Whenever I'm in a new city, I always keep an eye out for used bookstores and record stores. What do you look for?
Texting! With Liss and Deeky!
[Last night, just after the QotD was posted.]
Liss: Thank you for being so gay.
Deeky: LOL! You're such an asshole. And I am sooo not gay. When's the last time I took it in the ass?
Liss: Is that like being a born-again virgin? If you don't take it in the ass for too long, you're basically straight again, lol? Do you have to come out again? Do you get a second toaster? Can you claim practicing asexuality and be in a sexual limbo?
Deeky: LOL! Yes. All of that.
Liss: You'll always be gay to me, doll. Assfucking or no assfucking.
Deeky: Yay!
Liss: *plays Solsbury Hill*
Deeky: LOL! That song should just go to hell already.
Liss: Voiceover: IN A WORLD where assfucking litmus tests tore apart families and brought down empires, the unlikely friendship between a single mo and a fat lady showed the world how to laugh...and how to love.
Deeky: LOL! Worst rom-com ever.
Liss: LOL! No rom, no com. Just two hours of us text messaging about b-holes.
Deeky: LOL!
Liss: Iain just said that would be better than most of the movies that are made today LOLOLOL!!!
Deeky: He's right.
Film Corner!
Well, it's been practically tens of minutes since we last had the opportunity to get excited about a film about young white people in love—I mean, FRIENDSHIP! (or DO I?)—so I bring you the trailer for One Day, which is a very clever pun title, as required by all rom-coms per the Maid in Manhattan Rule of 2002, because not only might these two friends fall in love ONE DAY, but the totally cool concept for this totally cool movie starring Anne Hathaway's totally cool English accent ('ello, guv'nah!) is that it takes place only on the anniversary of the day they met, but for 20 years. Sure.
Piano music. Sunset. Bridge. Edinburgh University. Words: "Scotland, 1988." Anne Hathaway not at all looking like women looked in the late '80s, which no doy, because no actress can be convinced to look like women actually looked in the '80s, which is and always will be a problem with period '80s films, but I digress. Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess, whom you may know as "Shop Assistant" from the 2001 TV movie Hawk, introduce themselves to each other. It's not even a meet cute. More like a meet snore, amirite, ladies?! Whoooooops they slept together. But they agree to be friends. Phew. If they just went their separate ways in a healthy manner, that would really fuck up this movie!
Male Voiceover, over montage of scenes over the years, marked exclusively by haircuts and not at all by aging: "On the day they met, Dexter and Emma never imagined how their lives would intersect over the next 20 years." That goes to show you how ADORABLY QUIRKY these two kids are, because most people totally can imagine how their relationships with other people will play out over decades upon their first meeting. I remember the day I first spoke to Deeky, in fact: Iain got home from work and asked me how my day was, and I was all, "OMG I totes met the nicest fellow, and we are going to spend the next twenty years texting each other constantly about b-holes!"
ANYway… Anne Hathaway is a disaster. Oh, I'm sorry—a disastah! Blah blah he's successful. They go on a holiday (British). Anne Hathaway wants ground rules, which include "No skinnydipping." Cut to skinnydipping. HA HA! What a wacky duo.
Jim Sturgess tells his mum (British) that he and Anne Hathaway are just friends. I have literally seen that same scene in like 97 trailers this month.
Male Voiceover, over more montagery: "This summer, experience the lives of two people for one day each year, on each anniversary of the day they met." Yup.
Jim Sturgess' career is faltering. He tells Anne Hathaway, "I'm so much better when you're around." Aww. What a terrible person he is. Then, in a totally different scene, he makes fun of her for wanting to be an inspirational teacher. She hugs him and tells him she loves him but doesn't like him anymore. Then he's getting married. Then he has a baby. His life is not what he was expecting. Anne Hathaway gets a haircut she describes pejoratively as "butch." Jim Sturgess' mum is dying. He calls Anne Hathaway: "I need to speak to someone. Not someone—you." Jim Sturgess' mate (British) says, "She made you decent, and then in return you made her so happy." In voiceover, Anne Hathaway says, "Whatever happens tomorrow, we have today. I'll always remember it." Oh no! I hope she doesn't step out in front of a double-decker lorry (British) and get killed on the anniversary of the day they met! Or something equally stupid that pretends it's profound!
