[Trigger warning for stalking, heterocentrism, and for ableist language at the link.]
In love? Don't get stuck on stupid.
I have a real issue with taking it as read that everyone acts "ridiculous" when they are in the throes of a crush, if "ridiculous" is defined as "finding pathetic excuses to call again when he doesn't call back right away, or scheming to run into her outside her office 'by accident'."
I also have a real issue with the idea that getting married (which, of course, not everyone is even legally allowed to do) is an instant remedy for acting "ridiculous." Getting married is not a magical cure for insecurity and/or entitlement.
In fact, marriage (or any other long-term commitment) actually stands to exacerbate feelings of insecurity and/or entitlement in people who enter the partnership expecting it to salve a lack of confidence or an insidious possessiveness.
Positing marriage as a solution to "creepiness" is absurd. And very nearly as objectionable as normalizing and minimizing stalking behavior as some sort of universal "creepiness" in which we all engage, because love makes us fools.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Oscars Open Thread
Hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway speak onstage during the 83rd Annual Academy Awards held at the Kodak Theatre on February 27, 2011 in Hollywood, California. [Getty Images]
The Oscars Virtual Pub Is Open
Make your predictions here! Which actors will take home the golden statuette? Which films will win? What horrible thing will the writers have given James Franco to say that will make us all weep?
Admire the red carpet fashion here! Whose dress would you wear? Whose dress would you never wear? Which guy has managed to make a tux look vaguely interesting and nearly distinguishable from all the other tuxes? [Please note that body policing is off limits. You may discuss the fashions, but don't let that spill over into bodysnarking.]
Comment on the show here! Once it starts, settle in with a drink and your favorite chips-n-dip (or whatever your Oscar fare), and discuss the show! Have fun, because JAMES FRANCO!!!
Woot! It's Oscar Night!
Quote of the Day
"He did his award show and he bombed. Why is he trying to get in on ours? Horrible. His lines weren't good on the Golden Globes. Why does he want to do our lines?"—James Franco, after reading the unsolicited opening script for the Oscars that Ricky Gervais wrote for Franco and Anne Hathaway.
Titter.
[H/T to Shaker Courtney.]
Happy Birthday, Misty!
Open Thread
Hosted by little crocheted Pac-Man plushies.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by Pac-Man stuff.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Photo of the Day
James Franco, best actor nominee for his role in 127 Hours, arrives at the nominees luncheon for the 83rd annual Academy Awards in Beverly Hills, California. [Reuters Pictures]For those who are into that sort of thing, whether film nerds or drama nerds or fashion nerds or Renaissance nerds with multiple areas of nerdy satiated by self-congratulatory film industry extravaganzas, yes there will be an Oscars Open Thread on Sunday, because James Franco.
Daily Dose of Cute
Although greyhounds are not among the smartest breeds, ahem, bless their hearts, and have a reputation for not being particularly trainable, Dudley has easily learned a variety of commands. It's not that he's exceptionally brilliant, and it's not my mad dog-training skillz; it's just that he'll do anything for food. ANYTHING.
Naturally, I've exploited this discovery for both obedience and cuteness in order to teach him sit, down, up, back, come, wait, leave it, and his latest trick, shake, which he literally learned in about five minutes, because CHEESE!!!eleventy!
He'll do as asked for a regular old crappy treat, no problem. But when there's a HIGH VALUE TREAT on offer, he does everything with a hilarious sense of kinetic urgency, so he can secure the prize NOWNOWNOW and then run off into my office with it, where he luxuriates on his giant pillow, savoring every last morsel.
[Transcript below.]
The funny thing about the "touch" training is that Dudley has started spontaneously using it to communicate with us about what he wants/needs. When he needs to go out, if I'm taking too long getting my coat and boots on, he waits until I'm looking at him then touches the doorknob with his nose. "Here! Turn this thingy! Let's go!" When he wants to get into the car, he touches the door handles with his nose. "Here! Pull this thingy so I can get in!" If I offer him two closed hands, one with cheese inside and one with a cherry tomato (which he hates, like all vegetables, lol), he'll touch the cheese hand. "This one, please!" Too cute.
