"Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. It's knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do."—Atticus Finch, in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird.
The Thing Is, Rapists Lie
[Trigger warning for sexual assault.]
Greg Mitchell, who I normally really respect, just retweeted the following:
RT @DanielEllsberg Sex charges against Assange are grave, but having heard his account personally, I believe they're false and slanderous.That's an interesting thing to say, for lots of reasons.
I wonder if Ellsberg has also personally heard the accounts of Assange's accusers, and found them unconvincing. I doubt it.
I suspect that he just assumes that they would sound like liars, were he to speak to them, because Assange sounded sincere. And why would he not make that assumption? One of the key narratives of the rape culture is that false accusations are extremely common. (They are not.)
Or maybe he just assumes that rapists are easily identifiable, that he can suss out a rapist by talking to him. Unlike the stupid women who trust them, date them, marry them, work alongside them unawares. Until.
It's funny, ahem, how much implicit victim-blaming is embedded in the assertion to know a man has been wrongly accused.
The truth is, it doesn't really matter what Assange or his accusers sound like to Ellsburg, or anyone else. Because sounding honest and being honest are often mutually exclusive concepts.
And rapists are excellent liars.
Who sounds credible is frequently cited as a sound method of determining the veracity of rape allegations, and that is one of the primary reasons that justice remains so frustratingly elusive in the majority of sexual assault cases.
Dishonesty comes with the territory. Vanishingly few accused rapists are inclined to be honest about their crimes, for what ought to be evident reasons, and, further, rapists know they can rely on a breathtaking scope of rape apologia to contextualize and excuse their behavior. It is accusers, survivors, who sound like the liars, the fantasists, as they stammer and fume in the face of an entire culture primed to disbelieve them.
And even if they are credible, and taken seriously, adjudicators (official and amateur) shrug their shoulders and murmur phrases like "he said, she said." Impossible to know.
Sounding innocent isn't proof of innocence.
Like Daniel Ellsberg listening to Julian Assange, I personally heard my rapist's account of what happened between us. He sounded sincere. His cool recounting made my charges seem false and slanderous to the men who were listening.
He was lying.
I don't know if Julian Assange is guilty or innocent of the allegations made against him. I do know, however, that Daniel Ellsberg's opinion of his truthfulness is evidence of exactly nothing.
Science: Atheists are Angry Liars
CNN: Anger at God common, even among atheists.
So the researchers in question are recruiting volunteers for a study on anger at God. I'm not signing up for that-- I'm not even *not* angry at "God", because I don't subscribe to one of the big three Western religions. The "atheists" that did sign up were undoubtedly the ones that were really interested in God. Duh.
Selection bias + popular narrative = media sensation. See also: every Science Times story on sex and gender.
Also:
It seems that more religious people are less likely to feel angry at God and more likely to see his intentions as well-meaning, Exline's research found. [emphasis mine]
Sure, uh-huh.
Just like with people in your life, you can respect and feel anger toward God at the same time. And you can move toward forgiveness by reframing the way you view the negative event: Perhaps God was not responsible for it or that he acted in that way for a reason [emphasis mine]
Perhaps. Or definitely not, in the case of my fellow atheists. :headdesk:
CNN also recommends that you read about how "Atheists are not so smart after all." Because CNN is an asshole. It's a story about atheists scoring better than average on some quiz about religion. I know.
[A screen capture of CNN's website, listing five articles "We recommend", including the aforementioned article on atheists not being so smart, and as a bonus: "Memo to Women: Please stop faking!"]
Oh, I Get It. He's Actually a Comedian.
And his presidency is performance art. Like Kaufman, only grander and no kooky accents.
Now it all makes sense. Because this is fucking hilarious:
Obama did not specifically address the GOP's plans [to immediately try to repeal the health care reform law], but acknowledged, "there's gonna be politics, that's what happens in Washington" when asked if he expects a chilly reception from the new Republican majority.Ha ha! Good one, Obama. HIGH FIVE!
"They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time. But I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we are creating a competitive economy for the 21st Century," Obama said.
Breaking News: Scalia's an Asshole
Not for the first time, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has asserted that "the Constitution's 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee protection against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation."