The words on the screen tell us that this is "an extraordinary story…of friendship and loss…and the enduring power of love." Sounds great! Except for how it looks like garbage. Whoops!
[Via Gabe.]
Photo of the Day
Ok, technically it's a screenshot:
The pink box-like areas are considered food deserts. From the USDA (emphasis mine):
A food desert is a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. "Low income" tracts are defined as those where at least 20 percent of the people have income at or below the federal poverty levels for family size, or where median family income for the tract is at or below 80 percent of the surrounding area's median family income. Tracts qualify as "low access" tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles). This definition was developed by a working group comprised of members from the departments of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and USDA, which is partnering to expand the availability of nutritious food.Click on above photo to get to the food desert locator.
Under these income and food access criteria, about 10 percent of the 65,000 census tracts in the United States meet the definition of a food desert. These food desert tracts contain 13.5 million people with low access to sources of healthful food. The majority of this population—82 percent—live in urban areas.
Fishies in the Same Pond
One of the curious aspects of managing this community is that I don't really get to be a part of it. Partly, that's a function of the fact that the management is so time-consuming now, I don't have time to hang out in comments as much as I used to. And, partly, it's the big boots principle—the same thing that makes conversations among coworkers, or students, or siblings come to a halt, or change tone, when the boss, their teacher, a parent comes into the room. I can't be just another Shaker, and that's okay—although sometimes it makes me feel a little sad.
But I can't be too doleful when I've had the chance to meet in person so many amazing Shakers, many of whom have become dear friends.
This past weekend, I had the great pleasure of meeting Shaker GoldFishy, who is one of the oldest (as in longest-term) Shakers. He has been around since at least 2005, and we have probably been saying how fun it would be to meet one day since at least 2006.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Two months ago, GoldFishy's oft-mentioned partner, The Captain, contacted me and asked if I would be part of GoldFishy's 40th birthday surprise. The Captain was going to surprise him with a trip to Chicago, with the last two days spent with us at Shakes Manor, if that was all right with me.
I was, naturally, totally thrilled with the prospect of finally getting to meet GoldFishy (and The Captain, whom I'd heard so much about)—so, before I even had time to contemplate the horrendo possibility that, if I failed to live up to his expectations, I could actually ruin his entire birthday, lol, I agreed!
And I'm so glad that I did.
We spent an absolutely splendid almost-two days nattering endlessly about dogs, home improvements, falling in love, Michele Bachmann, and other Very Important Subjects, eating our faces off at Iain's and my favorite restaurant and favorite local pizza parlor, and playing Apples to Apples, which I'm pretty sure The Captain won by a country mile. Because he is hilarious.
Go Team Blue! [Photo by The Captain.]
Shakers, these are the three things you need to know about GoldFishy: 1. He is literally one of the nicest people on the planet, and he uses "golly" and "jeepers" non-ironically, and that is as totally fucking darn adorable as it sounds. 2. He gives great hugs. 3. If you happen to be five-foot-four and thus exactly one foot shorter than he is, he will very graciously bend down for a picture so you don't look like you were born in Moria.
Oh, and Dudley also wanted me to share that he is a world-class cuddler.
Once upon a time, my friend Lance Mannion—who I also met through blogging many years ago and finally met in person awhile back—wrote a pair of posts about human connection and its being one of the great mysteries of the universe. He mentioned a friend whom he met online, which has this peculiar but wonderful way of connecting people. "Before it happened to me," says Mannion, "even for a long time after, I'd have said it was impossible to become real friends with someone you never touched." I was once as dubious as he was about the ability to forge friendships via the internet, also before it happened to me—before I fell for Iain over the series of tubes, loved him before I'd even seen his picture; before I made friends in this space who became my friends in what those steadfastly dubious about the ability to forge connections in cyberspace still tend to call "the real world."