Dudley lies down on the rug in the living room. Liss: "Oh-h-h! Are you a good boy? You are?" Dudley nods; Liss moves closer and holds out her fist. "Can you touch?" Dudley touches her fist with the end of his nose. "Oh, good boy." Liss hands Dudley a treat and he takes it and trots down the hall into the office. [edit] Dudley sits in the kitchen looking at Liss plaintively. "What do you want? What do you want, Dudz?" He turns and runs into the living room, where he lies down and scratches at the floor excitedly. "What? What is it? What do you want?" Dudley's tail wags wildly. "What do you want? Is this it?" Liss holds out a pig's ear. "Oh-h-h! Good boy." Dudley takes the treat and trots down the hall into the office. [edit] Dudley flips from a sitting position into a lie-down position and snorts. "Oh my goodness!" Dudley play-bows and barks. "What?! What do you want?!" Dudley leaps around and lies at Liss' feet, wagging his tail. "What do you want, little waggy tail?" Dudley looks at her eagerly. "Come here!" Dudley leaps up into a sitting position. Liss holds out her hand. "Can you shake?" Dudley lifts his right front paw to shake. "Oh, what a good boy! Can you touch? Touch!" Liss holds out her fist and Dudley touches it with his nose. "Oh, good boy! Shake." Dudley lifts his left front paw to shake. "Good boy!" Dudley licks his lips. "What do you want? Do you want this?" Liss holds out a pig's ear and accidentally drops it. "Get it!" Dudley grabs the treat and trots down the hall into the office. [edit] "What's this?" Liss holds out a pig's ear for Dudley to inspect. "What do I have for you?" Dudley runs from the kitchen into the living room and starts to sit, then comes back toward Liss. "What's this? What is it? Can you sit?" Dudley half-sits, jumps up, sits again, taps his feet on the floor. "Are you dancing?" Dudley sneezes. Liss holds out the treat. "What's this?" Dudley mouths it; Liss gasps with excitement. "Oh!" Dudley sits. "Down. Lie down!" Dudley looks at Liss from the sit position. "Lie down." Dudley gets up, whines, bows, paws at the floor, then backs up and lies down, scratching at the floor excitedly. "Good boy!" Liss hands him the treat and he trots down the hall into the office.
This one time in college...
...Mitch Daniels smoked pot.
Oh, and also was found guilty of possessing in possession of two shoe boxes worth of marijuana, as well as LSD and non-prescribed prescription drugs. [ETA: Actually, even though police found him in possession of well over a pound of illegal drugs, he was charged with a much lesser offense, which comes into play later.]
Anyhoo, he paid his $350 and it's all water under the bridge. At least, that's how Daniels (and the sympathetic journalists at CNN) would like to frame it. As Daniels puts it, "Justice was served."
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a website that lists the conversion rate between 1970 US dollars and time in prison.
As I see it, this isn't really about whether it should be legal to use and possess marijuana. And heck, two shoe boxes full of weed? To this day, my relatives who lived through the Great Depression stockpile toilet paper in case the economy collapses (see?) and Kimberly-Clark goes under. Beside, charmer that he is, I'm sure Daniels had plenty of friends with which to share that two shoe boxes* twenty-four ounces of pot.
Anyhow, you might have heard that Mitch Daniels is the Governor of Indiana. Oh! And he wants to be President.
I'm not going to sit here and say that Daniels' past pot use disqualifies him for holding office. [Off the record, being a horrible governor disqualifies Mitch Daniels from holding public office.] However, it's certainly interesting that in 1989, three years before Bill Clinton made a similar admission, Daniels admitted to pot use as no big deal. And then, he made his stance on drug use crystal clear.
Paul Waldman of The American Prospect, ponied up the cash to read an '89 Daniels op-ed in the WaPo:In calling for enforcement of drug laws against even casual users -- publicizing the names of arrestees, at least minimal fines or jail time for those convicted and requiring no-use policies from colleges and other beneficiaries of government funds and so on -- William Bennett is exactly right.
Two decades ago -- half my life ago -- there occurred the unfortunate confluence of my wild oats period...After one party too many, two friends and I ended up enjoying the hospitality of the local police for two nights. We had been arrested. A few months later, a stern-faced judge fined me $ 350 for use of marijuana.
The effect was immediate, and it has been enduring. My young Midwestern tail was jerked back into line, where it has remained through 20 years of law-abiding, rather conventional life, which has included marriage and fatherhood.
See? He's married with kids now! (And therefore doesn't use drugs?) Anyhow, assuming Mitch Daniels agrees with Mitch Daniels' views on drug users, let us talk about getting arrested in possession of twenty-four ounces a buttload* of marijuana.
