Action Item follow-up: Free Sakineh

TW for state violence against women

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is an Iranian woman sentenced to death for the crime of adultery, in the absence of evidence proving her guilt, based on "judges knowledge", which apparently consists of one judge's knowledge that killing women makes him feel good. Liss previously blogged about the case here.

International pressure has been brought to bear on the Iranian government not to stone Ms. Ashtiani to death, but her sentence has not been revoked and it has been feared that she would be put to death, even if not by stoning. On August 28, she was told she was to be hanged the next day. Apparently authorities were just having a little fun with her, as the execution did not take place.

Or perhaps this cruelty was punishment for the indignity Iranian authorities are suffering from the worldwide pressure to release Ms. Ashtiani. Says her 22-year-old son Sajad,

They are furious with the international outcry over my mother's case so they are taking revenge on her.
Since the fake execution, Ms Ashtiani has been sentenced to be flogged — again. She had previously received 99 lashes as a result of the adultery conviction, as a preliminary to her eventual stoning.

Now, according to her family, she has been ordered to receive an additional 99 lashes for "spreading corruption and indecency" by allowing a picture of herself with uncovered hair to be published by the British newspaper the Times. The fact that a) she permitted no such thing, and b) the photo wasn't actually of her at all, were apparently not considered mitigating factors, or rather, were simply not considered.

The photo which the Times had identified as being of Ms. Ashtiani was actually one of an Iranian expatriate activist, which had been posted on a website along with an article she had written about Ms. Ashtiani. The Times, which is outraged about everybody else's role in all this, says the picture was given them by one of the lawyers who has been associated with Ms. Ashtiani's case, Mohammad Mostafaei. Mr. Mostafaei says he got it from Ms. Ashtiani's son (who says that is not so, and has appealed to Mr. Mostafaei to refrain from commenting further on his mother's case) and besides he doesn't think she'll be whipped again anyway.

Wev. None of these gentlemen (except for her son who, along with his sister, has been desperately trying to secure his mother's release) is responsible for nothing. Ms. Ashtiani, on the other hand, is clearly responsible for the fact that the judge who sentenced her to death in the absence of evidence has a nasty mind, and for being a woman.

There are fears that the Iranian authorities are planning to execute Ms. Ashtiani, if not by stoning then by hanging, following the end of Ramadan at the end of this week. Because women's sexuality, and women's selves, are commodities for men to dispute with one another over. And if the party which has the disputed object — Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani — in its possession does not feel it is winning the dispute, it can kill her.

Despite the vengeance that is apparently being inflicted on Ms. Ashtiani as a result of the international pressure to save her, her son Sajad has said it is also the only reason she is still alive.

The freesakineh.org site has a respectful letter to the top Iranian clerics, asking them to intervene on Ms. Astiani's behalf, which you can sign here.

Edited to correct my careless usage of the word "unveiled", following the Guardian article, to describe the the woman in the photo which was the basis for the accusation that Ms. Ashtiani was "spreading corruption and indecency". In fact, the "indecency" was based on the fact that the woman in question was not wearing a hijab, or headscarf, not that her face was unveiled. Thanks to TheDeviantE for bringing this to my attention in a comment.

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear Morrissey:

You, sir, are an arse.

I was already disillusioned with you for your continued support of PETA, despite their continuous use of shocking, offensive, and profoundly contemptible stunts that are ostensibly done to garner attention for mistreated animals, but are quite evidently designed merely to generate controversy and free publicity for their organization.

That you would lend your imprimatur to an organization that does not object to resorting to misogyny, racism, fat hatred, and other human oppressions in pursuit of animal rights, despite your assertions to advocate equality, was deeply disappointing.

That you would embrace the strategy yourself is hurtful in ways I cannot begin to convey.

I understand the treatment of animals is important to you. I was under the impression that the treatment of humans was, too.

I am desperately sorry to have been mistaken.

Disdainfully,
Liss

P.S. If you want to be the kind of person who rightfully notes ironies like how the US advertises its freedom and equality, but has never had a female or gay president, you can't be the kind of person who goes around referring to entire countries of people as "subspecies." Engaging in eliminationist hyperbole is not just needlessly vicious; it has also undermined your own credibility as a social justice advocate.