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex," Scalia told California Lawyer. "The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that."Marcia D. Greenberger, founder of the National Women's Law Center, underlines one inherent problem with Scalia's position: "In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them. But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011."
Scalia, long known to be a constitutional "originalist" and a conservative stalwart on the Supreme Court, argued that it's up to legislatures to pass laws that protect women against discrimination, and doing so wouldn't be unconstitutional.
"If indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society," he said. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box."
...Scalia's position on gender and sexual orientation discrimination is nothing new. The Reagan-appointed justice told an audience last summer that the 14th Amendment doesn't protect women because that wasn't the intent of the amendment when it was written in 1868.
He also said the Roe V. Wade decision that struck down laws against abortion was based on "a total absurdity."
And Big Tent Democrat underlines another inherent problem here: "What Scalia says is that even though the original understanding of the 14th Amendment would, if applied today, prohibit gender discrimination, since in 1868 it was understood not to, then the 19th Amendment was necessary to give women the vote. This leaves Scalia with a significant problem in my view - what of other forms of gender discrimination? To me, Scalia's statements require him to state that other forms of gender discrimination are CONSTITUTIONAL."
Scalia takes originalism to a ludicrous degree. His position does not reflect the thoughtfulness and nuance that any US citizen has the right to expect of one of the nine people chosen to make the nation's most difficult legal decisions. It is, instead, approximately as sophisticated as a child who still believes his daddy can't ever be wrong.
That is, quite evidently, not good enough for the marginalized people in this country who frequently have to depend on the Supreme Court for access and equality.
Which is, of course, the point.
Scalia isn't a stupid fella. He's just a bigot. A bigot with a lifetime appointment to make decisions about the rights and lives of people against whom he holds deeply entrenched bigotry.
In a decent country, there would be outrage about that unambiguous injustice sitting square in the middle of the Supreme Court. But in this country, it barely gets noticed. After all, there's no explicit right to fairness for marginalized people in the Constitution.
As Justice Antonin Scalia will happily tell you.
Cuomo to Take One for His Team
New New York (try again) Governor Andrew Cuomo just announced that he'll be returning 5% of his gubernatorial salary.
Shocking coincidence: The State of New York's contracts with many of its largest public employee unions (I'm a member of one of these) will expire soon.
Shocking fact: Politicians and the media are really vilifying public employees these days.
I just don't have the energy to fully go into the war on public employees (FWIW, my father is and grandmother was a public employee, so I'm used to it), but I do have a couple of issues.
1) Just as entitlement programs aren't *the* problem with the US Federal budget, public employees' wages and benefits aren't *the* problem with state and local budgets. Didja know that lately New York State has generated around 20 percent of its income from the taxes paid by Wall Street paper shufflers? This would seem to indicate a systemic problem. New Yorkers used to make steel and chemicals and air conditioners.
IMO, New York's never figured out what (or perhaps more appropriately, if) to do about the rust belt. Granted, issues arising from global capitalism are best tackled globally, but it'd be good to at least see New York State's leaders acknowledge Upstate New York in a way that doesn't involve vague references to Ma, Pa, and flannel.
2) We're not all in this together. Well, we should be, but the notion that if 'we' all do our 'fair share' of sacrificing 'we' can pull through this is bullshit. The Governor of New York is giving back several thousand dollars on what is a $179,000 salary.
While as far as I'm concerned, $179,000 is an eminently reasonable salary for a state's top executive (hint, hint...), this number doesn't count the Governor's assets, including the house he shares with someone who's a national television personality. I haven't talked to Cuomo's financial advisor lately, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that he has a financial advisor.
While New York's public employees do have jobs (at least a lot of us still do), it's a bit disingenious to imply that we need to sacrifice for the good of 'the team.' We sacrifice every other Wednesday (or Tuesday, if we have direct deposit-- speaking of which, I am so buying groceries tonight). Sometimes we go to the doctor, sometimes we don't.
And while public employees might count ourselves lucky to get paid money to do unimportant work and to possibly retire with pensions that governments may or may not default upon, it's hardly fair to use other people's misfortune (which is also ours, given that many of our households rely on income from the private sector, too) as an excuse to call for public employees to 'share' the pain. As I see it, governments are supposed to be the ones setting the example here. Perhaps that's the problem.