In Indiana, assuming the police would dare prosecute a straight, white, cis, Princeton student, possessing twenty-four ounces well over a pound* of pot (or even eight ounces, if we're dividing by three) is likely a felony that involves serving two nights in jail. And then an additional 178 days. At a minimum. Under current New Jersey law, Daniels would also be a felon serving 3-6 years in prison.
Interestingly enough, a law that Daniels signed in 2005 bars from Indiana public office anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime that, under local law "might", have led to over a year in prison. Any public office. Presumably this includes the governorship.
Daniels is still allowed to be the governor of Indiana only because he was merely charged with "maintaining a public nuisance." If Daniels had been charged with a felony, which prosecutors could have chosen to do, he'd be barred from office. By a law that he signed. So that's kinda a big deal. Unless, of course, you're Mitch Daniels.
--
*Ugh. So for some blasted reason I read "two sized-12 shoe boxes" as "two twelve-ounce shoe boxes." What the hell? I apologize for the rather embarrassing error. :headdesk: I don't know anything at all about marijuana, but I'm pretty sure that the amount of marijuana in question was at least a couple of pounds, depending on how it was packaged.
You Know...
I'm not inclined to give unsolicited advice, but I'm going to make an exception just this once.
Charlie Sheen: Take a nap.
Shhhhhhhhhh. It's sleepytime now.
You Wanted Blue Hair Pics?
...Caitie gives you blue hair pics.
When the DDOC picture of me and Dawn was posted a couple of days ago, I mentioned that I'd my hair up in a towel because it was being bleached, preparatory to returning to my long-term plan to have a rainbow of my hair (we did purple once before - in fact, my icon picture here actually has that purple hair), slowly: purple, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, is the plan.
With that in mind, I had my friend K take some pictures of me today, as Shaker B had pointed out that the land of Mordor where the Shadows lie southern Ontario wasn't likely to see a bright sunny day until Tuesday at least. First, one catching the full wonderfulness that is my chunky-monkey self, with the blue hair, my iconic stripey socks, and my cane (also, my much-loved Misfits purse!). Shoes are check-pattern Tuf UK, with a kitty face on the front.
Next, we have a bit more visibility on the Brightly Coloured Hair:
So, why do I like having Brightly-Coloured Hair? Because I've had a problem in the past with people finding me to be intimidating in person. I'm fairly large and solidly built, and I used to cultivate a "Don't Fuck With Me" bodylanguage/expression, which I didn't know I was doing.
But! When I've got the Brightly-Coloured Hair (BCH henceforth), people stop me on the street, in lines, all over the place, with big grins and "WOW, I LOVE your hair!" Kids particularly - who are most often the ones who had the "I'm scared!" reaction, now react as though I were a particularly non-creepy clown.
It's an enormous shift in the general demeanour of my daily life. It also provides me a little bit of...what, self-esteem armour, I guess? Because without the BCH, when people are looking at me just a little too long, or looking away a little too quickly, it's hard not to think "Oh, damn, they're misreading my gender, DANGER DANGER CAITIE ROBINSON, MY HOOKS ARE FLAILING WILDLY!". When I do have the BCH, it's dead easy to remember that people tend to find it unusual when an office employee for a large bank turns up all emblued.
So there. Blueness. Hope you all have a lovely weekend.
Canada's C-389 Faces the Senate: An Interview
I had the good fortune - while working on things around the post I made recently - to meet the Internet-presence of Mercedes Allen, blogger at Dented Blue Mercedes and other places. She agreed to do an e-mail interview with me for Shakesville about Bill C-3891. Links were added by me, and if any are problematic or need TW, the fault will be mine - please do let me know.
Note, too, that while I use the "trans*" usage, Ms. Allen doesn't use the asterisk. No judgement is implied in either direction.
And if you see the washroom predator meme, turn it around: the fact that this belief widely persists and creates an environment of fear and a will to exclude is actually the greatest argument FOR clear and explicit inclusion in human rights.CaitieCat for Shakesville: Why not start off by introducing yourself?
DBM: I'm a writer on sex and gender minority issues and a community advocate, as well as a full-time graphic designer. I'm Metis, although still reclaiming my heritage, and strongly interested in social justice. I started the website at AlbertaTrans.org many years ago, and about four years ago started blogging at dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com and places like The Bilerico Project. I have a monthly column in GayCalgary and Edmonton Magazine and have had a few articles published in compilations, the most recent being Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation.