Cc. Mar (who sent it by email and thus gets the hat tip).

Open Wide...

Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Spudsy Brand Accordions.

Recommended Reading:

Kevin: One Dollar, One Vote?

Echidne: Meanwhile, in Congo [Trigger warning for sexual violence as a weapon of war.]

Tomás: Why Repealing Birthright Citizenship Is More Difficult Than You Think [TW for discussion of racist/eliminationist rhetoric.]

Jess: Sexual Harassment at Samsung [Although there are no descriptions of the harassment at this link, please note there are such descriptions if you click through on the expanded story links there.]

Charlotte: More hate-filled crap from Britain's leading obesity charity. [TW for fat hatred and discussion of weight loss.]

Sarah: Who Are Sarah Palin's Prayer Warriors?

Renee: It's Time to Stage an Axe Intervention

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Y'all are obviously really smart economists

...but I really don't know what to say to this.

I'm interested in diversity. My doctorate is in ecology (well, Zoology), a field that's pretty much devoted to studying diversity in non-human organisms. I guess members of my field are decent at dealing with species and other non-human diversities.

What never ceases to floor me is how astonishingly bad we are, all people are, at discussing diversity in human systems. Maybe it's a Platonic thing. Maybe it's linguistic.

In any case, I see humans privileging certain characteristics, making unstated assumptions about the objects of their discourse. "Men" have genitals shaped like so, and sleep with and eat food made by "women", who have genitals shaped more like so. And of course, everybody is white.

Feminists are among the folks who have generally fought against this privileging of characteristics. When privilege does exist, the theory is that the very least one can do is to own the privilege, to acknowledge that variation exists, that one's state is not the default. We try to live with, accept, and even celebrate diversity.


In some of my environmental studies classes, I make students do group exercises in estimation. How much garbage do we generate? How much bottled water do we drink? In part, this is to get students comfortable with math and uncertainty. However, there's another element at play.

A bright student might ask 'what do you mean by 'we?' If students are stumped, I may ask them to start by figuring out how much garbage an "average" person generates.

But who, precisely is an average person? Once students ask themselves that, things unravel pretty quickly. Garbage isn't merely a function of individual households multiplied by millions. Garbage is a product of a complicated society, a system with all sorts of diversity; a family of four is not an aircraft factory. You might not have the money and/or desire to buy bottled water.

This brings me back to the article I linked to above. What caught my eye was the tagline for the article: "The difference between viewing housing as a luxury good or as a staple is the subject of a debate about the recovery."

Is housing a luxury good or a staple? Well. That's certainly an odd question. Perhaps this is another semantic issue. I see housing as a necessity (or "staple"). At the same time, there is housing that's luxurious. Thus, housing is a luxury and/or staple.

For housing, luxury:staple :: square:rhombus

If you actually read the article, the tagline makes a certain amount of sense. Economists are essentially arguing about whether people will spend more on housing as (if?) incomes rise.

Which people are we talking about?

This, in a nutshell, is a concern. We're talking about some sort of combined index of household economies (and housing) for the US as a whole. Maybe we're dealing with medians (or quartiles!), maybe we're dealing with means. In the end, we're taking a snapshot of everyone, but it ends up being a picture of nobody. It's like this 1993 Time magazine cover: it's not entirely clear what the point is or what it really represents. It's computer generated, though, so we know it's.... something.

I'm not going to sit here an argue against data and statistics. For one thing, my students would totally call my bluff on that one. What I will argue is that statistics are but one more lens with which to view society. When it comes time to make policy (and when is it not time to make policy?), it's important to remember the diversity in the system, just as it is to remember the connections in the system.

Clearly, housing is not a luxury good for all people. Clearly, those people for whom housing is a luxury are interacting with those from whom it is not. Society is not the sum of its parts. Precisely who are we talking about when we speak of the future of the housing market?

Open Wide...

He's a Yankee Doodle Dandy

Our old friend Prince Poppycock is still going strong on America's Got Talent, having made his way into the Top 10: "Being in the Top 10 is a gift that America has given to me; I love my country; this next number is really Poppycock's love letter back to America."


