With time running out on the government's authority to spend money, the Senate is expected to vote this week on a $1.1 trillion bill that would settle the issue for the rest of the fiscal year.
However, conservative Republicans oppose the plan and threaten to obstruct its progress by having it read out loud in the Senate chamber, which could take more than two days.
They've VERY CONCERNED about spending because they are FISCAL CONSERVATIVES and this country has never needed its fiscal conservatives to STAND THEIR GROUND between liberal spendocrats and the treasury more than after those GODDAMN REPUBLICANS ran up the deficit for eight years!
Again, I ask: How does anyone vote for these people?
This is typically when I do my bi-monthly reminder*, for those who have requested it, to donate to Shakesville.
This month takes on a particular urgency, as my main computer died yesterday. Like, a complete meltdown, good-thing-I-backed-up-recently-because-everything's-fucking-gone implosion. I'm currently eking by on my dodgy laptop, which, until yesterday, was on our list to replace, once we'd recovered from replacing our stove, fridge, and water heater in the span of a month, right before our car started acting up. (No really—is this year fucking over yet?)
Obviously, Shakesville depends on my having a reliable computer, so if you can swing a donation, if you've been meaning to donate but just haven't gotten around to it, now's the time.
Asking for donations** is difficult for me, partly because I've got an innate aversion to asking for anything, and partly because these threads are frequently critical and stressful. But it's also one of the most feminist acts I do here. It's also the only way I am able to manage this community as a safe space, which requires my full-time commitment in addition to our volunteer moderators.
You can donate once by clicking the button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription here.
Let me reiterate, once again, that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.
I also want say thank you, so very much, to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent for granted. I've not the words to express the depth of my appreciation, besides these: This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.
My thanks as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways, whether as a regular contributor, a guest contributor, a moderator, a transcriber, or as someone who takes the time to send me the occasional note of support and encouragement. This community couldn't exist without you, either.
---------------------
* I know there are people who resent these reminders, but there are also people who appreciate them, so I've now taken to doing them every other month, in the hopes that will make a good compromise.
"It's time to end a policy of official discrimination that has cost America the service of some 13,500 men and women who wore our uniform with honor. It's time to stop throwing away their service—their willingness to die for our country—because of who they are."—Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) co-sponsor of the House bill to repeal DADT passed earlier today.
House lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday to end the "don't ask, don't tell" law, giving new momentum to an effort backed by President Obama, Pentagon leaders and gay rights activists to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military this year.
The House voted 250 to 175 to repeal the 17-year Defense Department law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in uniform. The 75-vote margin was wider than a similar vote in May. Fifteen Republicans voted for the bill while 15 Democrats opposed it.
Wednesday's vote sends the bill back to the Senate, where a vote will not occur until next week at the earliest, if at all, according to Senate aides.
That's long enough for Susan Collins and the rest of the alleged moderates to come up with an excuse to vote against it: "Uh, my parakeet needs a karma transplant...."
Yesterday, we discussed fat stereotypes, and many of the comments included references to not being able to "get away with" something because of the fat stereotypes associated with it.
So today's discussion question is this: What are you supposedly not able to "get away with" because you are fat? (And/or what are you actually not able to "get away with" because of presumptions about fat people who do That Thing?)
Examples: Fat women are routinely told they can't "get away with" short haircuts. Fat women and men are frequently told they can't "get away with" certain cuts of clothing. There are also subtle disincentives: I have frequently experienced being on the receiving end of thinly veiled hints that I can't really "get away with" being confident, or laughing loudly, or in some other way refusing to express nothing but undiluted shame for myself in public.
Not long ago, I showed Kenny Blogginz this amazing sweatshirt in a fat lady's clothing catalog I get; it featured three angel kittens in a basket and it was stupendously saccharine. (It wasn't exactly this, but it was close.) Now, I'm not judging anyone who loves kitten sweatshirts—love them! they are awesome!—but they're not exactly considered stylish, especially for women of my age. KBlogz laughed and told me he would be personally offended if I didn't buy it immediately. To which I responded, "I would love to, but fat women can't get away with wearing kitten sweatshirts that are deliciously unstylish. If I wore that sweatshirt, people would just see a sad fatty with no style and treat me with pity and contempt." He immediately knew exactly what I meant.