Most USians are already doing their share of sacrificing. While I don't begrudge Cuomo's faux-sacrifice, let's be clear about what it is: another attempt by a member of the ruling class to pretend to do hir share to get the country out of the mess the wealthy created for their own benefit. We don't need charity. We need change, and that includes revisiting the policies that led to the massive inequalities in wealth that make such grand gestures possible.
Discussion Thread: Good Relationship/Sex Advice
[Trigger warning: Many of the responses to this question may reference narratives of the rape culture, by way of being good advice that one does not have to abide by the "conventional wisdom" that is the superfluity of consent.]
As the natural follow-up to yesterday's thread on terrible relationship/sex advice, this thread is about the best advice we've ever gotten.
Please note that advice or mentoring regarding sexual orientation (including asexuality) and/or gender presentation are absolutely on topic for this thread.
What is the best advice you've ever gotten about dating, romantic relationships, marriage, or sex?
Question of the Day
What was the last resolution/promise you made to yourself that you kept?
It can be something as simple as "go to the grocery store tonight even though I don't feel like it" or something as life-changing as "change careers."
Buh-Bye
Navy Captain Owen Honors, commander of the USS Enterprise, who aired "raunchy videos" for his crew, which were rife with homophobia, misogyny, and what I'll generously call sexually inappropriate jokes, will be temporarily relieved of his command during an official inquiry.
It will be remarkable if Honors still has a career after the investigation is complete.
Watching the clips of his videos (which I don't recommend) is like watching an episode of The Office. I kept waiting for him to say, "I'm an entertainer first, a naval commander second." Yikes.
Quote of the Day
Seriously, what we're looking at over the next few years, even with pretty good growth, are unemployment rates that not long ago would have been considered catastrophic — because they are. Behind those dry statistics lies a vast landscape of suffering and broken dreams. And the arithmetic says that the suffering will continue as far as the eye can see.—Paul Krugman.
So what can be done to accelerate this all-too-slow process of healing? A rational political system would long since have created a 21st-century version of the Works Progress Administration — we'd be putting the unemployed to work doing what needs to be done, repairing and improving our fraying infrastructure. In the political system we have, however, Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte, delivering the Republican weekly address on New Year's Day, declared that "Job one is to stop wasteful Washington spending."
Discussion Thread: Terrible Relationship/Sex Advice
[Trigger warning: Many of the responses to this question may be vague or explicit narratives of the rape culture.]
Maybe you were the child of a parent who substituted antiquated adages for serious discussions about dating and/or sex. Maybe you had awful religious instruction about dating and/or sex. Maybe you're gay/bi and constantly get heterocentrist dating advice from coworkers. Maybe you're someone who doesn't seem to have any friends who aren't fully indoctrinated defenders of the rape culture. Maybe everyone around you is smart enough to give good advice (or none at all), but you still hear shit advice like "you're only complete with a partner" in the movies.
Whoever you are and whatever your experiences, we've all gotten shitty messages on dating and/or sex. This thread is about the worst advice we've ever gotten.
What is the worst advice you've ever gotten about dating, romantic relationships, marriage, or sex?
Daily Dose of Cute
Video Description: Dudley will do anything for that kefir at the bottom of my glass, and uses his looooong tongue from every angle to get every last smidgen he can possibly reach.
As always, still pix of all the furry residents of Shakes Manor below the fold (on most browsers)...
Lady Olivia Pounceworthy
Sophs in Silhouette
Matilda, Long and Fuzzy
"Whatever it was, I didn't do it. I was on the moon. With Sophie!"
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the upcoming DIY guide Deeky's Weatherproofing Wonderland.
Recommended Reading:
susiemaye: Crunk List 2010
Andy: New Hampshire Braces for Attempted Theft of Gay Marriage in 2011
Jaclyn: The (Nonexistent) Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Consequences of Enthusiastic Consent [TW for sexual violence]
Paddy: David Brooks Tells New Yorkers to "Suck It Up"
Dave: The World Is Socialist
Echidne: The Decline Effect
Leave your links in comments...
Adventures in Journalism
CNN is reporting that Dollar General is set to hire 6000 new employees in 2011:
"The news is part of what many economists believe is a brightening employment picture nationwide."
