So, you probably heard that Keith Olbermann quit/was fired on Friday. Here's the place to talk about it, if you wanna.
If he'd actually been the progressive he was always alleged to be, this would be sad. But he is a fauxgressive whose ideas of justice had boundaries extend only as far as whomever he wants to make fun of, be cruel to, or marginalize as unserious or uncredible. He engaged in misogyny and rape apology on-air, and, for all his rap about accountability and self-reflection, he was rigid in his refusal to address his biases against women.
Olbermann is one of a bunch of straight white guys who became liberal champions during the Bush years just because they publicly hated Bush. That was no small thing, among a media who widely served as uncritical cheerleaders.
But being a progressive is not defined by hating conservatives. And at a time when we need authentic progressives more than ever in this country, that void of affirmative progressive ideals in Bush-era heroes like Olbermann is more glaringly evident than ever.
So the only thing I'm sad about is that his replacement is likely to be even worse.
Olbermann: Out
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for reference to violence.]
"The shooter wins if we, who’ve been elected, change what we do just because of what he did."—Tea Party-Backed Senator Mike Lee (R-epulsive -UT) on why our wonderful elected officials must continue to use violent, eliminationist rhetoric.
When Douches Collide
by Shaker NapalmNacey
Shakers, following is a piece of news so hilariously awful, if I could, I'd frame this shit and put it on the wall with the plaque, "People Are Assholes – An Illustration."
You've been warned.
Remember how Ricky Gervais hosted the Golden Globes, and made fun of everybody in the most offensive way ever? Well, Judd Apatow didn't like it.
I'll let that simmer for a minute. Yeah. Judd Apatow didn't like Hollywood being the butt of thoughtless, horrible jokes.
Producers Guild Awards host Judd Apatow built his opening monologue around a profanity-laced attack on the way Ricky Gervais handled his Golden Globe Awards hosting chores a week earlier in the same room at the Beverly Hilton Hotel.And he didn't just say this as an aside or anything. He centered his WHOLE SPEECH AROUND IT.
"What did you think of Ricky Gervais?" he asked the black-tie industry crowd Saturday night. "I didn't like him. I thought he was mean."
"He had that joke about the guy on Lost," said Apatow. "He said he ate everybody else. Let's be honest—Ricky Gervais just lost weight. Even now he's four pounds away from not being allowed to do a joke like that. Did he lose weight just to make fat jokes? You think that's how mean he is?"Okay, trying to understand the Apatow Code, here. Fat guys—not okay to joke about, especially if you're under the arbitrary Apatow Limit for Fat Jokes. Unless, of course, you're Judd Apatow making a joke about how you're not fat enough to do fat jokes. Or something.
Apatow had no problem with a Gervais joke about Charlie Sheen.Drug addicts and alcoholics – A-OK! Wonderful! Also, let's make fun of people with a long history of violence against women! It's totally funny!
But Apatow added, "(Jay) Leno did it the week before."
"I think he's an OK target," Apatow said of Sheen. "The people at CBS have said as long as he shows up on time, knows his lines, he can do whatever he wants."
All right, but to the serious stuff. Apatow wants Gervais to be FAIR TO MOVIES.
However, Apatow took exception to Gervais making a joke about The Tourist.That's amazing. This from a person who routinely takes the piss out of those whose experiences he's never tried to understand or comprehend. Hey, you've never been a woman, or listened to a woman, but I'm sure you have plenty of grounds to write movies that reduce them down to two or three frustrating and limited stereotypes to serve your story. That's just good comedy! He goes on!
"(Gervais) says the characters were two-dimensional," said Apatow. "Then he says he hasn't seen The Tourist. So as a comedian, that's not fair, is it? To make jokes about a movie you haven't seen.
Apatow also came to the defense of Cher, Hugh Hefner, Tim Allen, Tom Cruise and Robert Downey, Jr.—others who were Gervais targets.Okay, amendments to the Apatow Code: No making fun of men who profit from routinely objectifying the bodies of young women, men who profit from reinforcing the archaic stereotype that men are stupid cavemen who women must corral and tame, or men who promote an institutionally homophobic organization. Also: Hands-off Apatow-approved addicts. (Reminder: Charlie Sheen is AN OKAY TARGET.) I think Cher was probably an afterthought.