I'm also one of a group of trans advocates who formed the Trans Equality Society of Alberta (TESA), in the wake of the health care funding cut in 2009 that specifically targeted Gender Reassignment Surgery. TESA is growing into what I believe will be a very positive voice for change in Western Canada.
I'm bisexual, sex-positive and pro-poly, pro-queer, pro-sex work, pro-kink and more, although I'm not necessarily all of those things myself. My partner of three years and I became engaged earlier this winter, and are looking toward the future.
CcS: What sort of protections does Bill C-389 offer? Jobs? Housing? Public Accommodation? Detention policy?
DBM: Generally speaking, the Canada Human Rights Act extends protections in employment, housing and access to services. It is a federal bill, so these protections are limited to areas under federal jurisdiction, such as government agencies, RCMP and federally-regulated employers such as airlines and banks. The significance goes beyond that, however, because provinces are expected to bring their legislation in line as well. The provinces don't always do so immediately -- such as Alberta, which didn't include sexual orientation until eleven years after being court ordered to do so -- but the courts most often "read in"2 the protections in the meantime.
These protections might not filter down overnight. With regard to Corrections Canada, for example, I'd suspect that there would be some resistance to addressing the current housing situation -- especially under a Harper government3, considering that they recently put forward a policy to specifically refuse GRS coverage for people in the correctional system, even though a previous court ruling mandated it.
CcS: How does the bill define the group to be afforded protection?
DBM: Bill C-389 refers specifically to both gender identity and gender expression. It doesn't apply definitions to those terms, and in fact included classes are rarely ever defined in human rights legislation. Writing definitions that narrow the class in any way actually causes the legislation to demarcate where it becomes acceptable to discriminate, and who qualifies as a second-class citizen, which is contrary to the spirit of human rights legislation (and which has happened with the "Equality Act" in the UK). You can't, for example, define "disability" in a way that excludes certain types of mental illness: the point is that individuals need to be treated according to their individual actions and merits, rather than a smorgasbord of assumptions that go with being part of a particular group.
CcS: What are the obstacles remaining before the bill can become law in Canada?
DBM: The bill has passed all three readings in Parliament. It is now waiting to be tabled for second reading in the Senate, which in Canada is an unelected body that is meant to sign into law the passed legislation, or tweak it if needed. The Senate can and -- on rare occasions does -- refuse to pass pieces of legislation, and the Harper government recently influenced the Senate to do this with a piece of climate change legislation. On top of that, any legislation that hasn't gone through three readings in the Senate when an election call is made dies on the order paper and needs to start the process all over again. So passage is still far from guaranteed, and there have been persistent rumours of a Spring election call coming.
The Senate process is usually much faster than the Parliamentary process, so it is also certainly not lost. However, at second reading, it needs to go through a committee, and it appears that it might be slated for the legal and constitutional affairs committee, which is buried in law-and-order bills. Private members' bills aren't tabled4 until government bills are dealt with.
CcS: What can individual Canadians do to help? What can foreign Shakers do to help? Should they write to local ambassadors/consular officers, or to the Prime Minister's office, or...?
Canadians need to write to Senators to let them know why inclusion of trans people in human rights legislation is necessary. The Harper government, which has opposed the bill, is saying that it is "unnecessary" and that the terms are too "vague and undefined." Both of these points should be rebutted. More than that, though, it's of incredible value to relate our own experiences of discrimination, and convey what inclusion means to us as disenfranchised people. Transrights.ca has a link to Senators' contact information, and a sample letter you can use or adapt.
It's also important to respond to the media coverage. This is a story that was largely overlooked until the bill passed third reading, and the discussion is happening now. But the (CcS: This next set of links are NOT nice places - CAVEAT LECTOR!5) "bathroom bill" rhetoric is getting more airtime than it should. If you see positive editorials, please thank the paper and the authors. If you see negative editorials or letters to the editors, respond to them, in a clear, dignified and well-argued way. And if you see the washroom predator meme, turn it around: the fact that this belief widely persists and creates an environment of fear and a will to exclude is actually the greatest argument FOR clear and explicit inclusion in human rights. Letters to the editor should be short and concise, so it is a challenge to say what's key in a minimal amount of space.
It is my belief that legislation like Bill C-389 is important, because it legally enables us to participate in the public square and everyday life, but at the same time, the greater benefit comes from awareness, and the changing of hearts and minds. Regardless of what happens right now with the bill, we have an excellent opportunity to seize upon this discussion, and do exactly that. And this is something everyone can do, in nearly any walk of life.
