[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
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!
lol ur easter favors
Mama Shakes spotted some precious Easter gems while out shopping and not only kindly emailed them to me, but gave me her permission to post them, along with her commentary:
I just thought I would share the sentiment that nothing says "EASTER" to me like Spiderman eggs, I mean, "Treat containers"...
...unless it's a pirate-themed Easter basket. I wonder if that's Pontius Pirate.
[That pun just for Deeky, who LOVES PUNS!]
A Counterproposal
On All Things Considered, NPR just aired an interesting interview with Third Way senior fellow David Kendell, where the latter explained why he thinks the IRS should issue receipts that show how much of your income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes the federal government spends on various programs. It's a cute idea. However, I've got a couple of tweaks:
1) Okay, so this is kinda a pain in the ass given all of the different governments involved, but the receipts should really include all taxes and fees collected during a calendar year. State and local taxes are a huge part of many individuals' tax burden, and most states have regressive tax structures.
2) I don't really care that I paid 46 cents to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. What I want to know is how much you paid to fund the CPB. So each year, it'd be cool if I got someone else's receipt. Maybe in 2011 I'll learn that a family of undocumented immigrants down the street paid all sorts of taxes. Maybe in 2012, I'll find out if Bank of America has decide to do the same.
That would be informative.
Game of Thrones
So, are any Shakers planning on watching Game of Thrones, based on George R. R. Martin's fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire, which premieres this weekend on HBO...?
It will definitely be watched at Shakes Manor, where there's a reasonable possibility Iain will actually explode with excitement before the show even airs. He's read Game of Thrones, but I haven't. I am a huge fan of the fantasy genre, but you all know why I'm really watching it:
I'm also thrilled that Lena Headey is in it, who was not only Queen Gorgo in 300, but was Luce in Imagine Me & You, one of my favorite rom-coms.
Although I am looking forward to it, I'm doing so with some trepidation, because fantasy + women + cable [usually] = BOOBIEZ (and not much else for the ladies to do), and I'm getting a dark skin = baddies vibe (possibly wrongly) from some of the trailers I've seen.
Anyway, I'll provide a discussion thread after the premiere, if others are interested. Let me know in comments.
TSA Security Targets Critics
[Trigger warning for discussion of enhanced TSA screening.]
The much-discussed "enhanced security procedures" put into place by the US Transportation Security Administration late last year are still in place, despite waning attention, and anyone who wants or has to be a passenger on a US flight can still expect the possibility of having to choose between body scanners or pat-downs, if they're pulled for additional scrutiny by security officers.
Today, CNN reports that among the "behavioral indicators" TSA officers are using to identify potentially dangerous travelers is "passengers' attitudes towards security, and how they express those attitudes."
CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 "behavioral indicators" that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially "high risk" passengers at the nation's airports.Still, the fact that expressing "contempt" for screening is being considered an indicator at all is absurd, given the variety of legitimate reasons one might express contempt for invasive procedures that don't even work.
Many of the indicators, as characterized in open government reports, are behaviors and appearances that may be indicative of stress, fear or deception. None of them, as the TSA has long said, refer to or suggest race, religion or ethnicity.
But one addresses passengers' attitudes towards security, and how they express those attitudes.
It reads: "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."
TSA officials declined to comment on the list of indicators, but said that no single indicator, taken by itself, is ever used to identify travelers as potentially high-risk passengers.
And then there's this: Using grumbling about security as an indicator of potential danger is predicated on the ridiculous fantasy that terrorists are so fucking stupid that they'll stand in a line loudly complaining about security measures. Sure.
But some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in.I'm glad that CNN found a suede-elbowed professor of obviousology to inject some expertise into this discussion.
"I think the idea that they would try to draw attention to themselves by being arrogant at airport security, it fails the common sense test," said CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen. "And it also fails what we know about their behaviors in the past."
Honestly, TSA: Get it together. Christ.
Daily Dose of Cute
Well, after his trip to the vet yesterday, and almost a full 24 hours of sleep, Mr. Doodles is starting to feel a wee bit better.
"My eyes are hurty."
Dudley's eyes still look terrible, but they look positively splendid by comparison to how they looked yesterday. He'll go back to the vet again tomorrow, just to be sure everything's proceeding as expected and looking good.
I said this in comments earlier, but it bears repeating: I'm really lucky that Dudley's such a good dog. He was an absolute champ at the vet's yesterday: He had his temperature taken, got several sets of various drops and dyes in his eyes, took three different meds, had lights shined in his eyes by two vets, and he was perfect through the whole thing. He even wagged his wee tail at the vet when he left and came back into the exam room, as if to reassure him, "I know you're here to help me and I ain't mad."
