The Overton Window: Chapter Four

Chapter one was two pages. Chapter two was four. The third chapter was a whopping sixteen pages. I sensed a pattern developing, and figured maybe chapter four would be 256 pages. No such luck. That pattern was just an unfortunate coincidence. Turns out, chapter four is just over a page in length. A little more than 450 words. All of which is to say, today's post is going to be short. Nothing much happens on this page.

Noah has been sent by Darthur to make some phone calls. Part two of the Powerpoint is about to start, and Noah is to invite some "apparently VIPs" to the offices of Doyle & Merchant:

That meeting was still going on, but without him. His father had called a break and passed him a note with a list of phone numbers and a few bullet points of instructions—one last errand to perform before he could leave for the weekend. These were apparently VIPs to be invited for the after-hours portion of the presentation, provided the first part had gone as hoped. Evidently it had.

So, blah blah blah, Noah takes his list of numbers (no names) and calls around, gathering up attendees. All the calls are answered by various services and secretaries and aides. "There'd been audible indications of a scrambler during at least four of the brief conversations, and some sort of voice-alteration gizmo on one of them." Oooh, high tech! One question: Do they still make scramblers? That seems so 1980s. But whatever. It's all very secretive, see? No names, all hush hush. Except for this:

Noah had caught a last name spoken in the background during this final call. It was a Manhattan number, a 212 area code [authenticity!], and the name he'd heard was an uncommon one. He'd also seen it in the newspaper earlier in the day. That call had been to the private line of the most likely nominee for the next U.S. Treasury secretary, assuming the election went as forecast.

This man was also the current president of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve.

Uh oh. Not the Federal Reserve! This really is evil! I got shivers just reading that. (I didn't.)

Noah finds the whole exercise odd, what with Darthur's ability (as world's greatest PR man: inventor of bottled water and the Che Guevara T-shirt) to summon anyone who's anyone to his Powerpoint on a Friday evening, "but maybe it wasn't so unusual considering the circles in which his father was known to travel."

Okay. Let me get this straight. Noah sits through his father's presentation on overthrowing the government and establishing the New World Order and doesn't bat an eye, but summoning of a gaggle of "apparently VIPs" seems weird to him. I think maybe Noah isn't the brightest bulb in the toolbox.

While contemplating this, Noah follows his father's last instruction, and burns the list of phone numbers. Oh, brother. Yeah, nothing says intrigue and espionage like burning paper. Maybe I need to start some sort of cliché count. Maybe these are new measures since Churchill got snoopy with the recycling bins. I dunno. Maybe it's just poor writing. I'm actually feeling lucky this chapter was so short.

[For the record, this post is actually longer than the original chapter by about 100 words.]

Open Wide...

Horrible People do Horrible Things: Episode Yesterday

You may have heard that yesterday Carl Paladino edged out presumptive New York State Republican Gubernatorial nominee Rick Lazio by [as of this writing] a wee 28% margin. In any case, now you have.

Carl's kinda a horrible person. According to the New York Times:

[Paladino's win] was a potentially destabilizing blow for New York Republicans. It put at the top of the party’s ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally’s comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to “an Antichrist or a Hitler.”

Two quick points:

First, if I was Andrew Cuomo and the Democratic Party, I wouldn't be celebrating yet. Experts agree that Cuomo will be the next governor of New York, just as they agreed that Lazio would crush Paladino in the GOP primary.

New York is an extremely blue state, so it would be a colossal upset if Cuomo were to lose. However, Cuomo is, as the Times lovingly puts it, “exceptionally risk-averse.” I'm not sure if this refers to Cuomo's tepid history on LGBT rights, or his stance on charter schools and call for public employees to take yet another hit for the benefit of other taxpayers. Incidentally, the New York State United Teachers (a 600,000 member union) has not endorsed Cuomo.

Second, if I was Andrew Cuomo and the Democratic Party, I wouldn't be celebrating. I'm sure there are Democrats gloating about the prospect of Tea Party-esque candidates harpooning Republicans' chances in major elections. As far as New York goes, metropolitan NYC may well give Cuomo the votes to win the governorship. However, despite my best intentions, I happen to not live Downstate.

I'm a working class, atheistic, socialist, transsexual, lesbian woman living in Upstate New York. From my perspective, it takes a truckload of privilege to dismiss many of my neighbors' celebration of a proud bigot as an academic exercise.

Open Wide...