But happen it does, this connection-making between strangers on the internet, sometimes in ways more intimate or meaningful or easy than a chance meeting in "the real world" might have allowed.
I think GoldFishy and I would have been friends no matter how we met; it isn't at all difficult to imagine being coworkers giving each other the side-eye during insufferable meetings, or spending the entirety of a party thrown by a mutual friend tucked into a corner discussing politics. But we met at Shakesville, where I have met and made friends with so many other people whose friendships are invaluable to me, too.
All of this is a long way of saying I am grateful for this space, and all the fishies who inhabit it.
Thank you for visiting, GoldFishy. Thank you for arranging it, Captain.
See you soon.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read today
[Trigger warning for misogyny and enforcement of the gender binary]
It turns out there's a new book about how "men are from Mars and women are from Venus." Because God's a funny lady, it turns out that "we all live on planet Earth." Zany!
It also turns out that CNN.com has a trenchant interview with Anne Kramer, the book's author.
In this interview, we learn that men can be abusive, violent assholes. It's science! More specifically, it's the science of hormones! Also, it is the science of half-assed culturally-laden assumptions!
By the way, if you're not sure what this male-colleague being a thundering asscannon looks like, CNN.com has uploaded a photograph. Paperwork, amirite?
What's the book about, you ask, not particularly looking forward to the answer?[Kramer, the] former worldwide creative director of Nickelodeon and Nick at Nite interviewed more than 200 working Americans to get a sense of what's going on in their heads and how that spectrum of emotion manifests itself in the office.
I'm not going to get into the science (and statistics!) of why I occasionally (constantly) cry or break down in the workplace. I'm also not going to talk about which pharmaceuticals I use as a result of this phenomenon. (Kramer helpfully suggests that I cook more, although I'm not sure how my boss feels about red wine stains on the carpet. Correction: I am sure about this.)
She places their personal stories within the context of scientific research and statistical analysis to explain why we occasionally cry, yell or break down in the workplace and how to manage those emotions.
Besides, the experiences of me, an actual person, aren't all that important. Among other things, I'm an n of 1. I am, as they say in the science mines, statistically powerless. Also: Women's tear ducts are anatomically different from men's.
So there's that. As a trans woman who's been taking massive amounts of lady hormones for many years, I can only assume that my tear ducts shoot out tears of rage. Presumably, these rage-tears smell like the unholy alliance of bacon and lilacs. You know, science, jazzhands, etcetera.
Speaking of helpful advice:If you can decode what's at the root of your feelings, you can develop an action plan to deal with the issues.
This is great advice, because all people have the same actions available to them, regardless of gender or anything else. Duh.
In closing, Kramer's book is all about empathy. As she says:If I'd known, for instance, that men produce cortisol and testosterone (the fight or flight aggression hormones) when under stress I might have taken some of the more tense interactions less personally.
Indeed. If there's one thing that science has taught me, it's that ladies need to lighten up.
How many more gay people does God have to create before we consider God wants them around?
In Minnesota, the state legislature is considering a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage, despite the fact that marriage is already recognized only as a union between one man and one woman already by the state. Representative Steve Simon (DFL Hopkins/St. Louis Park) used the occasion of debate over the proposed amendment to put forth the observation that there is an alternative religious viewpoint to the one underlying support for a ban on same-sex marriage, and that is the possibility that God creates gay people because God "actually wants them around."
[Transcript below.]
As I have written on many previous occasions, I prefer the argument "It doesn't matter if it's a choice, because my rights end where yours begin," not just because the argument "It's not a choice, so we have to extend equality out of obligation" doesn't feel particularly progressive to me, but also because I respect the experiences of people whose sexuality is more fluid and more open to choice, at least in terms of how that sexuality is expressed. In my experience, both the rigid assertion that sexual orientation is a choice and the unqualified assertion that sexual orientation is not a choice tend to disappear people in the middle.