The only way I'd "get away with" that sweatshirt is by pairing it with fishnets and blue hair. Anything less obviously ironic, and I'm a Cat Lady.
Fat women can't "get away with" being unstylish at all, especially in a corporate workplace, if they want to be regarded as intelligent and capable. In a well-tailored (and thus expensive) business suit, I'm a Woman to Be Reckoned With. In sweatpants and a t-shirt, I am literally spoken to as though I might be mentally disabled. (That's not an exaggeration and not meant to be funny.) That happens to all women, and all people, to some degree. But the fatter I've gotten, the wider the gap in perceptions of me grows.
[This thread is for both fat people and not-fat people; the latter are invited to participate by listening with the open-mindedness and open-heartedness that is key to dismantling unearned privilege.]
Convicted animal abuser and NFL quarterback Michael Vick wants a dog:
Eagles quarterback Michael Vick, who spent time in prison for his involvement in dog fighting, said Tuesday having a dog as a pet would help in his rehabilitation.
In an interview with NBC News and TheGrio.com, Vick said, "I would love to get another dog in the future. I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process."
Reading this the first time, I thought: No dog's safety is worth risking in service of Michael Vick's rehabilitation, but, yes, in theory, it's too bad he mistreated dogs and now can't own one, and because dogs can be important teachers and healers.
And then I read the next sentence:
"I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love and my passion for animals; I think it would be outstanding."
Oh. He didn't mean his rehabilitation as a human being. He meant the rehabilitation of his public image. Of course.
Well, no worries, Michael Vick. I'm sure a cameo awaits you in The Hangover 3.
[Trigger warning for sexual assault; rape apologia.]
So Michael Moore, about whose rape apologia re: the allegations against Assange I first wrote yesterday, was on Keith Olbermann's show last night, and he doubled down on dismissing the sexual assault charges against Assange, calling them "hooey" and willfully misrepresenting that of which he's been accused.
[Transcript below.]
Moore asserts that the basis of the charge is that "his condom broke during consensual sex." That is patently false. Michael Moore is a literate and intelligent man who can surely discern the difference between "his condom broke during consensual sex" and "Assange was alleged to have 'forcefully' held her arms and used his bodyweight to hold her down [to "have sex" with her] without using a condom, when it was her 'express wish' that one should be used." In the second case, Assange is alleged to have "had sex" with a woman without a condom while she was sleeping, which cannot possibly be considered consensual sex.
I don't guess I need to point out the bitter irony of a man championing Julian Assange for exposing hidden truths about powerful governments, and masking the truth of the allegations against Assange in the process.
I know—Maude help me, I know—that governments and corporations use terrible and unethical tactics to discredit whistleblowers and critics. But I wasn't born yesterday, either. And when around 12% of men (pdf) have, by their own admission, committed sexual assault or rape, it's not remotely difficult to imagine that rape charges are not routinely invented to use against powerful men, but simply paid attention to when politically expedient.
Assange is entitled to bail, and he is entitled to a fair hearing on the allegations. That is an argument that can be made (like I just did) without any hint of victim-blaming.
Or any mendacious attempts to conceal the truth.
Stop by Sady's place for info on a Twitter action. Also: You can contact Moore directly via his website here.
Olbermann: One complicating issue here—address the charges against Assange in Sweden. Are they—are they a ruse? Are they—are they a front for something else? And even if they are, indeed, something nefarious against him, you are still, in essence, participating in bailing out a man who has been charged with criminal sexual charges, or will be charged under these circumstances. Address that.
Moore: That's the thing. He hasn't been charged. They've brought no criminal charges against him. They want to talk to him about, about— This whole thing stinks to the high heavens. I gotta tell ya. I mean, I—I wasn't born yesterday, but I [laughs]— I've seen this enough times where governments and corporations go after individuals— Geez, wasn't I— I think I was just on your show a couple of weeks ago talking about this—
Olbermann: Uh-huh!
Moore: —with my film and the health care industry. They go after people with this kind of lie and smear. Daniel Ellsberg told you about it last week on how they went after him. This is— We've seen this before. Now, his guilt or innocence of this— I mean, what he said they did— [grinning] and the lawyer said this today in court in London—that what they say he did and the charge is his [rolls eyes] condom broke during consensual sex.