Standing in the Crossroads

by Shaker mouthyb

[Trigger warning for sexual harassment, coercion, violence, and classism.]

Hi, I'm Carrie Cutler, the student cited in Sunday's Chronicle of Higher Education article about the involvement of a tenured professor at the University of New Mexico in a BDSM service.

You know me as mouthyb.

I'm standing in the crossroads of a discussion that has absolutely got to happen. The influx of students without middle class resources and training, the academic system as it exists practically, and the enforcement of sexual harassment laws have all dovetailed into a godawful mess at my university.

I have been living in an environment where it's possible for a professor to actively solicit students into sex work, telling them it will benefit their careers. I work where the explicit and implicit understanding is that professors are capable of doing what they wish to graduate students, with the consent and backing of the administration. I have been going to class in an environment where professors have felt the need to talk as I stand there, fuming and afraid, about how good things used to be, before someone (me) started complaining. I have been scheduled consistently to speak at mandatory events, sitting with the professor whom I filed an OEO complaint against, a professor who told the students around me that I will kill them if they befriend me.

In a post-Virginia Tech era, that is a potent threat.

Dear academia, there's a discussion we need to have about what constitutes tenable working and learning conditions.

I'd like to give this situation some context. Like many students attempting to climb from the working poor and into an intellectual, middle-class career, when I was told I would be admitted to graduate school, I was elated. I was also incredibly nervous. It would be difficult not to notice, in college, that people 'like me' aren't often allowed into graduate school. I am tattooed, pierced, and I carry my class markers in behavior and expectation. I don't expect I am insured success, and that makes me distinctly nervous.

I spent my entire undergraduate career being reminded over and over that the particular mix of experiences I have are not typical of the population around me, at least not the students who are selected for grad school or recognition. I also have no family support or financial resources. In fact, like many female students from my background, my family attacked my choice to continue in college as selfish and unnatural.

I came into grad school ignorant of the social structure of it and completely without the class conditioning which makes figuring out some of the cues for that social structure possible. What I did have was the determination to intellectually compete with the people around me and to learn what was acceptable. I hoped that being an excellent student would make me acceptable.

Students, especially graduate students coming from these class backgrounds, are uniquely vulnerable to manipulation for that reason. We are desperate to prove we are supposed to be there, because we can never forget that we were not expected to be, and we have no idea what the rules are.

The system itself—the way authority is constituted and expressed, the knowledge we are assumed to have— is very much a function of class conditioning. It is often assumed, by students and faculty who share that coding, that if you are the right kind of person, you'll know these rules without being told. What to wear, whose writing to like, who to be able to name-drop, what to write about or talk about, how to approach an advisor and negotiate the labyrinthine paperwork and funding snarl; I had no idea what the hell was going on. Being an undergraduate is absolutely not preparation, at least at my university, for being a graduate student.

It was not difficult for the professor to solicit me. She appeared to share some of my class markers—the scuffed leather boots, the jeans and tattoos. I was afraid every day that I was in grad school, not because I was incapable of the intellectual work or lacked ambition, but because I kept making small social gaffes. And so, what seems to most people to be an egregious lack of judgment on my part seemed more natural.

After all, she had tenure. And if she had made tenure as she was, there was hope for me.

Much of the reason this case has made it into the national media has to do with the blow-up which followed. I can boil it down to a simple question. If you can't leave without being forced to explain why you 'allowed' someone who threatened your career to take advantage of you, and the administration has made it clear that they will not investigate complaints, what possible hope do you or any of the other students around you have of performing the tasks you've paying for?

I stayed because I had nowhere else to go, begging people to be on my committee. Despite their being told, by that professor, that I might murder them, I managed to convince a group to sign on as my advisors. I'd love to say it was because I'm talented, but it's probably a matter of people annoyed at that professor.

I'll be graduating next semester, and hopefully moving on to a PhD in Sociology. I feel like I have something to contribute to the study of how poor and working class students might fare better in the academy.

The experience has left with me several observations on the system. Grad students, for those outside the system, have to work directly with someone to get into graduate school. They are in an increasingly small environment, subject to a great deal of non-requests to perform unpaid labor, are transient as compared to the professors who work closely with them, and are often unaware of the dynamics of an academic workplace, which are pretty damn unique. The experience of grad school is designed to mold the student into a representative of the academic system, which entails changing more than the pool of knowledge they have to draw from. It entails changing them.