Performance Paraphrase (starting at 1:45): As fireworks go off, Prince Poppycock, dressed in glittering top hat and cape, emblazoned with glittering white stars, is lowered onto the stage, singing the end of the American National Anthem. Then, as patriotic music swells and images of Abraham Lincoln and Susan B. Anthony appear behind him, he shouts: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: All men are created equal!" The pictures of Abe and Sue morph into images of Harvey Milk and Rosa Parks. "Of course, some of us a little more EQUAL than others!" He throws open his cape, which is red-and-white striped inside, revealing glittering shorts and knee-high patriotic boots, as he breaks into "Yankee Doodle Dandy," and is joined by dancers onstage. The medley then segues into "Three Cheers for the Red, White, and Blue" for the big finale, and a dancing White House joins him onstage just in time for a kick-line, dropping red, white, and blue balloons, and more fireworks. It is a spectacle of patriotic awesomeness.

Via Andy, who says: "Will somebody please tell all the pathetic teabaggers that THIS is real patriotism???" Totes.

Open Wide...

Film Corner!

This weekend, Iain and I used a gift certificate Kenny Blogginz got us (thanks, KBlogz!) for Christmas (there are really not enough movies made for our demographic, lolsob) to the local movie theater to go see a movie. We saw The American. Whoops! It was awful.

(Iain, on the way into the theater: "I read this is reminiscent of '70s thrillers." Me: "So…boring and sexist, then?" Yup.)

But before the movie, we saw approximately 87 trailers, none of which were particularly notable, or even memorable, except for the following two, and those only because they were aired back-to-back, and I found the juxtaposition an interesting, if unintentional, commentary on gender in film.


Video paraphrase: The trailer for the upcoming Hillary Swank vehicle, Conviction, which is billed as "The incredible true story of Betty Anne Waters," a "working mother [who] puts herself through law school in an effort to represent her brother, who has been wrongfully convicted of murder and has exhausted his chances to appeal his conviction through public defenders." In the trailer, we learn that Waters (played by Swank) did not even have a high school diploma when her brother (played by Sam Rockwell) was convicted; she had to get her GED and then her undergraduate degree before she could go to law school. The story takes place over 18 years, while Waters effectively dedicates her entire life to the cause of freeing her brother, with the help of a law school classmate (played by Minnie Driver). The trailer features scenes of quiet desperation and great personal sacrifice.


Video paraphrase: The trailer for the upcoming Russell Crowe vehicle, The Next Three Days, which is billed as a story about "los[ing] who you are to save what you love." It is a fictional story, authored by Paul Haggis, about the picture-perfect life of a married couple (played by Crowe and Elizabeth Banks) getting "turned upside down when the wife is accused of a murder." Banks' character is sent to prison, where she becomes dangerously despondent. Crowe's character then conspires (without her consent, or even her knowledge) to bust her out of prison. The story centers on the three days of the prison break, which is planned and orchestrated with the help of a famous escapee (played by Liam Neeson). The trailer features scenes of shooting and car chases.

I turned to Iain: "So, a fact-based movie about a woman who sacrifices her life on behalf of her brother to get him out of jail, slowly and methodically working through school and then the court system to secure his freedom via legal justice, versus a fictional movie about a man who's never held a gun before going totes commando to bust his wife out of prison with a big explosion, which is his 'only option' because she's too weak to hack imprisonment. Women are martyrs. Men are superheroes. And everyone in the world is white and straight."

Iain laughed and nodded in agreement. "Totes."

I got $10 that says Elizabeth Banks' character is actually guilty, too.

Open Wide...

WTF, Verizon?

(TW for torture)

According to the YouTube description, this ad aired during Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. Seriously, this is just fucking appalling.




Let me guess. It's "edgy."

I'm really fucking sick of edgy.

Video Description: A young hipster in an orange jumpsuit, wired up with telephone headsets and spiral cords, brags about his phone service while striking a pose uncomfortably similar to one of the Abu Ghraib torture photos; then his face is covered hoodlike with a Droid phone. Dialogue Transcript: "Hello—I have a haiku for you: Larger than life screen / Hi-def video capture / Are you jealous much?"

(Thanks to Melissa for the transcript. Energy Dome tip to Digby, who says "I'm guessing they think it is cutting edge modern imagery, perfect for the Abu Ghraib generation." Yeah.)