He's taking both of his meds without complaint, and he's letting me check his eyes and administer the drops without any problem; he's even figured out that after one eye gets drops, the other one's next, and helpfully tilts his head in the other direction. All this through double conjunctivitis so severe the vet said he looked as if he'd been pepper-sprayed by the mail carrier. He's such a GOOD BOY.
"I can haz treat now, Mama?"
You bet your ass you can!
Bi-Monthly Reminder & Thank-You
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder* to donate to Shakesville.
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 contributors and moderators.
Over the past couple of months, when widely-linked discussions of contentious subjects, have bought in droves of new and frequently disruptive commenters, the fierceness of our vigilance and the value of what it provides has been even more evident than usual. People commented how very much like magic it is to enjoy threads free of apologia, bigotry, and hateful/triggering material.
But it is not magic. It is hard and unrelenting work.
And, as we move into yet another presidential election season (can it really be that time already?!), I hope you will consider the value of a space that guarantees all candidates will be discussed on the basis of their policies and not their sex, race, sexuality, or appearance.
So. Here is your reminder to support this space if you appreciate what happens here.
You can donate once by clicking the button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription here. We first made the Subscribe to Shakesville page available in March, which means many of the subscriptions are running out and have to be renewed if you want to keep your subscription active.
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.
** Why I ask for donations is explained here.
I See What You Did There
Earlier today there was a vote on the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget. From TPM:
Normally something like that would fail by a large bipartisan margin in either the House or the Senate. Conservative Republicans would vote for it, but it would be defeated by a coalition of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. But today that formula didn't hold. In an attempt to highlight deep divides in the Republican caucus. Dems switched their votes -- from "no" to "present."Hoist them by their own petards! Very clever.
Panic ensued. In the House, legislation passes by a simple majority of members voting. The Dems took themselves out of the equation, leaving Republicans to decide whether the House should adopt the more-conservative RSC budget instead of the one authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. As Dems flipped to present, Republicans realized that a majority of their members had indeed gone on the record in support of the RSC plan -- and if the vote closed, it would pass. That would be a slap in the face to Ryan, and a politically toxic outcome for the Republican party.
So they started flipping their votes from "yes" to "no."
In the end, the plan went down by a small margin, 119-136. A full 172 Democrats voted "present."
Using the Rape Culture to Defend a Rapist
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape apologia, victim-blaming.]
In what might be the most perfect, clear, hideous example of how rape culture interacts with actual acts of rape, an appellant brief (pdf) was filed last March in the Montana Supreme Court on behalf of Duane R. Belanus, who had been convicted (pdf) of "of sexual intercourse without consent involving the infliction of bodily injury, aggravated kidnapping, burglary, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and misdemeanor theft" after beating and anally raping his then-girlfriend. The brief, which bases its appeal almost entirely on the premise that Belanus was drunk and therefore should not be held responsible for his actions, begins thus:
Yes, you're reading that right. A legal brief in defense of a convicted rapist was submitted quoting real-life convicted rapist Mike Tyson's character in a movie in order to argue that if real-life convicted rapist Mike Tyson's character in a movie can forgive a bunch of drunk characters in a movie for stealing his pet tiger, then a real jury in the real world should be able to consider, and forgive, a real-life convicted rapist who really raped someone in the real world.
Can you not see the perfect logic?
In the rape culture, this all makes sense. As does the fact, as the brief goes on to mention, that the victim was drinking and taking drugs, too, which is presented as though to create reasonable doubt about whether she could have consented and forgotten, as opposed to treating it like the damning evidence Belanus raped someone who could not possibly have given informed and enthusiastic consent that it actually is.
And it gets even more absurd.
Or possibly just stays exactly as absurd as it began, depending on your feelings about quoting a fictional Mike Tyson character vs. quoting Mel Gibson in defense of a convicted rapist. Yes, for real, this is how the brief concludes:
Classic. Dancing on a table with a lampshade on one's head is exactly the same as shouting anti-Semitic rants, which itself is exactly the same as beating and raping someone.
It is, of course, true that alcohol lowers inhibitions, but that doesn't translate into "making people do something for which they can't be held responsible." What it means is that alcohol removes the self-censoring or self-containing mechanisms that keep people who hold racist thoughts (for instance) or have violent desires (for instance) from shouting epithets or punching someone in the face.
Alcohol lowers inhibitions; it doesn't remove accountability.
Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court agrees, and was unconvinced by the poignant arguments of Messrs. Tyson and Gibson. They upheld Belanus' conviction.
[H/T to Shaker Erin W, who found it at Lowering the Bar.]