For this reason, the kinds of interactions which a professor has with their advisee are not limited to grading their papers and talking to them about publication. And in that implicit part of graduate school, there is great opportunity for abuse. If you are a graduate student, and especially a student from a class or social background which is not middle class, you are required to trust that the advice you are getting from your advisor accurately models what you have to know. For all you know, it is accurate.

It can be difficult to change advisors, because you have hope that the person you might transfer to will not take advantage of you, as well. There are not many tenured professors in a particular sub-field at a given university.

In mine, there were two.

Because I am already obviously not the 'right kind,' what incentive does the university system have to pursue complaints from a member of a transitory population? There is an encoded power discrepancy in academia between student and faculty, which the rape culture interprets as irresistibly sexy, because it interferes with consent.

It is an implicitly accepted part of academia that your advisor has considerable control over your career, and that occasionally that control extends into the sexual. It is shrugged off by enough academics, in the vast amount of the discussion on this situation among academic blogs, for the reaction to be a collective shrug.

You lose some, many of them say. They probably didn't belong, anyway.

I have heard a few professors in my department, when I've mentioned the social component of graduate school, refer to knowing what to do as something you have or you don't coming in, and definitely something they want to minimize their responsibility toward. It's messy and time-consuming.

I teach, myself, and I publish. This year alone, I have published 12 poems in the domestic and international markets, in addition to my teaching duties, research and work on my dissertation. I have sympathy for the time commitments which seem to spring up everywhere in academia. There are only so many hours in the day, and I am typically committed 50+ hours a week. My assignment puts me in two classrooms, teaching alone, every semester. I am paid slightly over $15k a year, unless I take on additional duties, making my time worth slightly less than I could make waiting tables for the same amount of time. I am nearly constantly hungry, tired and under-caffeinated.

If you know anything about the history of academia, you know why it doesn't matter that we're typically over-committed, tired and swamped in new duties. For the first time in history, it is possible for students who are not coming from positions of relative class privilege to get the kind of education and social cache reserved for the classes over them. And, for the sake of whatever we hold holy, it's about fucking time to have that discussion about privilege, about what is to be expected and the power discrepancy between student and professor.

It's about time we talked about what we're going to do with the new demographics of the student population.

And that discussion, if we're planning on presenting college as a way for people to make their lives better and as one of the shrinking ways to have a career, had better not boil down to better ways to discourage students from coming.

You know, since they aren't the right kind.

Open Wide...

That's Show Business

If you've been paying any attention to the primaries and the campaigns for the mid-term elections, you've undoubtedly heard a lot of people -- especially the folks from the Tea Party -- say how they're tired of "politics as usual" and how they're going to go to Washington to "shake things up." That always gets a lot of cheering and yip-yahs from the crowd, but after all the shouting and all the media coverage, these neophytes who promise to do all the shaking up seem kind of hard-pressed to tell you exactly how they plan to do it. They're very good with the ten-word answer -- the platitudes that have been tested and tried out on focus groups or fed to them by pundits -- but they can't come up with the next ten words, or the ten words after that. Perhaps "politics as usual" became that way because that's the natural state of how people in a democracy get things done. It's messy and not very lofty, especially when you're doing it in a marble cathedral dedicated to the sainted memory of the men who built this country two hundred years ago, but chances are that there were people complaining about Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison and their "politics as usual" in 1810.

It reminds me of when I taught high school theatre. I had a number of kids who were all gung-ho to be the next Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake: "I want to be a star!" I daresay I probably had those dreams when I was a kid, too, but the first thing I learned is that while there may be a lot of celebrities and stars out there on the cover of People magazine or hanging out at the hot spots on SoBe, to actually make it as an actor requires a lot of hard work, a lot of hours in rehearsal, and if you're going to be taken seriously as an artist, a lot of homework: acting classes, history, and learning about the countless numbers of things that go into making something as deceptively complex as a production of Our Town ready for the audience. And the audience expects big things. They don't come to the theatre to bask in the magnificence of the star's personality; they come there to see something insightful and enduring. So I used to tell my students, "You can be a star, sure. Or you can be an actor and work like a mule to learn everything there is to know about what you're doing and do the grunt work of showing up at rehearsal and working until you're stoned with fatigue from the effort to get it right, knowing how to light a stage and build the scenery and run the show, and learning everything there is to know about your art and your craft because you love it and do it because in the end it will be for the audience and the message of the playwright, not all about you. Sure, you can be a star and perhaps even make a brief career as a celebrity. But you won't know anything about what you're doing -- and you don't even care -- and some day it's all going to go away and you'll be lucky to be doing summer stock theatre in Manistee."