And although the Parliamentary process has finished, if people have the time and opportunity, it's still a worthwhile investment of time to meet with your MPs. The pressure's off them now, in a way, but you can still educate them about trans people and trans issues. We may come down this road again.
CcS: Are there any good blogs covering the campaign that you'd recommend?
Many Canadian bloggers are commenting on C-389, including Gender Reality6, Equality Kitten, Cracked Crystal Ball II, Gender Focus, Slap Upside The Head, and my blog. Monica Roberts at TransGriot has also been dedicated to following the bill, with probably the most moment-to-moment updates. And while I know some in the community have complaints about trans inclusion in Canada's LGBT magazines, it should still be acknowledged that Dale Smith has been following the bill closely in Xtra, and has done some of the most in-depth reporting since the bill came to third reading in Parliament. He's also live-tweeted second and third readings.
One challenge that many trans bloggers face in Canada is that many of us, myself included, have never been as political as we should be, and this has meant that we've had to play catch-up to learn our own Parliamentary process.
CcS:(last one, only if and to the extent you're willing): How would the bill passing affect you personally?
DBM: I started transition about seven years ago and have already come a long way, so I might not be directly impacted now, myself. But it does improve the options available to others in the community, and at the very least helps address the sense of defeatism and disenfranchisement that were pervasive when I first transitioned. It might also mean more opportunities to educate employers, med students and medical professionals, which is a plus.
-=-=-
I'd like to thank Ms. Allen for her thoughtful and informative answers, as well as for the hard graft she's put in trying to get it passed (alongside many others putting in day after day of wielding their mighty and shiny teaspoons). I'm kind of staggered that we've even come this close, but I'm feeling less cynical the more people like Ms. Allen I meet.
1 Introduced by the Seriously-Fucking-Honourable Bill Siksay, this is his third attempt to get a private Member's Bill through to law to give human rights protections to trans* people in Canada.
2 "Reading in" allowed judges to amend statutes to make them conform to the Charter.
3 As regular readers here will know, the Harpertron 5000 currently sits as Prime Minister of Canada - a position gained, as in other Westminster-style systems, by being the leader of the party which wins the most seats in a general election. The Harpertron is well-known in Canada for bringing to life the very concept of the Uncanny Valley.
4 This is the Canadian usage, which follows the British: to "table" a piece of legislation here means "put forward for discussion", as opposed to the US usage, in which "tabling" a piece of legislation means "setting aside".
5 The links are representative of the line of thought which conflates everything trans-related to "ZOMM THE BATHROOMS WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHO COULD BE IN THOSE BATHROOMS WATCHING CLOSED DOORS BEHIND WHICH SOMEONE MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME GENITALS AS EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BATHROOM ZOMM I THINK I MUST EXPLODE FROM THE ENORMOUS PERVERSION OF THIS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE MENTAL IMAGE PLEASE BABY JEEBUS BLEACH MY BRAIN FOR ME". Most are Christianist, but one is the Toronto Star, a nominally Liberal paper - but they mean the Liberal Party, not actual socially liberal ideas.
6 I can't find a link for these blogs, if you know them, please drop them in comments here and I'll add them to the post.
Quote of the Day
"I don't think this is the issue that it once was. I think that the economic issues are so big that this one pales in comparison."—Republican Strategist John Feehery, on how same-sex marriage isn't the effective wedge issue for conservatives that it used to be. Or, as fellow Republican strategist Mark McKinnon puts it: "The wedge has lost its edge."
One notes, with bitter amusement, the irony that the current "economic issues" demanding everyone's attention are the result of disastrous economic policy ushered in by conservatives who were voted in on the promise to protect Real Americans from kissing boys, the exaggerated threat of whose alleged insidiousness was used to distract attention away from the truly grave enactment of conservative governance.
FYI
[Previous FYI: Rick Astley; Eddie Murphy; The Eurythmics; Eddie Rabbit; Sinéad O'Connor; Was (Not Was); Bon Jovi; Kenny Rogers; Bobby McFerrin; Starship; Dead or Alive; Right Said Fred; Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians; Salt n Pepa; Nelson; The Cure; The Soup Dragons; Europe/BushCo; Elton John; Eddie Money; Human League; Glenn Frey; Van Halen; Alanis Morissette; Depeche Mode; The Beatles. Hint: They're better if you click 'em!]