File under: Trying, Not Even.
Two Facts
[Trigger warning for discussion of adoption.]
1. The New York Times is still paying Ross Douthat to peddle conservative dogma in the guise of milquetoast garbage columns.
2. Douthat's primary audience is comprised of rocks, lamps, and other inanimate objects, because his garbage arguments don't pass even the most cursory scrutiny by sentient beings.
Example One:
[I]t was a victory for realism, at least, when MTV decided to supplement its hit reality shows "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom" with last week's special, "No Easy Decision," which followed Markai Durham, a teen mother who got pregnant a second time and chose abortion.Now, I actually watched "No Easy Decision," and to assert that it was "resolutely pro-choice" is mendacious to the point of hilarity. Here are just some of the "resolutely pro-choice" moments to which viewers were witness: Durham sobbing while speaking to someone at the abortion clinic on the phone; Durham yelling at her boyfriend for referring to the embryo as a "thing" because it could become a baby like the one they already have; Durham talking about needing counseling following the abortion; another woman who had an abortion saying she had no regrets or guilt, then later bursting into tears while talking about her sister's son, born around the time of her abortion.
MTV being MTV, the special's attitude was resolutely pro-choice.
Granted, I'm just a cold-hearted steampunk abortion robot with a vast empty echo of tin where my soul should be, but I would argue that for anything to be described as "resolutely pro-choice," it has to show at least one of the millions of women for whom abortion was not a sorrowful choice, so it doesn't play into the resolutely anti-choice narrative that all women who have abortions are haunted by their decision. This is not the case.
Example Two:
In every era, there's been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today.Leave it to a privileged conservative dude to talk about "tragedy" being bridged by adoption, carelessly eliding, willfully or ignorantly, the frequent tragedy of being a birth mother.
He complains that people on MTV's special "swaddle abortion in euphemism," but he, like so many other good "pro-lifers," renders birth mothers invisible, casually speaking about "lives that might have been welcomed into families [but were] cut short in utero instead," as if those hypothetical lives are born in vacuums, as if euphemizing a medical procedure is somehow more distasteful than tacitly reducing actual women to incubators for privileged families who want babies, preferably white ones.
It's feminists, pro-choicers, who are supposed to be the cold-hearted sociopaths who don't respect human life, but Douthat's column is, at its essence, little more than the bitter complaint of a market-revering conservative that legal abortion interferes with what ought to be a splendid business arrangement: There are women who can have babies they don't want, and women who want babies they can't have.
And like all good conservatives, who seek to deny opportunities to unprivileged people so that privileged people can get what they want (like soldiers to fight their wars, and maids to clean their toilets), Douthat imagines that if it weren't for Roe, and the opportunity it provides, everyone could be happy.
Where "everyone" equals People Like Him.
Photo of the Day
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right, poses for a picture with newly sworn-in Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff at the Planalto presidential palace in Brasilia, Brazil, Saturday Jan. 1, 2011. Rousseff was inaugurated as Brazil's first female president and sworn in Saturday. [AP Photo]
What the heck is going on in Arkansas?
Arkansas game officials probe mystery of falling birds:
Arkansas game officials hope testing scheduled to begin Monday will solve the mystery of why up to 5,000 birds fell from the sky just before midnight New Year's Eve.Arkansas game officials probe mystery of massive fish kill:
The birds -- most of which were dead -- were red-winged blackbirds and starlings, and they were found within a one-mile area of Beebe, about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said. Birds fell over about a one-mile area, the commission said in a statement.
Arkansas officials are investigating the death of an estimated 100,000 fish in the state's northwest, but suspect disease was to blame, a state spokesman said Sunday.Disease is suspected in the fish deaths because only one species was affected. Officials speculate the birds were killed by a lightning strike(s), high-altitude hail, or New Year's Eve fireworks.
Dead drum fish floated in the water and lined the banks of a 20-mile stretch of the Arkansas River near Ozark, about 125 miles northwest of Little Rock, said Keith Stephens of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
...Ozark is about 125 miles west of the town of Beebe, where game wardens are trying to find out why up to 5,000 blackbirds fell from the sky just before midnight New Year's Eve.
RIP birds and fishies.