They say politics is show business for ugly people, and the parallels are striking. We now have a lot of celebrity politicians who are all about shaking things up, but are they really ready to do the hard work of actually governing if by some fluke they actually win? Are they ready to sit through the butt-numbing hours of work that it takes to write a bill that will reduce taxes or whatever was the slogan that got them elected in the first place? Do they actually understand how things work? I don't think so, especially when I hear some neophyte running for governor -- in Florida, say -- "I want to cut red tape and bureaucracy and make the government accountable." Well, yeah, but I don't think he gets the basic concept that it's the red tape and multiple layers of bureaucracy that makes the government accountable for the things they do. Without them, there would be a lack of accountability and a lot of opportunities for fraud and abuse, something a certain candidate for governor in Florida knows all too well. You can have blinding speed with no controls or you can have accountability. It's really hard to find the exact balance, trust me, and so far I have yet to hear of anyone in or outside the business who has done it.

I'm all in favor of bringing in new people to any business, be it the next rising star on Broadway or the newest Senator with new ideas. But they had better be aware of exactly how hard the business is. This is Broadway, not some 4-H skit; it's not just Mom and Dad out there with the Instamatic; it's a paying audience and a tough crowd who didn't come to see you be just you. They came to see you work and earn their trust and do what they expect you to do, which is more than just wave to the crowd and impress Sean Hannity with your one-liners. And if you don't, they have a funny way of finding someone who will, which means you can start looking for cheap rentals in Manistee.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by a yellow warbler.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

We've done this one before, but not for more than two years...

What's the grossest thing you've ever accidentally eaten?

I once, through a brief but sincerely unfortunate sequence of events, got a bit of cat vomit in my mouth as I was cleaning it up. Know what it tasted like? Cat vomit!!!

Open Wide...

Daily Dose o' Cute

When Iain and I got Dudley, we agreed: No dogs on the couch. The thing is, we forgot to consult with Dudley, who has other ideas about it.


The scene I just discovered in the living room, moments ago.

He's only recently—like, in the last week—tried to get up on the couch. In fact, I first discovered him upstairs in the loft, curled up in the chaise after I'd vacated the seat for a trip to the bathroom.


Bad Dog.


"What? If you didn't want me here, why'd you leave the seat so warm?"

When we tell him to get down, he does, without a complaint or an ounce of resistance. Which is frankly heartbreaking, and goes to show you what a terrible dog he actually is.


"Okay, I'll just lie here on the floor, looking as bony as possible."

The truth is, "Tentatively Crawling Up on the Couch in a Way That Suggests to Mum and Pop That I Finally For Realz Feel at Home But Still Being Adorably Obedient" is ultimately a very successful strategy. Irresistible, really. Especially when employed by a puppeh who daily conspires to be the best dog on the planet, whose bad behavior consists almost entirely of being TOO cute.

Dudley is now allowed on the couch.

Open Wide...

Today in Racism

[Trigger warning for violent imagery.]

Stay classy, Tea Partiers:

At the annual Sportsman's Day parade last weekend in Naches, WA (a small town southeast of Seattle), a tea party group called "Remember Us We The People" — which is affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots — sponsored a float that many local residents are "calling offensive and in bad taste":
Local members of the Tea Party sponsored a float, decorated to look like a Radio Flyer wagon, pulled behind a truck. In that truck a number of people sat holding signs that read everything from "Obama Care" and "Healthcare Take Over" to "Wasted Tax Money."

But the thing that got people upset was a man in shirt and tie wearing a mask of President Barack Obama. In one hand he held a sign that read "Hey Kids! Thanks for paying our debt!" In the other hand he held a horse riding crop which he snapped at a young teen in front of him pretending to pull the wagon by the handle wearing a shirt that read "Future Tax Payer."
..."Remember Us We The People" president Kirk Groenig said the float "maybe" went "a little too far" but nonetheless complained, "When they don't like your message, they try to deem you as racist, that's really unfortunate."
You know what's even more unfortunate...? Demonstrable racism parading down Main Street. Asshole.

Think Progress has video of the float here.

Open Wide...