Olbermann: Mm-hmm.
Moore: That is not a crime in Britain, and so they're making the point how can we—how can we extradite him over this? This is all a bunch of hooey as far as I'm concerned! And, and the man at least has a right to be out of prison while awaiting the hearing, and I believe that, that, uh—and this is why I participate in it; this is why I put up a chunk of the bail money, and, um, you know, I'm proud, proud to do it because I think this man and what he's doing, and what his group is doing, is going to save lives.
Olbermann: Filmmaker Michael Moore, who will join Rachel Maddow next week for her leadership series at the 92nd Street Y. Great thanks, and I'm sorry we didn't get to discuss the trade of your Detroit Tigers of Alfredo Figaro to Orix Buffaloes in Japan. Thank you, Michael.
Moore: [laughs] I know. That's okay. Next time!
Olbermann: Next time. It's in WikiLeaks, too. Thank you, Michael.
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the upcoming Anthology of Fuzz: A Year of Daily Cuteitude, by Matilda McEwan, and the rival publication Matilda's Stupid, by Olivia McEwan.
If you enjoy these blogarounds, make sure you stop by Hoyden About Town to check out Tigtog's regular Femmostroppo Reader round-ups, too. She always finds great stuff. The most recent one is here.
[Trigger warning for sexual violence against children.]
There is a terrible story out of Oklahoma about a compound on a rural property comprised of several mobile homes and RVs in which children in residence were sexually abused. Eleven people have been arrested "on complaints ranging from first-degree rape to enabling child abuse."
There's not a whole lot of information available to the public at this point, but my guess is that the three-family community was started by convicted sex offenders whose inclusion on the sex offender registry rendered them unable to live in an established community.
Anyway, I was trying to find more information about the story and wound up at KOCO.com, which is the website for the Oklahoma City ABC affiliate, and, at the top of their article page, I see this:
It's a banner of "Hot Topics" which includes the linked topics: Who Got Arrested? | Sex Offenders | Free Ride Scholarships | Mall Hours.
My first thought was that it might just be an unfortunate result born of some algorithm that generates "Hot Topics" links from accessed content. But no. Clicking on the "Sex Offenders" link takes you not to an archive of stories that are getting lots of hits because of the aforementioned breaking news, but to this page, featuring a KOCO-created "slideshow of Oklahoma sex offenders who have failed to register, according to the Oklahoma Sex and Violent Crime Offender Registry."
The history: Time has not selected an individual woman as its "X of the Year" since then-president of the Philippines Corazon Aquino was named Woman of the Year in 1986. In 1999, Time changed the annual year-end honorific, which had almost exclusively been a "Man of the Year" since its inception, to "Person of the Year," but it merely created an illusion of parity. Still no individual women.
This year, no different. Time's Person of the Year is Mark Zuckerberg, aka Professor Facebook.
(Btw: The last time an individual person of color got the award, before president-elect Barack Obama in 2008, was when AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho was "Man of the Year" in 1996.)
To put into perspective exactly how absurd this parade of white men really is, George W. Bush was "Person of the Year" twice in the last 10 years, in 2000 and 2004.
And, of course, there was the infinitely stupid 2006 cover, which featured a reflective screen and the word "You."
"Person of the Year," my ass. If Time doesn't believe there's been a single individual woman deserving of the title in 24 years, then the least they could do is be honest and go back to calling it what it really is: "Man of the Year."
Because the message being sent by having not found a single woman deserving of the cover in longer than a girl child could be born, attend grammar school and junior high, graduate from high school, graduate from college, get her Master's degree, and settle in at her first job, is not that she could be their "Person of the Year" someday.
It's that she shouldn't waste a dime of her 79-cent-on-the-dollar salary on their garbage magazine.
---------------------
Update: Every year, Time also features runners-up to their "Person of the Year." This year's runners-up are: The Tea Party, Hamid Karzai, Julian Assange, and the Chilean Miners. So no individual women made their list of runners-up, either.
