitals.
In a positive turn of events, the AAP has rescinded the policy statement:
"We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world," said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.One of the women instrumental in this reversal is Soraya Mire, a Somali filmmaker and survivor of female genital cutting, who now lives in LA and is an anti-FGC advocate working with African immigrant families, who are under pressure to continue the tradition, putting "American girls in immigrant communities at risk of being sent overseas to have the procedure completed." Mire "was in disbelief when she first read the AAP's original statement about six weeks ago."
..."We welcome the AAP's decision to withdraw its 2010 policy statement on FGM," said Lakshmi Anantnarayan, a spokeswoman at Equality Now. "This is a crucial step forward in the movement to raise awareness about female genital mutilation."
She couldn't sleep. She couldn't eat. She's dedicated her time to calling legislators, survivors and advocacy groups to pressure AAP to change its original policy statements.That's a lady who knows how to work a teaspoon, right there.
Her efforts worked, she learned on Wednesday from a personal phone call from the academy. ... "I cried and told them how grateful I am," said [Mire]. "Thank you for understanding us survivors and hearing our voices."
..."I slept so well last night," she said. "I woke up smiling."
House and Senate Armed Services Committee Vote to Repeal DADT
The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as "don't ask, don't tell."Good stuff. Note that the House voted to approve an amendment attached to the annual Pentagon policy bill, on which they'll vote today. It is expected to pass.
...The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
...Separately on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure allowing the repeal.
Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda.Despite the fact that there is categorically no evidence to support their claim.
In a statement, Mr. Obama said he was "pleased" by the votes.I really like that he said repealing DADT will make the military stronger, but that "honestly and with integrity" is so passive that it suggests, if unintentionally, that LGB soldiers lack integrity and the legislation is granting it to them, without so much as a nod toward the legislation that forced them into self-denial. "To serve openly and with the dignity they've been denied" would have been better, which I know is nitpicking, but, fuck, it's no time for the president to half-ass it, you know?
"This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity," he said.
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House, accused Democrats of trying to use the military "to advance a liberal social agenda" and demanded that Congress "put its priorities in order."Like John McCain, Congressman McKeon naturally only cares about the alleged "diss" of the straight troops, and doesn't give a flying flunderton about the "diss" of the LGB troops that is DADT.
Other Republicans said the military was a unique institution and its rules sometimes had to differ from civilian society.
"We are dissing the troops, that is what we are doing," said Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Gleeful Moment
I've never watched Glee so I'm not familiar with the plot line or the characters, but after seeing this clip, I'm hoping there are some fans of the show out there who can enlighten me.
Okay, I'll admit right off it chokes me up. For one thing, I'm really glad to see this kind of speech in a hit TV show. It's happening more and more, but it's always welcome. But most importantly, I can hear my dad or my mom delivering this speech. Every word.
I may have struggled with growing up gay, but I never for a moment doubted that I could count on the love and support of my family. And that has always brought me my own glee.
Cross-posted.
Question of the Day
You have just been given a $X million budget (whatever you need, no more and no less) to produce a Bechdel Test-passing project—a film, a television series, a play. What is your project, and who do you cast?
Photo of the Day
Actresses Tyne Daly (L) and Sharon Gless (R) attend the Alliance For Women In Media's 2010 Gracies Awards on May 25, 2010 in Beverly Hills, California. [Getty Images.]You know, Hollywood, since you've given up on new ideas, how about remaking Cagney & Lacey? I'll even help out with a casting suggestion: Starring Jill Scott and Miriam Shor. Every lady I know (and most of the dudes) will watch that shit, bozos!
More images of the amazing Daly and Gless below.