Open Wide...

Assvertising

Previous entries in the Assvertising series include #85 and #94, both about Reebok's EasyTone Shoes, which are meant to improve the shape of women's asses while they walk in them. Now, the EasyTone features in an advert for its competitor, New Balance's TrueBalance, which purports to do the same thing, but with better technology.

The commercial, titled "Eyeline," is truly loathsome.

A blond, thin, young white woman is walking in a park wearing shoes that look like Reebok EasyTones. A dark-haired, thin, young white man is walking in the opposite direction toward her. She smiles flirtatiously at him; he can't stop looking at her goofy shoes with a bemused expression. Into his eyeline walks a pair of New Balance TrueBalance shoes; his gaze travels up the body until it arrives on the face of a dark-haired, thin, olive-complected woman, who smiles at him as she walks by.

Voiceover in female voice [as his gaze travels up her body from her shoes again, this time from the back, culminating in her glancing over his shoulder at him with a smug grin]: When toning your legs, glutes, and core, the last thing you want people looking at is your feet.

The blond woman looks back at the scene with a mixture of resentment and anger, as the man continues to stare at the dark-haired woman's ass.

Voiceover: Burn calories and activate muscles. The toning shoe that doesn't look like one. The TrueBalance toning collection, from New Balance.
The version I saw on television was a slightly longer spot, and actually showed the guy comparing the women's asses, and deciding, naturally, that the wearer of the TrueBalance shoes had the superior ass, in addition to the superior shoes. Ugh.

I'd love to know how this fits in with New Balance's Girl on the Run program, which asserts to "encourage pre-teen girls to develop self-respect and healthy lifestyles through running." Is marketing your product by reducing a woman to the value of her ass in the eyes of some random dude more about developing "self-respect" or a "healthy lifestyle," d'ya think...?

New Balance's corporate contact info can be found here.

[Assvertising: 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, 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, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118.]

Open Wide...

Yes, Mr. President, This.

Obama will not compromise on Bush tax cuts for wealthiest USians:

President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.

Mr. Obama's opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension. Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party's weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

It is not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his own diminished popularity, the tepid economic recovery and the divisions within his party. But by proposing to extend the rates for the 98 percent of households with income below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals — and insisting that federal income tax rates in 2011 go back to their pre-2001 levels for income above those cutoffs — he intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.

In a speech in Cleveland on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will also make a case for the package of roughly $180 billion in expanded business tax cuts and infrastructure spending disclosed by the White House in bits and pieces over the past few days. He would offset the cost by closing other tax breaks for multinational corporations, oil and gas companies and others.
It's a shame that this feels like a remarkable show of Democraticism from a Democratic president.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by button candy.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

So, this Bizarro cartoon made me laugh:

Photobucket


What's your ideal imaginary iPhone app?

I'm a big fan of "Pie on demand," but I'd also like a "Fast Forward through boring meetings and awkward moments" app, please.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime


Sesame Street: Ladybug's Picnic

Open Wide...

If You Needed Further Evidence

...that the Tea Party is host to some of the worst people to leave the Republican party, look no further. Witness this (now scrubbed) Facebook exchange between Montana Tea Party leader Tim Ravndal and some of his good buddies:

(TW for homophobia and anti-LGBTQ violence.)

Tim Ravndal: "Marriage is between a man and a woman period! By giving rights to those otherwise would be a violation of the constitution and my own rights"

Keith Baker: "How dare you exercise your First Amendment Rights?"

Dennis Scranton: "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions."

Tim Ravndal: "@Kieth, OOPS I forgot this aint(sic) America no more! @ Dennis, Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?"

Dennis Scranton: "Should be able to get info Gazette archives. Maybe even an illustration. Go back a bit over ten years."
I don't have words.

Meanwhile, if you think these sparkling examples of humanity are referencing the murder of Matthew Shepard, you're so, so wrong.
When reached for comment Friday, Ravndal apologized for the post, saying he "never made the connection" to Shepard's murder until after national bloggers picked up on it and his phone started ringing earlier this week.

"I wasn't even thinking about the tragedy that happened in Wyoming," Ravndal said. "I made a mistake and I apologize to anyone I offended. I do not condone violence to any human being."
Ravndal also has a bridge he would like to sell you.