I like choice arguments: I believe that sexuality exists on a spectrum, is fluid for many people, and, through some combination of genetic predisposition and cultural influence—nature and nurture, if you prefer—we all come to arrive at an individual sexuality along that spectrum, a journey which is less choice for some than others, and we should all be free to choose whatever we like for ourselves, including those with whom we consensually partner, and no one choice should be privileged above another.
That said, because the debate over same-sex marriage (and I still can't even believe that "debate" exists in the first place) is so firmly rooted in religious arguments, and because the most conservative, reactionary, and flatly hateful religious views get most of the attention, I am really pleased to see a legislator put forth this alternative religious viewpoint, if only to make the point that there are competing religious views, so enshrining any one of them into a state constitution is garbage.
We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe them to be, in the Minnesota constitution—and what I'm hearing today, and what I heard on Friday, was largely a religious justification for change in the Minnesota constitution. I don't think that's right; I don't think it's fair; I think it departs from our tradition.
The other thing, which I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign but here at the legislature, too, is how much of homosexuality is nature versus nurture. Is this something that you learn or acquire, or is this something that you're born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice, like skateboarding or gardening, or is this something that's innate within a human being?
And I want to take a page from what I heard last Friday in the Senate testimony; there was a member of the clergy—forgive me, I can't remember his name—and he said, "You know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from God." And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence shows more and more every day that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate, and something that people are born with.
And I would ask everyone on this committee—not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but at a moment when you can be alone with your own thoughts—to ask yourself, if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean to the moral force of your argument? Just ask yourself—not now, in the glare of the Capitol and caucuses and interest groups—but ask yourself, if it's true that sexual orientation is innate, God-given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument?
And I guess, to put it in the vernacular, what I would ask is: How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around? [takes a deep breath; there is applause and a gavel bangs; some dude says, "Please keep applause to yourselves."] How many gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether [pauses; shrugs] the living of their lives the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a godly and holy and happy and glorious thing?
I've answered that for myself. I don't think everyone's answered that for themselves, necessarily, in this room. But I'm comfortable with a society and a tradition that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion. And I do think, as others have said before me more eloquently, that that's where the arc of history is bending as well—and I truly believe that, in a generation, maybe not even a generation, but certainly many generations from now, if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly.
And I think that the people who vote for this today, in the future, will, although their children and grandchildren will and should be very proud of them for their service to the state of Minnesota, will, on this issue, not be so proud—and there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something that we all have to think about and justify in our own consciousness. So I strongly urge a no vote.
There You Go
In response to the worst state budget crisis since World War II, the Texas House has proposed slashing $27 billion from the budget, including huge cuts to education, nursing homes, and health care for the poor. Yet last Friday, the Texas House Ways and Means Committee approved a tax break for those who want to buy yachts costing $250,000 or more.I really don't know what to add to that.
Under the current proposal, $7.8 billion will be cut from Texas public schools, four community colleges will close, 60,000 students will lose college financial aid, as many as 97,000 teachers and school employees will be laid off, 9,300 government jobs will be eliminated, Medicaid will be shortchanged by nearly $14 billion, and health and human services funding will plummet by a quarter. Despite this devastating toll, Republicans have been reluctant to tap in to the state’s $9.4 billion rainy day fund to alleviate the cuts, even though the fund is one of the most flush in the country.But at least they won't get taxed should they decide to buy an enormous pleasure ship.
Or Maybe Not...
Last week I wrote about objectivist film producer John Aglialoro and how he was going "on strike" to protest the critcal drubbing his film Atlas Shrugged Part 1 took.
"Critics, you won," Aglialoro complained, surrendering to the convenient conspiracy that the Liberal Media™ was Out To Get Him®. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." This didn't sit well with fans of the movie, who got a collective case of Sad Face over the news.
But as NewsBusters ("Exposing and Combating Liberal Media"! HA!) reported Friday, Aglialoro has changed his tune:
"Make no mistake, we want to make Part 2 and Part 3 and we're committed to finding a way to make it work."