Local Man is the New "Guy Who Is Bad at Using Metaphor"

[So..... I accidentally published this while it was still a really rough draft (thank you unwanted shortcut keys!), but wev... Hopefully you get the point.]

Are Muslims the New Gays? No, really, are they?

To paraphrase Liss: No.

No because it was horrible when The Advocate tried it.

No because it involves the fact that gay people are the past and current gay people who still face a variety of struggles for social justice.

No because of intersectionality. Gay Muslims exist. See a discussion of African-American gays re: The Advocate totally fucking up.

In conclusion, the column "Muslims are the New Gays in America" is a land of contrasts. While the column makes some very good points, some interesting points, and some good, interesting points, it also no. Just no.

Open Wide...

Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"



Blank

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.]

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

One-tenth of 1 percent.

The middle class is finally on its knees. Jobs are scarce and good jobs even scarcer. Government and corporate policies have been whacking working Americans every which way for the past three or four decades. While globalization and technological wizardry were wreaking employment havoc, the movers and shakers in government and in the board rooms of the great corporations were embracing privatization and deregulation with the fervor of fanatics. The safety net was shredded, unions were brutally attacked and demonized, employment training and jobs programs were eliminated, higher education costs skyrocketed, and the nation's infrastructure, a key to long-term industrial and economic health, deteriorated.

It's a wonder matters aren't worse.

While all this was happening, working people, including those in the vast middle class, coped as best they could. Women went into the paid work force in droves. Many workers increased their hours or took on second and third jobs. Savings were drained and debt of every imaginable kind — from credit cards to mortgages to student loans — exploded.

With those coping mechanisms now exhausted, it's painfully obvious that the economy has failed working Americans.

There was plenty of growth, but the economic benefits went overwhelmingly — and unfairly — to those already at the top. Mr. Reich cites the work of analysts who have tracked the increasing share of national income that has gone to the top 1 percent of earners since the 1970s, when their share was 8 percent to 9 percent. In the 1980s, it rose to 10 percent to 14 percent. In the late-'90s, it was 15 percent to 19 percent. In 2005, it passed 21 percent. By 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, the richest 1 percent were taking more than 23 percent of all income.

The richest one-tenth of 1 percent, representing just 13,000 households, took in more than 11 percent of total income in 2007.

That does not leave enough spending power with the rest of the population to sustain a flourishing economy.
—The always-brilliant Bob Herbert, in his most recent column, "A Recovery's Long Odds."

Open Wide...

Victim Blaming: Not Just for Poor People

[Trigger warning for violence, including sexual assault]

As regular readers may have noticed, I have a love-hate relationship with the New York Times. One of the things I miss about being a Times subscriber is the feeling of being a fly on the wall at the meeting of a plutocratic secret society. Advertisements for watches that cost more than my car. Advertisements for shoes that cost more than my car. (Have you seen my car?) Recipes that require one to go down to Dean & Deluca's flagship store to buy two pounds of Kashmiri saffron. (Most. Expensive. Tuna Casserole. Ever.)

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not shocked when I run across articles like this one, which advises the super-rich how to keep their kids safe at college. The uber-wealthy need newspapers too.

I'm not highlighting this article to have cheap laughs at the expense of wealth, although:

For prominent families, the costs of a security plan to reduce these risks are part of life, but for most affluent families, such security is prohibitively expensive — even though their children may be just as susceptible to crime.

So you're saying crime isn't just a problem for the super-rich, but also for the very rich? lolgasp! Fetch me the soiled over-stuffed pillows that serve as my fainting couch!

The article is dripping with the insinuation that rich folks are targets, and must do whatever it takes to protect themselves from the others. I'm one of the others, and some dude recently broke the window of a neighbor's house, stepped over her mother who was sleeping on her couch at the time, and swiped a bunch of stuff.

The police said that there wasn't much they could do, and if my neighbor (ahem, ex-neighbor) didn't want that kind of shit happening, maybe she shouldn't live in such a crappy [poor? largely black? LGBT-infested?] neighborhood. (FWIW, we're working on that with the Chief of Police.) But just so you know, Mr. Sullivan, my local police department thinks folks like me are a likely target of crime.

I don't suspect Mr. Sullivan disagrees with me on this point. I think he's just talking about crimes that matter.

Then there's the article's discussion of sexual assault...

As far as I see it, the article seems to talk about property crime and sexual assault as if they're essentially different versions of the same thing, which, uh, I find problematic.