"Tim Allen did 200 episodes of Home Improvement. He was in three of the highest grossing movies of all time. And his latest just crossed the one billion mark. Whereas The Invention of Lying made $18 million dollars worldwide...Leave Tim Allen alone."Yes, you just read that. Judd Apatow totally really said that, with a straight face and everything. Apatow's biggest problem with Gervais having viciously mocked celebrities in ways that entrench the marginalization of oppressed people (like fatties, and addicts, and victims of abuse) isn't that it's shitty; it's that he didn't have "the right" to do it because his last film didn't make enough money.
WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS, WITH HIS MEASLY $18 MILLION?
I'll be over here, lolsobbing and being stunned that the great social justice crusader Apatow draws the line at making fun of rich straight white guys.
I'd like to close on an observational quote by my dear friend Apolla: It's like Elvis saying to Liberace, "I think you overdid the rhinestones."
Open Thread
Hosted by the GNK (Gonk) Power Droid.
This week's open threads have been hosted by Star Wars droids.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
Back in high school and college, my BFF Todd and I used to make these ridiculous sketch comedy videos, and one of the recurring themes was a bar (always unseen) named Skadoodlies, to which characters were always flouncing off to, usually after stealing money from someone else's wallet. "I'm off to Skadoodlies!" It was basically our homage to the singles bars of the '80s, which always had names like "Zingers" or "Passions." LOL.
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Quote of the Day
"The radicals have infected the party. They have been brought in by politicians who don't really care about anything. They just want to win. They've been tolerating the revolutionaries—the Democrats have."—Professor Glenn Beck, PhD in Garbageology, ominously warning his viewers about how extremism has infected the Democratic Party.
Daily Dose of Cute
Sophie, mid-stretch.
Olivia, mid-zuh.
Matilda, mid-disdain.
Dudley, running.
Dudley, determined.
Dudley, demonstrating what he is a machine built to do.
Public Comment Period, eh?
[Trigger warning for transphobia]
The State of Illinois has announced proposed revisions to the rules governing the changing of birth certificates.
You can find them here.
Here's my summary of the rules pertaining to changing the sex on one's Illinois birth certificate:
If you're a trans woman, and you want your birth certificate to say you're a woman (and you undoubtedly do), you need to...:
"present the Department with a completed affidavit, signed by a physician licensed to practice medicine in the U.S. or its territories, clearly demonstrating that after a personal examination of the applicant, who provided positive proof of identity in the form of a passport, State/territory-issued driver's license or State/territory-issued photo ID card, the physician has personally determined that [you've got a vagina]."
If you're a trans man, you have to provide an similarly creepy affidavit (from a physician licensed in the U.S.) that details how you don't have a uterus, and do have a penis.
This isn't the worst policy I've seen regarding changing the sex on birth certificates (in some places, you can't change the sex at all), but it's pretty bad. Illinois could do a lot better.
I don't have the energy to explain why this is bullshit. It just is. I don't have a vagina, and I'm a woman. There's my explanation.
If you would like to comment on the proposed revisions to Illinois Vital Records Code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 500), the state has a convenient link that you can access between now and February 28th.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the upcoming dog-owner's memoir, Whooooooops You Got the Too-Small Poop Bags and Now There's Poop on Your Sleeve.
Recommended Reading:
Michelle: Notes on "Heavy" [TW for fat hatred, discussion of disordered eating]
Fannie: Lessons in Feminism from Non-Feminists
Resistance: Asians in the House!
Andy: Hundreds of Long Island High School Students Hold Rally Demanding Gay-Straight Alliance
Renee: Black Women and Beauty
Mustang Bobby: David Brooks vs. History
Midwest GenderQueer: Dear Pop Culture: Leave TransFolk Alone!
Leave your links in comments...
Totally Other People's Problem
[Trigger warning for transphobia]
Cara's got an excellent post up about a proposal to provide employees of Berkeley, California, insurance coverage for "sex reassignment surgery", and the subsequent backlash. She hits it out of the park (I recommend you read the whole thing), but here are a few highlights:
"I’m so sick of debating whether all people deserve access to health care, or just the ones who meet some arbitrary standard of social approval. Until we view health care as a fundamental human right, there’s always going to be someone who is undeserving of it — whether it be because they’re poor, or sex workers, or disabled, or trans, or in need of care related to their reproductive organ that offends somebody’s sensibilities. Until health care is a fundamental human right, there will always be someone whose life is not worth as much as 'our' tax dollars.