Whew! I am soooo relieved. If Aglialoro does make Part 3: The Singening, I will go see it.
The challenge is in finding a way to overcome the critics and the rest of the establishment, who are united against us. The most frustrating thing is knowing that there are people who are missing out on an opportunity to enjoy the experience of Atlas Shrugged on the big screen either because of what critics have said or because they just don't know it's in theaters because they haven't heard about it.
At least he sticks to his conspiracy theory. He even takes it a step further: Aglialoro claims that MSNBC, CNN and CNBC "have all rejected a 15-second ad for 'editorial' reasons [with] no further explanation provided."
Though, in a separate interview published by the WSJ the following day Aglialoro stated "I underestimated the amount of television [advertising] that you must do. That is an undeniable necessary thing."
So, honestly, I don't even know what's going on. Aglialoro's story is all over the place: from poor word of mouth (which is weird because teabaggers are all over it like Christians were all over The Passion of the Christ), to censorship to bad marketing, there are plenty of reasons in Aglialoro's mind that Atlas is tanking. None of them seem to be that Aglialoro made a lousy movie with limited appeal.
He doesn't even seem to trust his base audience: how all these independent thinking teabaggers are under the influence of "what critics have said," is beyond me.
Expect a sequel... whenever. Which may or may not have singing. And may or may not play in a theater near you.
Canadian Post-Election Open Thread
Well, we've got good news, and we've got bad news.
The good news is, the New Democratic Party (the progressivistest of the lot) won a historic high number of seats, and Jack Layton (their party leader) will lead them to form the Loyal Opposition.
The bad news is, Stephen "Uncanny Valley" Harper appears to have won a majority, and will have more or less a free hand to work his Karlrovian evil for four years. We can expect tax cuts for the rich, and for corporations, cuts to services for less privileged people, discord with our quebecois compatriots, an end to piffling things like human rights cases, and I'm sure he'll be able to drum up a war or two to keep the fearmongering on the boil. Tough-on-crime will come, too, but of course not tough on silly crimes like rape that mostly hurt ladeez, tough on terrible injustices to "real" Canadians, like economic/social justice migration and how to prevent it, how to encourage more immigration from "good" (read: white enough) countries, eliminating the minimum wage, spending on stealth fighters, and other darling ideas of the protofascist/Bushist agenda. Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1989!
So the good news is good, but the bad news is awful.
Commenting guidelines: in addition to the usual, let us remember to engage with one another respectfully (anger is fine, insults are out) as we discuss the election results, to use "I" statements, and to please refrain from blaming other Canadians, whether for voting for the wrong party, or for choosing not to vote at all. Let's have some peace and order, while we hope and mourn for good government.
Shakers Are So Dreamy
Shaker TheDeviantE emails (which I am sharing with permission):
Hey Melissa,My favorite part of that is the professor who might or might not have been Danny DeVito "sort of" knows who I am, lol.
As soon as I woke up, I thought of you. I was back in high school and/or undergraduate classes (maybe English). I was also somewhere in New England at this school (it'll be important later on). Class was happening and I was not performing up to my usual cheerful/insightful self. At the end of class, my teacher was like "Hey, you were only at 80% today, what's going on?" and I agreed that I'd been a little distracted and not my usual insightful self. Then I went over to talk with my teacher and I noticed that James Franco was in my class! He was sort of chilling out, there were around 3 other classmates of mine trying to get his attention and he was headed out the door, but the *very first* thing I thought of was realizing I needed for a fact to ask him whether he'd be interested in meeting you. I was trying to get out "have you ever heard of Melissa McEwan?" and was about to tell him how he'd really like Shakesville, when he said "oh shoot, I've really gotta go, can this wait for next class?" (to which I sort of stupidly agreed). I remember thinking "even if she is in Chicago, we can figure out a way to have her get here to meet him if she wants! Liss will love this!"