As for rape prevention, the problem with sexual assault is not that daughters of affluent parents are naïve. Rapists are the problem. And what of the sons of the affluent? Who, precisely, are these rapists praying upon naïve rich young ladies? Might some of these rapists also come from affluence? One way to prevent rape would be to teach one's sons to not treat women's bodies like their own personal property. That would certainly be cheaper than hiring a $41,000 personal safety consultant [TW: See Liss' discussion of the limits of self-defense training here].

Perpetuating the idea that rape victims have done something wrong, something naïve, something ill-advised is perpetuating the rape culture. Certainly, rape culture is not the bastion of the affluent. However, I wonder what these families who have millions of dollars have done to make society safer. You can't consult yourself out of rape. Instead, one must strive to create a world where people respect the value and autonomy of their fellow human beings.

Open Wide...

Huzzah?

Senate Democrats Overcome GOP Filibuster of Small Business Bill:

Senate Democrats today overcame a summer-long Republican filibuster of a bill to jumpstart job growth by providing small businesses with a $30 billion lending fund and around $12 billion in tax relief.

The vote to end debate on the small business measure was 61-37, paving the way for it to obtain final passage in the Senate later this week.
So, the Democrats have finally won a long battle against Republicans to pass financial legislation straight out of the Republican playbook, which the Republicans have been filibustering because it was Obama's idea but the Democrats have been championing because they are stupid. Or something.

We are living in a cuckoo clock.

Open Wide...

Battle of the Sexes!!!11!!!!!eleventy!!1!

Daniel de Vise, writing for the Washington Post under the headline "Report: More women than men in U.S. earned doctorates last year for first time," tells us:

For the first time, more women than men in the United States received doctoral degrees last year, the culmination of decades of change in the status of women at colleges nationwide.
The difference was slight: 50.4% of the doctoral recipients were women, while 49.6% were men. It's accurate that more women than men earned doctorates, but the real news is that women have at long last achieved parity.

Which is what we're all interested in, right?
Men may be staging a modest comeback.
Oh. Right.

Men are "staging a comeback" to their natural position: Supremacy.

Open Wide...

B-b-but BOOTSTRAPS!

Washington Post: Jobless are straining Social Security's disability benefits program.

The article begins: "The number of former workers seeking Social Security disability benefits has spiked with the nation's economic problems, heightening concern that the jobless are expanding the program beyond its intended purpose of aiding the disabled."

Well, sure. That's one way to look at it, especially if you're a cynical asshole who expects the worst of people and assumes every person who qualifies for disability is already on it. But my guess is that, in reality, there are lots of formerly employed people who qualified for disability but never used it, as long as they had work. And when they lost their jobs and exhausted their unemployment benefits, they applied for a program to which they're rightfully entitled as a last resort.

Atrios also notes that disability is frequently "the only place to turn for older unemployed people with no realistic job prospects. It isn't a generous program, and barriers for applicants are quite high. I don't mean to suggest fraud is a big problem, just more that there are people who if they could find the right job situation could in theory work, but it's hard enough finding a job at 57 if you're in perfect health, let alone if maybe you're in less than perfect condition." (As defined by an institutionally disablist work culture.)

Still, it's fun to pretend that no disabled people work, disability is easy to get, and lazy people who hate bootstraps are just gaming the system. Wheeeeeeeeee!

The thing about that ol' American Work Ethic is that it requires the existence of jobs.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Die Ärzte: "Rock'n'Roll-Übermensch"

Open Wide...

Contaminated Confessions

[Trigger warning for violence and police abuses.]

There are a lot of good things about the US justice system—and a lot of bad things. One of its greatest shames is that only "Ten states require videotaping of at least some interrogations, like those in crimes that carry the death penalty, and seven state supreme courts have required or strongly encouraged recording," leaving the door wide for coerced and contaminated confessions.

When an innocent person is convicted and sent to prison on the basis of a false confession, particularly for violent crimes with high rates of repeat offenses (like rape), it isn't just that hir life (and hir family's lives) are permanently altered, often in devastating ways; the survivors of the crime(s) are denied real justice, and the actual perpetrators of the crime(s) are left free to continue offending, creating even more victims.

This is an entirely avoidable scenario, as long as only demonstrably reliable confessions are used. But procedures that ensure demonstrably reliable confessions are simply not in place in most of the country.