UPDATE: Oops, just saw that Ravndal has already been removed from his position. Funny how the Tea Party is constantly performing damage control when their representatives speak in public forums.

(Energy Dome tip to Amplify Your Voice.)

Open Wide...

Wow. Sincere.

So as you may recall, about a year ago Kanye West ruined the Video Music Awards for Taylor Swift (and, as Melissa pointed out, Beyoncé as well).

Well, apparently he's still feelin' kinda bad about it a year later, so he's decided to apologize. Via Twitter.

Now, leaving aside how ridiculous an apology via twitter is, I'd like to point out the completely narcissistic big, huge, wonderful gesture Mr. West has made to Taylor Swift to show how very, very sorry he is:

He then explained, "I wrote a song for Taylor Swift that's so beautiful and I want her to have it." He added, "If she won't take it then I'll perform it for her."
Can anyone else see how this is going to play out?

If she rejects the song he wrote for her or refuses to perform it, she's a total bitch.

If she rejects it, he takes her choice of having the song performed away from her and performs it anyway. He does it "for her," forcing her to "accept" this apology song. He gets to be the good guy, and she's still a total bitch. Unless she does what he wants, and performs the song, of course. She can't win.

Meanwhile, does the entertainment press focus on Taylor Swift's "choice" and make it all about her, or do they take Kanye West to task for manipulating her into a situation where she has to accept his song whether she wants to or not?

Yeah. They're all over that.

Open Wide...

Today in Milquetoast

The Times has a lovely piece up today looking at the Democrats' current non-platform.

The NYT found some guy (Micah) to go through the websites of Democratic and Republican candidates in the US' 33 most closely contested Congressional races to see what issues the candidates took a public position on. Mind you, nobody's evaluating the intelligence or nuance represented by these policy positions, merely that they exist.

Out of the websites of 29 Democrats and 29 Republicans:

3% of Republicans (I believe this amounts to one candidate) and a whopping 0% of Democrats said something about organized labor. Base? What's a base?

52% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats said something about abortion, meaning that no more than 4 of 29 Democrats said that they favored abortion rights. It could be less than 4, depending on what the candidates actually said.

Do you hear that? I think it's the sound of Liss gnashing her teeth down in vacationsville.

"Gay Rights"? (I prefer LGBTQ rights, but wev). You want to talk about gay rights? So do 2 out of 29 Democrats. 21% of Republicans and 7% of Democrats said something, anything about gay rights on their websites.

I understand that the web is merely one place for candidates to make positions public, and that not all candidate websites are equal. However, there's no excuse to ask to run the country whilst having a shitty website. These candidates have staff-- some of them should be htmling their asses off ATM. Not having a website and running for election is a lot like not reading the news and running for Congress, and we all know how that turned out.

Another thing: I don't care if you're William Jennings Bryan (if I only had a nickel for every time I said that), you're not going to have time to mention all of your policy positions in your stump speeches. One of the nice things about the Internet is that you can get a 2 GB website for free. That's like, 2 billion characters or so to get your point across, plus-or-minus a picture of you with your wife, kids, dog, and lawn.

In other words, if the Democratic candidates had a position on any of these issues, there's no excuse for them not to say so on their websites. Sure, opinions may offend some folks, but so did that Bryan guy. As for me, I'm sitting here fuming at the lack of an opinion over my full membership in society. As far as I'm concerned, this silence is not just a sign of a crappy political [non-]strategy; it's a personal failure to embrace the humanity of the electorate.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by Gobstoppers. (Everlasting status unknown.)

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What's your favorite lunchtime food? If you don't eat lunch, what do you most enjoy eating in the middle of the day?

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm a sandwich guy. Preferably a hot sandwich, on a pretzel roll, please.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose o' Cute

In honor of Labo[u]r day, the cats of eastsidehouse take a well-deserved break:


Richard Parker




Tillamook

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Sesame Street: Operatic Orange

Open Wide...

Blog Note

I'm taking today and tomorrow off. Many of the other contributors and mods won't be around, either, or will be on reduced schedules, because of the Labor Day weekend.

I'll be back Wednesday. See you then!

Open Wide...