An Observation
Lots of feminists/womanists are women who have been told "You can't" for much of our lives, or had seemingly unnavigable barriers put in our way by people who didn't want us to succeed. Lots of us are women who, had we played by The Rules, wouldn't have gotten where we are—because The Rules are designed so that we fail. The odds have been against us our whole lives; everything we've ever done has been in defiance of the distinct likelihood—and expectation—that we would settle for less than we wanted.
Our routes have been nontraditional, our strategies neither obvious nor logical by traditional standards. By design, and by necessity.
What if we'd all taken our boobs and gone home, when someone who saw the perfect logic of it told us to...?
[It's an old one, but occasionally bears repeating, I think.]
Two Facts
1. David Brooks is still being paid to write a garbage column for the New York Times.
2. He's just taking the piss now, because this is not the work of an adult human being:
President Obama and Paul Ryan are two of the smartest, most admirable and most genial men in Washington. It is sad, although not strange, that in today's Washington they have never had a serious private conversation. The president has never invited Ryan over even for lunch.Yes, Mr. Brooks, but what happens when, during The Luncheon That Will Totes Solve the Vast and Bitter Partisan Divide in Washington, Rep. Ryan orders a STEAK (Real AmericanTM) and President Obama orders an ARUGULA SALAD (gay)? What THEN, sir?!
As a result, both men are misinformed about the other, and both have developed a cold contempt for the other's position.
WHAT THEN?!
Number of the Day
$1 million: The amount of money raised since its launch on February 16 by former Senator Russ Feingold's political action committee, Progressives United, "a grassroots effort aimed at countering the effects of the Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to corporate spending in the U.S. electoral system. It works to call out cases of corporate influence, empower individuals to stand up to special interests, and elect progressive candidates at the local, state, and national levels."
When Feingold first announced that he, like many politicians and former politicians, would be starting a political action committee, he made it clear that he wanted his group to be different -- a grassroots effort aimed at countering the influence of corporations in politics.I have been a Feingold fan for a very long time, and I couldn't be more pleased and grateful that he's such a principled and effective progressive, whose PAC is making it manifestly apparent that there is a functional Left in this county desperate for serious representation on a national scale.
In line with its mission statement, Progressives United is following the example set by Feingold's own campaigns, rejecting soft money and unlimited contributions.
"We're going to be reporting every dime that we get, whether required by law or not," he said to The Huffington Post in February. "Every penny of every contribution -- a practice I used as a U.S. senator. So it will be very different from the 527s and other groups that have been spawned by Citizens United. It will be 100 percent accountable, and that is an important principle that I believe in that we'll follow to the T with Progressives United."
Thank You, Michele!
Wednesday, I challenged Rep. Michele Bachmann to place her brain on the table instead of her birth certificate. I'm glad to see that she didn't disappoint me at all, as shown by RJ at C&L:
We'll sound the bell every time she floats a discredited idea. Ready?In Bachmann's world, a zero-percent tax rate is too high, companies who either don't hire to stay lean or get cheaper labor overseas are "job creators", and revenue from higher taxes is less than revenue from lower taxes.
Raising taxes for the wealthy shouldn't be "on the table," says Bachmann, because "tax rates are high enough (ding!), and history shows (ding!) that when we raise taxes, particularly on job creators (ding!) we actually bring in less revenue (ding! ding! ding!) rather than more."
Thank you very much for this glimpse into your intriguing thought processes, Congresswoman.
More, please.
Important Announcement
[Trigger warning for rape culture.]
Appropriate and necessary use of the word rape: To describe what has happened to someone who has been forced or coerced into a sex act.
Inappropriate and unnecessary use of the word rape: To describe what has "been done to you" by the IRS and/or US Government by requiring you to pay taxes.
Important Corollary, subject to same rules as Important Announcement #10: If you are a rape apologist and/or teller of rape jokes, you are not a progressive; you're a fauxgressive.
[This announcement will be made annually during tax season until further notice.]
-------------------
Reminder! You actually have until Monday the 18th to get your taxes done this year, because Emancipation Day is being observed in the capital today.
Your Review Is Scarier Than Scream 4
by Kevin Wolf, a longtime Shaker and movie fan.
[Trigger warning for misogyny, eating disorders and body policing, ableist language.]
The masses were clamoring for another Scream sequel (people simply would not stop talking about it!) so Scream 4 was manufactured and hits theaters today. Hence, the posting of reviews across the internets, including this one from Michael O'Sullivan at The Washington Post, which opens:
"Scream 4" has issues.Mr. O'Sullivan is not a teen, bulimic or otherwise. But because this is a movie for and about teens, he evidently felt obliged to wedge something "teenagery" into his review. And because this movie has "issues," he must represent our hypothetical teen as a "girl" who is bulimic, who is desperate for boys to notice her, and who is so "lame" and self-involved she won't shut up about how fat [she] looks in these jeans!!