At the same time, it’s important to remember that even framing health care as a fundamental human right still wouldn’t fully solve the problem. 'Human rights' rarely end up applying to those who society still sees as less than human, and even 'universal health care' rarely works out well for trans people. So health care as right or not, until trans folks are properly understood to be just as human and deserving as cis folks, the equation of 'our' (super special cis-only) tax dollars being worth more than trans lives is unlikely to change."
I think I can offer some additional perspective here.
By an amazing coincidence, I happened to make my annual trip to the endocrinologist this morning. We spent time chatting about how things were going with transition. I brought up "surgery", and quickly dismissed it out of hand (money, etc.,). I didn't even need to bring the subject up, because she knew. That's how it is for pretty much all trans folk.
Here's the fun part: I have insurance that ostensibly covers "the surgery."*
I'm not clear on whether Berkeley is setting up a vaginafund** or whether it's planning to purchase better insurance, but here's the thing about insurance:
Even with good insurance, gender transition is incredibly expensive. If you're a trans woman, it's pretty likely that you'll be paying for electrolysis and facial hair removal-- typically anywhere from US $3k to US $10K. I'm not aware of any insurance that covers cost, including the health care systems in godless socialist countries.
Many insurance companies don't cover psychotherapy, which is a huge gate-keeping hurdle and is also many times useful because OMFG transphobia. This lack of coverage isn't always necessary exclusive because of transphobia, but also because psychotherapy is generally not covered, as society tends to code mental health needs as feminine.
There are surgeries that aren't "the surgery."* Trans men often need mastectomies. Trans women often need facial reconstruction and breast augmentation surgeries. And no, we're not going to debate this. Because society views non-genital surgery as cosmetic, health insurers often don't cover these surgeries either-- and this isn't just a problem in the US.
Then there's reproductive health care. If you're a trans woman, anti-androgens should (hopefully) make you sterile. Given that adoption while trans is, um, difficult, this tends to leave artificial insemination of a cissexual loved one or surrogate the only option. Even if you're fortunate to have insurance coverage for fertility services, you're likely on your own for collection and storage of, uh, "specimens", presumably you can find a clinic you can work with.
And then there's "the surgery."* I theoretically have insurance coverage for "the surgery."* I've verified that Blue Cross will pick up my hospital bills. An unnamed provider may well reimburse me for a portion of the surgeon's fees, but I need to pay surgeon fees (maybe around $10k) upfront. It gets complicated. For the record, I'm actually with the surgeons' on this one. To hell with my unnamed insurance provider.
Oh, and since I don't live in a town where they do "the surgery"*, I'm responsible for travel, and lodging for loved ones.
In other words, even with insurance, gender transition is extraordinarily expense. More to the point, even with insurance, most trans people can't get the health care they need. I have no reason to believe the situation in Berkeley would be any different were this proposal be passed. It's a good start, but as Cara says, we need to do far more. The idea that Berkeley will be paying for "sex changes" is a canard. Berkeley is thinking about giving modest assistance to help their trans employees with their massive health care bills. Good on them.
--
I'd be remiss if I didn't address Businessweek's OMFGAwexome!!!11! analysis of the situation:
"Berkeley, California, facing $252.8 million in deficits for pensions, disability and worker’s compensation, may set aside $20,000 a year to reimburse municipal employees for sex-reassignment surgery."
LOLOLOgoLOLOtoLOLOLOhellLsob.
Facing a $252.80 million dollar deficit, Berkeley is thinking about setting aside $0.02 million dollars to somewhat offset the medical needs of trans employees. Alternatively: $252,800,000 deficit, Berkeley is thinking about setting aside $20,000 dollars to somewhat offset the medical needs of trans employees. Incidentally, this would increase Berkeley's deficit to $252,820,000, which rounds to $252.8 million. Assholes.
As a public employee and trans person, this is business as usual (times two!). We'll give you kibble, but only a bit, and only when things are going really well for us. When the economy is going to hell and/or we don't feel like collecting taxes, you're on you own.
Has anyone insinuated that employers' insurance should hold off on paying for boner pills due to the economy? I thought not.