The Overton Window: Chapter Thirty-Nine
Book review time! No, not my review of The Overton Window, but Noah's review of Molly's Cut-n-Paste Patriot Quote Book. We're through the looking glass, people. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night! (Not really.) But fasten your seatbelts. The light just came on. See:
The fasten-seatbelt light had just blinked on above Noah's head, accompanied by an intercom announcement that the flight would soon begin its on-time descent into McCarran International.
He rubbed his eyes and they felt as though he hadn't blinked in quite a while. The time had apparently flown by as he'd been occupied reading and rereading the many quoted passages that filled the pages of Molly's book.
I am glad the flight is on-time. Good to know Molly and Noah will get wherever they are going without any delay. Unlike the rest of us who, it seems, may never get to the end of this story.
In the course of his supposedly top-shelf schooling he must have already been exposed to much of this, and if so, it shouldn't have seemed as new to him as it did. And in a strange, unsettling way—like reading a horoscope so accurate that its author must surely have been watching you for months through the living-room window—it seemed that each of these writings was addressed to this current time, and this very place, for the sole, specific benefit of Noah Gardner.
Here's the thing that bugs me about this book. One of the things. One of the many things. The constant bouncing from third- to second-person. Was the metaphorical astrologist watching you (me?) for months, or watching Noah? I don't know much, but I do know this is something one should learn in middle school grammar class, and I didn't even have the benefit of supposedly top-shelf schooling. (I went to Traweek junior high, a public institution. Go Titans! Or not. I didn't particularly like P.E.)
Noah learns some things from Molly's book. Like bad analogies:
The phrase "too big to fail" had been reborn for propaganda purposes during a brainstorming session at the office last year. This was in the run-up to the country's massive financial meltdown, the multiphase disaster that was only now gathering its full head of steam.
The original purpose of the phrase in business was to describe an entity that was literally too large and successful to possibly go under— think of the Titanic, only before the iceberg. But this newly minted meaning, it was decided, would be a threat, rather than a promise.
So, "too big to fail" meant a business that couldn't fail, because of its size, like the Titanic, which could never go down because it was unsinkable? Huh? What. Bad example, Noah. Bad example, Beck. Very bad example.
We have no choice—that was the sad, helpless tone of both the givers and the receivers of those hundreds of billions of dollars, monies to be deducted directly from the dreams of a brighter future for coming generations. AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citi, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Fannie and Freddie, and the all-powerful puppetmaster behind it all, Goldman Sachs—these companies are the only underpinnings of our whole way of life, so the breathless story went, and if they go down, we all do.
You know, if I had supposedly top-shelf schooling, maybe I'd know what "deducted directly from the dreams of a brighter future for coming generations" meant. The money used to keep the economy from collapsing would have otherwise gone to a brighter future? Whut? Though, I guess, Beck doesn't seem to think the world economy would have been in shambles if the government just let the U.S. banking system falter. Hey, Beck, have you taken a look outside lately? For all your common man pretenses, you really have no idea what the American populace goes through. Period. So, please, just shut the fuck up.
In Molly's book this quote was unattributed but the ideal it conveyed was ancient, and the central pillar of the rule of law. Thomas Paine, quoted on the same page, had put it a different way, in Common Sense: "In America, the law is king." Even the most powerful can't place themselves above it, the weakest are never beneath its protection, and no corrupt institution is too big to fail.
So that's what a principle is, Noah thought, as though he were pondering the word for the very first time.
Whut? Noah didn't know what principles were? Huh? Sure, he's unscrupulous, shallow, dim, easily manipulated, and seemingly disloyal. Faults, most of those. And certainly, I can understand not having principles, but somehow not even knowing what they are? And here's the thing about our hero: It's taken him all of two days to change his allegiance. He's turned his back on his father, the man who has gone out of his way to protect his son, got the awesome lawyer to spring him from jail, the mercenary henchman to rescue him, doctor to patch him up. And Noah turns his back on that to join the people who duped him, drugged him, burgled his house, and have basically manipulated and lied to him from day one.
Now, I'm not saying one can't become a better person, one can't do the right thing. People do turn themselves around. They have life-changing moments, they see the proverbial light. People do spend time reflecting, thinking, sussing out the way of the world and their place in it, and for better or for worse, change tack, and find a purpose. I'm just not sure how much soul searching one can do in three days, when most of that time is spent unconscious.