The other part of the dream is less awesome but still very much Shaker focused:
After he left I waited around to talk to my professor (who might have been Danny DeVito, it's unclear). I asked him for some reason whether he knew who you were (I guess I figured if not Franco, then the professor? I don't know), and he said "sort of." Then I caught a glimpse of his plan for guest speakers for the rest of the semester. As I was asking him about it, I noticed that one of them was Stephen Harper! (which is why I'm not sure if this was actually an English class). I started yelling "Stephen Harper, you got Stephen Harper to speak to our class?" so he tried to shush me, since I guess he didn't want word getting out. He was sort of apologetic since he knew my politics but I agreed with him that hey, it's important to know what the opposition's saying. I then asked him if he knew the Canadian results, (since it seemed pertinent and I'd read about it on Shakesville).... And that's where I woke up.
Fun, huh?
Naturally, we shall use this as the jumping-off point for another thread about how frequently I and the other contributors/mods and other Shakers appear in each other's dreams. Shakes-related dreams come up in comments fairly regularly, and one of the most common subjects among reader emails is telling me that they dreamed about me and/or another contributor. (And, no, the vast majority of these are not the least bit creepy.)
So: Fess up. Have I appeared in your dream as your first-grade teacher? Has a fellow Shaker met you for drinks on the moon in your sleep? Has Deeky come to you in the night as a gummi-worm wielding organ grinder? Did I just invent the quadruple entendre with that last sentence...?
Tell the tales of your Shakesville Dreams here.
Abortion in the United States
The Guttmacher Institute has put together a terrific video called "Abortion in the United States," which summarizes key facts about abortion in the US. As we are all too painfully aware, many anti-choicers are stubbornly resistant to facts, but this piece will at least arm you for the times when you're given the blissful opportunity of an open mind.
Female Voiceover, over graphics corresponding to spoken content: Who are the women who obtain abortions in the United States? You might be surprised.
Almost one out of every three American women will have an abortion by age 45. They come from all walks of life. They are women you know.
Most women having abortions are in their 20s. Many people mistakenly believe that teens are the group most likely to have an abortion. Teens actually account for fewer than two in ten of all abortions, and most of them are older teens—those aged 18 and 19.
Six in ten women having abortions already have a child—and many have two or more. They know what it means to be a mother—and they often cite the need to care for their children as a primary reason for deciding not to have another right now.
Three out of four women who have abortions describe themselves as religiously affiliated. Catholic women have abortions at about the same rate as women overall.
Over the past decade, abortion has become increasingly concentrated among poor women. In 2008, more than four in ten abortion patients had incomes below the federal poverty line. That's a huge increase from a decade ago.
White women account for one in three abortions, more than any other group. However, women of color are disproportionately likely to have an abortion. The reason is that Black and Hispanic women have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy. These trends reflect widespread inequities in other areas—not enough Access to contraception and to quality, affordable health care, and not enough educational opportunities and good jobs. These broad social and economic inequities must be addressed, but, at a minimum, contraception should be easy to get and use for all—and comprehensive sex education should be available to all adolescents.
But while prevention is key, there will always be women who need abortions. That's why abortion is basic health care for women. It should be covered by private insurance plans as well as under public insurance programs, such as Medicaid. Covering abortion under Medicaid is critical to help the poorest, most vulnerable women pay for their procedure. Any woman who needs an abortion should be able to have one safely and with dignity.
Text Onscreen: Guttmacher Institute. For more information: www.guttmacher.org www.facebook.com/guttmacher www.twitter.com/guttmacher info@guttmacher.org
On Validation and Inextricable Links
The Bush apologists have been crowing, based on initial reports that the name of the courier who led agents to bin Laden was given up by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that the bin Laden assassination validates Bush-era policies—enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e. waterboarding), extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention. As Brian Beutler points out here, they're not right. The AP reports:
Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.Unfortunately, because there was a background of interrogative torture, there's no way to say with certainty that the threat of being tortured again played no role in Mohammed's giving up useful intel. That is not a defense of torture; torture doesn't work. It is a lamentation that Bush's torture policies have muddied the process of illustrating that standard interrogation does work.