--
* So, I like to refer to all surgeries as "the surgery," although in this case I am specifically referring to genital surgery. This is one of my reclamation projects, though.
** Yeah, you probably shouldn't repeat this. I just get the giggles when saying vaginafund, even though trans health doesn't necessarily involve vaginas. Lots of things don't involve vaginas.
I'm So Glad We Elected a Democrat, Part One Billion and Two
Kerry Eleveld in the Washington Post: "Less than a month after President Obama repealed 'don't ask, don't tell,' his Justice Department filed its latest brief defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act—the law that makes gay Americans second-class citizens by outlawing federal recognition of their legal marriages."
Ugh, Obama. Just ugh.
But kudos to Eleveld for writing a piece that challenges Obama to Do Better. I also love (LOVE!) the way she casually destroys the insufferable mendacity that is Obama's "evolving position" on marriage equality:
Given that openly gay men and women would soon be fighting and, in some cases, dying for their country, I wondered whether the president thought it was time that those women and men be entitled to full marriage rights.Why, hello there, devastating parenthetical! So nice to see you!
"Like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this," Obama responded. "What I know is that, at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples."
His current position on gay marriage - that this is an issue he struggles with as he watches his gay and lesbian friends marry and create loving households - goes beyond his 2008 campaign stance, which was simply to support civil unions. (Earlier in his political career, as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, Obama supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples.)
It's one thing for a politician who never went on record in support of marriage equality to use the old "my position is evolving" chestnut, which is still absurd and craven and a barf-inducingly transparent way of confessing, "I don't want to lead on marriage equality, but I'm perfectly happy to follow," but it's quite another kettle of bullshit fish for a politician who once supported marriage equality to use the same line.
Unless we're to believe that Obama's attitudes are actually evolving backwards.
Anyway, Kerry Eleveld also wrote the recent Advocate profile of Secretary Clinton, about which we got into an interesting discussion regarding how much attention was paid to Clinton's position on marriage equality, during which I said: "In instances where a writer knows a public figure's personal opinion is where they'd like it to be, I imagine that can make them less inclined to attack their public position." With that in mind, comparing Eleveld's pieces on Clinton and Obama is, um, interesting.
I'm So Glad We Elected a Democrat, Part One Billion and One
When (one half of) the economy is in free-fall, definitely the best thing to do is keep pandering to the half that's doing awesome, because trickle-down economics totally works and has not been comprehensibly discredited by 30 years of demonstrable evidence of its utter failure. Also: You should totally hire someone who's in touch with the plight of the hoi polloi to run your Economic Advisory Panel, like an executive from GE:
President Barack Obama will name Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric Co.'s chief executive officer, to head his outside panel of economic advisers, replacing former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.Immelt is "a self-described Republican" who "counts former President Ronald Reagan as a personal hero" and thinks that Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts was one of the "real positives" of Obama's presidency.
Immelt wrote in an op-ed today in the Washington Post that Obama asked him to take the helm of the newly renamed President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The group will reach out to labor and business leaders to serve "as a catalyst for action," he wrote.
Cool! He sounds SO COOL.
On Kermit Gosnell
[Trigger warning for descriptions of violence, medical malpractice.]
Dr. Kermit Gosnell is a doctor in Pennsylvania who, despite having no certification in gynecology or obstetrics, has been offering late-term abortion services. I say "offering abortion services," as opposed to "performing abortions," because, although he did perform abortions, he also did things that are not abortion.
Dr. Gosnell is being arraigned "on eight counts of murder in the deaths of seven babies and one patient," not because he performed abortions, but because he terminated pregnancies well beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks, and, in his unsanitary clinic staffed with people who had no medical training, he would induce labor and then kill viable newborns by severing their spinal cords. (There is more detailed information about the gruesome case here.)
This case is already being used by anti-choice advocates as evidence for why abortion should be criminalized. But, in fact, the opposite is true: It is because of the increasingly limited access to safe, affordable, first-term abortion, as well as safe, affordable, late-term therapeutic abortion, that a heinous anomaly like Gosnell exists. He is an unethical opportunist who made lots of money exploiting desperate women without a better alternative.
Situations like this one will not be prevented by limiting abortion, but by making it more widely accessible. There is a terrible irony in the argument to limit abortion in response to this ugliness, because limiting access will only ensure that clinics run by unprincipled and untrained people will proliferate.