[M]ore than 40 others have given confessions since 1976 that DNA evidence later showed were false, according to records compiled by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Experts have long known that some kinds of people — including the mentally impaired, the mentally ill, the young and the easily led — are the likeliest to be induced to confess. There are also people like [Eddie Lowery, who spent 10 years in prison after confessing to a rape he did not commit and was later exonerated by DNA evidence], who says he was just pressed beyond endurance by persistent interrogators.

…Of the exonerated defendants in the Garrett study, 26 — more than half — were "mentally disabled," under 18 at the time or both. Most were subjected to lengthy, high-pressure interrogations, and none had a lawyer present. Thirteen of them were taken to the crime scene.

…Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett's study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway.

…Some defendants' confessions even include mistakes fed by the police. Earl Washington Jr., a mentally impaired man who spent 18 years in prison and came within hours of being executed for a murder he did not commit, stated in his confession that the victim had worn a halter top. In fact, she had worn a sundress, but an initial police report had stated that she wore a halter top.
Naturally, the less privileged a person in police custody is, the more likely zie is to be bullied into a false confession by an officer determined to get one. Every layer of situational disadvantage—being questioned without an attorney present, not knowing one's rights—adds to the likelihood of being railroaded. Every layer of cultural marginalization—youth, poverty, being a person of color, being a person with a psychological disability—adds to the likelihood of being railroaded.
Steven A. Drizin, the director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law, said the significance of contamination could not be understated. While errors might lead to wrongful arrest, "it's contamination that is the primary factor in wrongful convictions," he said.
Every time some MRA and/or rape apologist shows up in comments spouting off about wrongful rape convictions, I make the point that wrongful convictions being attributable to false allegations is vanishingly rare, and that their ire is best directed at police and prosecutors who fuck up cases, intentionally or irresponsibly. This is precisely what I'm talking about.

The Innocence Project has listed its priorities for fixing the system here. Ideas for how you can get involved are here.

Open Wide...

Gay Saudi Diplomat Requests Asylum

Ali Ahmad Asseri, first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, has applied to the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security for asylum as a member of "a particular social group" subject to persecution in his homeland. Asseri wrote, in an email to NBC,

My life is in a great danger here and if I go back to Saudi Arabia, they will kill me openly in broad daylight.
Asseri has been based at the Saudi embassy in Los Angeles for five years. He says that, in recent months, Saudi consulate employees who suspected that he is gay began to follow him to gay bars. They also discovered his close friendship with a Jewish woman from Israel. Subsequently, Asseri says, consulate officials began harassing him.

They have refused to renew his diplomatic passport, continue to monitor his private life, and have demanded he return to Saudi Arabia. Says Asseri
Words cannot express the anger I feel about how I have been treated.
Other gay Saudis have been granted asylum by the U.S., according to Ally Bolour, Asseri's lawyer. But Asseri's status as a diplomat — and recent statements he has made which have been critical of the Saudi royal family — give Asseri's case a political status unlike the others.

That criticism was made in a letter Asseri recently posted on a Saudi website, in which he also castigated the role of what he called "militant imams" who have "defaced the tolerance of Islam." I think it's safe to say that Asseri would not be well-received in his homeland.

Although the msnbc article suggests reasons why the U.S. government wishes to remain on good terms with the Saudi government, in combination with the asylum request, create "an especially awkward dilemma", I doubt that granting this man asylum would inhibit that relationship. The White House is currently seeking Congressional approval of the sale of $60 billion worth of warplanes to the Saudi government. Nothing brings governments together like military hardware.

Open Wide...

Just FYI



That's Parker Stevenson on the left and Jameson Parker on the right.

[Cross-posted.]

Open Wide...

[Strong TW: Anti-trans murders] And so it goes...

[Trigger warning applies to all links.]

I was checking out the news this morning, and I came across multiple stories of trans women being murdered. Ugh. The murder of trans women is the most horrifying version of business as usual, an actual meme in an actual world that owes trans people much, much more.

Thankfully, Helen and Lisa at Questioning Transphobia have already provided summaries and links. I don't have anything else to say :(

Two women murdered in Puerto Rico: QT, EdgeBoston

Victoria Carmen White of Newark, NJ murdered: QT, Baristanet

On a related note, Helen's posted a report of Trans Respect versus Transphobia's Murder Monitoring Project. The data are here. 93 trans people were killed in the first half of 2010. That's 93 murders in 181 days.

Open Wide...