And then there's this problem: The Obama administration has largely continued the Bush policy of indefinite detention. That isn't considered torture, but there aren't many honest people who don't acknowledge that it's a pretty terrible policy, human dignity-wise, even if they support it. The continuation of that policy also frustratingly undermines any argument that standard interrogation works, unless one believes that such an interrogation happens in a void, and the circumstances of one's reality, e.g. being indefinitely detained in a foreign country without hope of trial or release, don't influence one's response to interrogation.
There's a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about which president's policies are being validated, but that premise wrongly presumes that a clear line can be drawn between Bush's policies and Obama's policies, as if there is no crossover between their policies and as if the policies do not exist on a continuum when many terror suspects have been subjected to both policies.
The administrations, and their policies, are inextricably linked, frequently by virtue of the fact that the people being interrogated have been interred through parts of both administrations.
And if that doesn't underline the problem with the policies of both administrations, I don't know what would.
Intel Windfall at bin Laden Compound
Even more than the personal strike against bin Laden, the treasure trove of data recovered from his compound might be the most significant blow against the continued survival of Al Qaeda:
The assault force of Navy SEALs snatched a trove of computer drives and disks during their weekend raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, yielding what a U.S. official called "the mother lode of intelligence."Normally, I'd speculate that bin Laden wouldn't have kept information that yielded actionable intelligence on his hard drives, but the fact that he was able to lay low in that compound undisturbed for as long as six years makes me think there's a pretty good chance his outfit felt secure enough there to be a little careless. Good.
The special operations forces grabbed personal computers, thumb drives and electronic equipment during the lightning raid that killed bin Laden, officials told POLITICO.
..."Hundreds of people are going through it now," an official said, adding that intelligence operatives back in Washington are very excited to find out what they have.
"It's going to be great even if only 10 percent of it is actionable," the official said.
I Write Letters
Dear Animal Planet:
There should be a show that's nothing but animal adoptions from shelters and rescue groups. I mean, I love Underdog to Wonderdog and Miami Animal Police and all, but I just spend the whole episode looking forward to the adoption bits.
Seriously, I can't even tell you how much I would watch the fuck out of that show and blub my face off every week.
Please put Adoption Tails into production immediately.
Thank you.
Love,
Liss
Co-Signers on this letter include: Matilda, Olivia, Sophie, and Dudley.
Question of the Day
What's the last time you were misunderstood, or misunderstood someone else, in a funny way?
Some friends were visiting this weekend, and I thanked them for being "so game" about going to the dog park with us, even though the weather wasn't totally awesome. They, and Iain, thought I had thanked them for being "so gay," which caused much laughter. I then thanked Iain for being straight, just to be fair.
Ever since, I have been singing "Thank you for being so gay" to the tune of the Golden Girls theme.
Thank you for being so gayyyyyyy! / lol your gay and hey your gay! / Your heart is gay / You age well like fine Cabernet!
For the record, you are also as tasty as a cheese soufflé.
*jumps into Christmas tree*
His Resume Was Looking a Little Thin
James Franco is OBVIOUSLY directing dance theater, no doy. What—did you think James Franco wasn't going to direct dance theater or something? You're so weird.
Just when you thought James Franco had taken a break from all those projects, the everywhere actor picks up another gig. This time, he's making his debut as a dance theater director for the upcoming multimedia show "Collage," reports Gothamist.Especially because, in addition to directing "Collage," Franco "will appear live at each performance to narrate the production." Obviously. Because James Franco.
"'Collage' is a mixed-media piece that uses sound and visuals to play with the idea of how different art mediums interact," producer John Morrow says of the show, which runs at the Stella Adler studios in NYC from May 8 -15. "Using video, dance, poetry, theater and music, we have created a performance that will be an engaging experience for the audience."
(Btw, I love that CNN linked this from their front page with: "Yup, he's still busier than you," and I knew exactly to whom that was referring, lol.)