A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will do anything she can to not be pregnant. Including going to a charlatan in a filthy clinic. That is a reality. The only serious conversation to be had is how we address that reality in a way that preserves the safety of breathing patients.
Anything else is just rubbish. And talk of limiting access to abortion as an effective response to Gosnell-style butchery is truly the stuff of fairy tales.
See also: Amie Newman, Jill Filipovic, Amanda Hess, Daniel Denvir, and Michelle Goldberg.
Minnesota Newz- Science Edition
When people in Upstate New York find out I'm from Minnesota, they usually nod and say: 'So the weather's pretty much the same, then.'
No. No it's not. Upstate, we get a fuckton of snow. In Syracuse, we've already got 1.8 biebers of snow (1.8 bbrz; 117 inches). Today it is snowing. Like it did yesterday. Like it will do tomorrow.
But in Minnesota, it's cold. Pretty much every winter, there's a day where it's just ridiculous. Today is a particularly good example; overnight lows in Southern Minnesota were typically between 15 and 30 below. Obviously, it was even colder up north.
Here's a video of some friends of a friend to illustrate the phenomenon:
Science! :jazzhands:
Transcript belowOff-screen: Rollin'
Narrator: So I've got a cup of boiling water. Hopefully you can see the steam there, and we are going outside in Northfield Minnesota in January where the temperature is approaching thirty below...
[Steps outside, the door creaks like its approaching thirty below out]
Narrator: ..and what I am going to show you is how at thirty below temperatures, boiling water can instantly vaporize into a cloud.
[Throws water into the air, and it instantly vaporizes into a fucking cloud.]
Narrator: And that's what we do for fun in Minnesota.
Off-screen: [Laughter]
"Whoa, this must be a fuckin' dream; there's a fuckin' dwarf in it!"
These are the things you need to know about me: I'm a progressive, I will not eat eggs under any circumstances, and I've had a ridiculously ardent crush on Peter Dinklage since I saw Living in Oblivion in 1995.
This, from the aforementioned film, remains one of my favorite movie scenes of all time:
Nick [Steve Buscemi]: Look, Tito, it's not that big of a deal. It's a dream. Strange things happen in a dream. All I want you to do is laugh. Why is that such a problem for you?The first time I saw that was the moment I fell madly in crush with Peter Dinklage, a fancy that is well-known to pretty much everyone who knows me, since I evangelize The Station Agent like it's a holy text. When the casting for Game of Thrones was announced, I got like half a dozen emails, and I can barely wait for its premiere later this year.
Tito [Peter Dinklage]: Why does it have to be a dwarf?
Nick: What?!
Tito: Why does my character have to be a dwarf?
Nick: It doesn't have to be a dwarf.
Tito: [laughs contemptuously] Then why is he? Is that the only way you can make this a dream—put a dwarf in it?!
Nick: No, Tito, I—
Tito: Have you ever had a dream with a dwarf in it? Do you know anyone who's had a dream with a dwarf in it? NOOOOOO! I don't even have dreams with dwarves in them. The only place I've seen dwarves in dreams is in stupid movies like this! "Oh, make it weird; put a dwarf in it!" Everyone will go: "Whoa whoa whoa, this must be a fuckin' dream; there's a fuckin' dwarf in it!" Well, I'm sick of it! You can take this dream sequence and shove it up your ass!
[Tito storms out; the crew shifts uncomfortably; Nick looks stricken and perplexed and collapses into his director's chair.]
Anyway. This was basically just an unnecessarily long introduction to noting there's a really nice interview with Peter Dinklage in Vanity Fair.
And also? If you haven't seen The Station Agent, you totes should.
Just...sick.
One of the things I particularly enjoy about our library (and wider library system) is that they have all kinds of programming--for little bitty kids up to adults. Book groups, speakers, performances, classes, and even movie showings. Something for everyone.
The library in Enfield, CT, seems to have a similar ideal. This is their mission statement on their website:
It is the mission of The Enfield Public Library to provide multiple resources to meet the educational, cultural, recreational, and technological needs of the community. Through excellent customer service, we offer equitable access to all and create a friendly and safe atmosphere of learning. We are proud to serve the greater Enfield community and look forward to an exciting future fulfilling the diverse needs of our Town.Nice, eh?