And given that Noah is so easily manipulated, so clearly out of his depth here, this is who Beverly chooses to look after her daughter? Noah is suddenly and unquestioningly allowed into the teabaggers' inner circle? I thought conspiracy theory-loving fringe groups were notoriously paranoid and suspicious and hostile to strangers. Let me just say: This book is not very realistic.
Blah blah blah, Noah reads more quotes from John Adams and Sam Adams and basically acts as Cliff's Notes for the reader, explaining what each bit means, in a modern context: "Put up or shut up, in other words; go hard or go home. Freedom is the rare exception, he was saying, not the rule, and if you want it you've got to do your part to keep it." And yes, that's a quote. Beck's interpretation of the words of the founding fathers is, essentially, a bumper sticker.
The plane lands, Molly wakes.
"Hey, Molly?"
"Yes?"
He touched her hand. "I think I get it now," Noah said.
"You get what?"
"I really didn't before, but I understand what you're doing now, you and your people."
"Oh." She nodded, and continued to check over her things.
"I mean it."
"I know you do," she said, in the way you might address an overly needy child in recognition of some minor accomplishment. "Good. I'm glad."
Noah gets it now. I'm glad someone does. I think maybe we'd have all been better off reading Molly's book than we would have reading The Overton Window. It seems that maybe her book at least makes sense. Good for Noah, is all I can say.
On the concourse, Noah suggests they stop for dinner. Does McCarran have a Rainforest Café? I hope McCarran has a Rainforest Café. Oh, nevermind: Molly ignores the suggestion and demands Noah rent her a car. Noah, I think, is a little hurt by this. Really? The woman who lied to you, drugged you, stole your keys, isn't being nice to you?
Huh.
Assvertising, Part 133 in an Ongoing Series
by Shaker The Chemist
[Trigger warning for objectification, hostility toward consent, and ableism.]
Okay, so I know that our consumer culture practically dictates that ads be plastered everywhere humans care to look. I don't necessarily accept it, but I've come to expect it. Just as I've come to expect that advertisers will try to take advantage of gender-related insecurities with product ads like "Summer's Eve: Now with New Car!" and "Volcano II: The MANCANO!" We all know that advertisers aren't shy about using women's bodies in their appeals, despite evidence that it doesn't work the way they think it does. Still, a new guerrilla marketing campaign by New Zealand firm DDB Auckland for the clothing chain Suprette crosses a hard and fast line regarding autonomy and consent.
According to Bestadsontv (uh-huh), via Copyranter:
With both men and women now wearing their shorts at breathtaking heights, fashion chain Superette was presented with a unique opportunity to draw attention to their sale on short shorts. DDB Auckland ads were placed on the virgin thighs that are exposed in this latest trend, by putting indented plates across the inner city and fashion district bus stops, mall seats and park benches, so that when people sat down the message was imprinted on their thighs.
What fuckery is this? I don't think I need to explain to this crowd why an ad agency deciding that your body is just free advertising space is wrong (apparently "guerrilla" now means using entrenched mainstream attitudes to your advantage), which is good because my brain is boggling so hard that you can hear it.
Instead, I can point out why You Can't Win. I can see the defenses now: "Sitting on a bench, dressed like that, means you're just asking for it. Oh! And also! What About the Men! They're getting butt-printed by us too! Hah! You wimmenz can't claim sexism now!" Of course, the nature of patriarchy means glossing over things like how society is trained to regard women as sex-objects. We are taught to ignore the fact that some women choose not to wear t-shirts that have words on them, since it's regarded by our patriarchal culture to be an invitation to ogle. Instead we're supposed to deride them as "too sensitive," rather than finding ogling men insufficiently sensitive toward the women they see in public.
Naturally, there's not a single thought given to people with disabilities, who may not have much choice in where they sit as they move through public space. Hey, there can't be that many of them, amirite?
I may not be a big fan of advertising everywhere, but I get that to some extent businesses should be able to solicit somewhere—just not on me, not on you, not without our consent.
I think that while it may be a losing battle to try to convince these businesses to stop what they're doing through a deconstruction of the arguments and rhetoric in ready supply in favor the kyriarchy, it's easy enough to threaten a business with closing your wallet. Which makes this is an excellent teaspoon opportunity.
You can write to DDB Auckland, and their client, Suprette, and let them know you object to having the added worry of planning your next seat in public. If you have friends in New Zealand and any other market where Suprette operates, you should see about getting them on board.