If it were a person, and not a movie, it would be a 17-year-old bulimic girl, desperate for the attention of 17-year-old boys and alternately bingeing on cheesy slasher-flick cliches, and purging, by pointing out, over and over, just how gag-me-with-a spoon cheesy they are.
On the one hand, it is obsessed with itself, winking and pouting in front of the metaphorical mirror of self-referential scrutiny that the series — directed by Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson — is famous for. On the other, it suffers from a case of crushingly low self-esteem, reminding us at every turn just how lame it is. (In a sense, it won't shut up about how fat it looks in these jeans.)
Now, I'm not the target audience for the movie, nor the target of O'Sullivan's horrific clusterfuck of misogynist, fat-hating, exploitative, condescending bullshit, yet for some reason I've taken offense. Why? Because I hate the assumption made by this critic that it's gonna be just fine with me that he represent this film and its audience in this carelessly stupid, thoughtless, and endlessly privileged way.
I'm going to suggest to O'Sullivan that he take another look at this review and compare that opening with a paragraph further along: "At the heart of the film is a joke: What's happening on screen is just like a bad horror movie. Except that, by acknowledging its own badness, 'Scream 4' hopes to turn itself into a good horror movie. Or at least a hip, funny and self-aware one." Notice, Mr. O'Sullivan, that you have here said essentially the same thing (the movie is agonizingly self-conscious and wants to be hip) without personifying the film as an offensive stereotype and thus demeaning teenage girls with disordered eating in the process. And it was so easy!
Please, Michael O'Sullivan: Stop trying to be hip and clever. For a start, you're about as hip and clever as an Allstate commercial. And your lack of self-awareness and empathy is painful—one guesses especially so for the targets of your "humor."
Opening Day!
Good news, libertarians! Your long national nightmare is finally over: Objectivist wank fantasy Atlas Shrugged (Part 1) opens in theaters today!
"They are not getting my metal!" It's a story about trains and steel and white people and the vast deserts of Wisconsin. Of course, there's stuff about the evils of taxation and unionization and how the world doesn't appreciate people who work hard creating steel that is just too good or something. I'm unclear, really, having never read anything by Ayn Rand. I have read some George Will and he says trains are Socialist, so I think that makes sense.
Anyway, every teabagger with an SUV will be at the movies this weekend, and I am projecting an opening weekend box office of $10 Billion (USD). Which is awesome and guarantees all three movies in the series will hit the big screen. I am especially looking forward to Atlas Shrugged Part 3: The Musical. No, I am not joking. "You know, part three could be a musical... like a Les Miserables kind of a musical," says John Aglialoro, the film's producer. Also, I am very serious about looking forward to that. I hope Elton John writes the songs. I'll totally buy the soundtrack album. Okay, I'd illegally download it. But you should buy it. Support the artist!
So, who's going? You're all going, right? Because how else will we be able to discuss it on Monday. We're discussing it on Monday. Ayn Rand Movie Open Thread! I'm taking the bus to the theater, because irony. It's a free bus too! (Dagny: "Boo!")
Also opening today:
Rio. (Animated.) Features the voice of Jesse Eisenberg as the titular capybara, and Michael Cena as his wise-cracking best pal and tamarin. (Wacky accents!) It's a story of wonder and discovery and the importance of family. Features seven new songs by Phil Collins!
Scream 4. (Or SCRE4M; typography!) It's about Courteney Cox collecting a paycheck. Good for her! Free markets! Probably features no trains.
The Conspirator. (Limited release.) And "art film" about a woman; set in the 1860s; should have some trains.
See ya in the popcorn line, Shakers!
Question of the Day
What would improve your life right now?
It can be anything from "a new job" to "a milkshake."
Me? Fish and chips.
Blog Note
I'm going to be out the rest of the afternoon. I just got back from the vet with Dudley, who has a severe eye infection in both eyes. We were just there this weekend, for his boosters, and Dudley was fine when the vet checked his eyes routinely and saw no problem; today his eyes were so red that the vet suspected his corneas might have ulcerated. Luckily, that turned out not to be the case.
Also in good news, it isn't contagious to cats, so the girls should be fine.
We've got three meds, one of which numbs his eyes so that he won't scratch at them, but I've still got to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't worry his eyes and make them any worse. It hasn't affected his vision so far, but one eye is getting cloudy, so we're taking this very seriously.
Anyway, I'm taking the rest of the day off so I can keep my attention on him. And because I'm kind of a wreck, frankly.
Dudley was a very good boy at the vet, and is now resting comfortably with his BFF Piggy.