President Obama has appointed Jon Bon Jovi to the newly established White House Council for Community Solutions, which is tasked with "provid[ing] advice to the President on the best ways to mobilize citizens, nonprofits, businesses and government to work more effectively together to solve specific community needs."
The bio of Bon Jovi provided by the White House highlights his work as chairman of the Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation, "a non-profit organization dedicated to helping the lives of those in need."
"To date, Mr. Bon Jovi and the Soul Foundation have provided affordable housing to hundreds of low-income individuals and families."
"He is also totally famous, so he'll be useful in getting people talking about the White House Council for Community Solutions."
I just find this totally amusing. Not in a critical way—I'm familiar with and very supportive of Bon Jovi's philanthropic work and he's always struck me as a very decent and engaged guy. It's just, you know:
White House Appointee Jon Bon Jovi
I don't know there's ever been a White House appointee whose picture once hung on my bedroom wall. Don't get me wrong, Erskine Bowles is foxy as hell, but he's no Jon Bon Jovi.
I've seen a lot of crappy movies in my time. Those I've seen in the theatre, those I've shelled out money for, are pretty embarrassing. (Tango & Cash, anyone?) But the absolute worst would have to be this fiasco:
Nuns on the Run.
What's the worst movie you've ever paid money to see?
by Shaker adrienne_again, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
[Trigger warning for anti-choice terrorism. Please also note that the comment sections of externally linked pieces are not safe spaces.]
On my way to class this morning, a headline on the front page of one of our campus newspapers, The Badger Herald, caught my eye:
UW to stop efforts on abortion services: Madison Surgery Center's clinic halts attempts to offer second-trimester procedures due to safety concerns
At first I thought the "safety concerns" had to do with the procedure itself, but I should have known better. The article goes on:
The main reason UW Health is no longer working to offer these services at MSC is to make sure all patients entering the clinic, regardless of what they are at MSC for, are not harmed by activists, [UW Health spokesperson Lisa Brunette] said.
"We want to make sure anyone going into that building is safe from harm and has their privacy respected," Brunette said.
According to another articleThe Badger Herald published last year, the Madison Surgery Center was hoping to fill the gap in local services left by the retirement, in 2008, of the only doctor in Madison who provided second-trimester abortions.
So basically, anti-choice "activists" have succeeded in using fear and intimidation to eliminate this community's access to a legal medical procedure. As the Herald article reports, "Pro Life Wisconsin spokesperson Virginia Zignego said the announcement […] proves grassroots anti-abortion activism works."
I put "activists" in quotes because there is a point at which activism becomes terrorism. There are many laws in this country that I would like to see changed, and practices that I would like to see abolished, but I would not support the use of violence or physical intimidation to achieve those goals. This success on the part of anti-choice terrorists is part of what Liss has called "a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers."
I felt I had to reach out to the Shakesville community on this topic in part because I don't know how to talk to people in my local community about it. Upon finishing the article, I had to share my anger and frustration with someone—I had the urge to wave the newspaper in the air and exclaim to the people all around me, "Can you BELIEVE this?!"—but I was worried that if I brought it up with my classmates or professor, the discussion would be clouded by debate over the legitimacy of the procedure itself.
(Which underscores how even the nature of the abortion debate has turned into a silencing tactic designed to intimidate people who don't want to debate the ethics of abortion.)
The legitimacy and/or legality of the procedure is not the issue here, for me; I understand both sides of that issue. The issue for me is why any compassionate person, no matter what they believe about abortion in general, and second-trimester abortions in particular, would fail to agree that we need a society in which people can make decisions for themselves and for their health without fear of violent repercussions—and that our medical professionals must be able to make decisions about what services to offer without having to worry whether the safety and privacy of their patients will be compromised by terrorists.
[Trigger warning for homophobia and predatory gay/rape culture narratives.]
Which is worse?
A. Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos suggesting that repealing DADT will endanger the lives of straight soldiers because gay soldiers will be distracted by their uncontrollable sexual urges;
or:
B. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refusing to explicitly condemn Amos' homophobic fuckery.
Pencils down!
If you wrote on your paper: "It's a trick question. They're both contemptible garbage voiced by craven assholes. It's a goddamn tie." give yourself 1,000 points.
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
Stop by 