But it seems the library has run into a problem fulfilling that mission at the moment. You see, the library decided to show a film series--for adults, in the middle of the afternoons on Friday-- on "controversial" topics. The next movie scheduled was supposed to be Michael Moore's Sicko. Yes, supposed to be, as it is no longer in the line up. Why? Well, because someone complained about their tax dollars paying for "a Fidel Castro loving" filmmaker's movie being shown at the library and the mayor said "pull it or we pull your funding". Sadly, those really are only slight paraphrases:
ENFIELD — The Enfield Public Library on Wednesday canceled Friday’s screening of filmmaker Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Sicko” under pressure from most Town Council members and the mayor, who threatened to cut the library’s funding if the film was shown.Yes. Yes that did say what you thought it just said.
In less than 24 hours, what started as a resident’s complaint during Tuesday’s council meeting about the library’s upcoming showing of the film has drawn the attention of state civil liberties and library groups that could lead to legal action against the town.
The screening of “Sicko,” Moore’s 2007 Academy Award-nominated documentary that critiqued the American health care system, was to have been part of the library’s new nonfiction film series.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, resident Kevin Fealy brought the upcoming screening to the council’s attention, urging it to pressure the library to cancel the movie, saying he didn’t want the town “to promote material such as this on my tax dollars.”
After several council members objected to the screening, Mayor Scott R. Kaupin, a Republican, asked Town Manager Matthew W. Coppler to talk to the library’s director, Henry Dutcher, about canceling the film.
“The sentiment by the majority is that it’s a poor choice and that they should definitely reconsider,” Kaupin said. “And if they don’t reconsider, then they’re going to have the repercussions of the council.
“I mean, in the end, when budget time comes and Mr. Dutcher is asking for funding” for the films, Kaupin said, “he’s going to have to answer for it.”
Dutcher said the Moore film was the second in an occasional series of nonfiction films chosen by his staff featuring subject matter ranging from health care to education and the environment. The first film, A PBS “Frontline” documentary about health care called “Sick Around the World,” was screened on Jan. 7.I...I don't even know what to say to this. Seriously?!
Upcoming films in the series include “An Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore’s film about climate change, and “Trouble the Waters,” a documentary about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Kaupin said the library should steer clear of controversial material like “Sicko.”
“I don’t even know why people make these decisions to go down those paths. It’s stupid. It’s like, it just blows my mind that people try to push the envelope with the public dime,” Kaupin said. “Do nice stuff. Do uncontroversial, or if you want to step in the mode of being controversial, make sure it’s fair on both sides and it becomes a discussion.”
“And it’s not a ‘fun flick,’” he said, referring to the name of the library’s film series. “A fun flick to me would be ‘Finding Nemo.’”
Alaimo [Dominic], who is also chairman of the Thompsonville Board of Fire Commissioners, said at Tuesday’s meeting that canceling the screening is not censorship because the film is “available anywhere you want.”See, when the council, the mayor, the city manager lean on the library director and the mayor says things like: "“And if they don’t reconsider, then they’re going to have the repercussions of the council. I mean, in the end, when budget time comes and Mr. Dutcher is asking for funding, he’s going to have to answer for it.”....that is censorship. It doesn't GET much clearer than that. Censorship isn't something that only happens in "Red China", it's something that happens in Enfield and you're supporting it, Mr. Alaimo.
“Censorship does not start from the bottom and work up. Censorship starts in like Red China, Russia,” Alaimo said. “Everywhere you go, they stop something right from coming into the country.
“This is not a place for kids to watch this kind of stuff when you have somebody who thinks Fidel Castro is a great guy, he thinks all these other people who are suppressive in other countries — this is what this guy is all about,” Alaimo said of Moore.
Krissy Bates Update
[Trigger warning for violence.]
Last Thursday, I wrote about Krissy Bates, a trans woman who was murdered last week. Yesterday, a man was arrested for the crime; he was reportedly dating Krissy.
I hope that his relationship with Krissy will preempt the loathsome "trans panic" defense, and yet fear that somehow it won't.
Additionally: OutFront Minnesota has planned a vigil of remembrance in honor of Krissy, which is tonight at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College at 6pm. If any local Shakers would like to attend, there is more information available here.
[Thanks very much to Shaker GoldFishy for the update.]
