Overheard in the car this morning:
When President Obama speaks to women's groups, or gay and lesbian audiences, he can point to a list of things his administration has accomplished for those communities.I suppose that's technically correct. However, there's a huge difference between can and should.
[Trigger warning for terrorism and violence.]
Here is some of the news emerging about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man accused of killing at least 93 people in a bomb attack and shooting rampage in Oslo and on the island of Utøya last week:
Breivik, who has admitted to being the bomber/shooter, was in court today for a custody hearing. The Guardian's live blog is here: The court "decided to remand Breivik in custody for eight weeks, as it believes there is a risk he would tamper with evidence were he released. Breivik has also provided statements that require further investigation—especially his assertion that there may be two more cells in his organisation. Judge has also agreed to the prosecution's petition for complete isolation for four weeks and a ban on letters and visitors."
CNN: Who is the suspect in the Norway attacks?
Reuters—Norway's mass killer pursuing anti-Islam crusade: "Multi-culturalism is one of the dirtiest words in Anders Behring Breivik's political vocabulary."
New York Times—Breivik Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War:
As stunned Norwegians grappled with the deadliest attack in the country since World War II, a portrait began to emerge of the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, 32. The police identified him as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian, while acquaintances described him as a gun-loving Norwegian obsessed with what he saw as the threats of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration.I wish I had wise or comforting words for our Norwegian Shakers. All I've got is this: We are with you.
"We are not sure whether he was alone or had help," a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised news conference. "What we know is that he is right wing and a Christian fundamentalist."
In the 1,500-page manifesto, posted on the Web hours before the attacks, Mr. Breivik recorded a day-by-day diary of months of planning for the attacks, and claimed to be part of a small group that intended to "seize political and military control of Western European countries and implement a cultural conservative political agenda."
He predicted a conflagration that would kill or injure more than a million people, adding, "The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come."
[Trigger warning for misogyny and rape culture.]
As per usual, there's been no shortage of misogyny and rape culture at ComicCon.
1. A woman dressed as Batgirl and her tween daughter dressed as Spoiler bravely challenged the lack female characters in the Justice League line and the dearth of female creators. Naturally, she received a hostile response from panelists and crowd, who don't like having their fun ruined etc.
2. At the Game of Thrones panel, actor Jason Momoa, who plays Khal Drogo (and whose rape of Daenerys Targaryen was much discussed here), said his favorite thing about working on Game of Thrones is that fantasy shows let him "rip someone's throat out and rape beautiful women."
3. At the True Blood panel, executive producer Alan Ball said
his favorite moment of the current fourth season was the "ritualistic gang rape of Jason Stackhouse" by werepanther women.So. Fucking. Gross.
"There was actually a sense of enjoyment in that for me as well," joked Ryan Kwanten, who plays Jason.
Here's the latest...
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Isible) told House Republicans on a call yesterday that, despite the resounding hostility among Democrats and the public to their shitty "Cut, Cap, and Balance" plan, and Obama's promise to veto it, the Republican majority in the House should pass "a package that reflects the principles of Cut, Cap & Balance," and then send it to the Senate, essentially letting the Democratic majority there take the fall for default if they don't pass it.
On the same call, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor criticized Obama for not supporting their short-term proposal to lift the debt ceiling, even though last month he was criticizing the same proposal himself.
Yes, this is about INTEGRITY!
Washington Post—Debt-limit compromise elusive as separate strategies take shape in House, Senate:
Over the weekend, congressional negotiators focused their attention on Boehner's proposal to raise the debt limit in two stages. Their goal was to make it more palatable to Democrats — particularly President Obama. On Sunday afternoon, they thought they were close.The Hill—Durbin to GOP: 'You break it, you own it': "The second most powerful Democrat in the Senate warned Republicans Sunday that they are toying with a fragile economy and would take the blame for any fallout from a debt default. On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he had six words of warning for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): 'If you break it, you own it.'"
But after a 6 p.m. powwow at the White House, Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected the emerging compromise, saying it would leave the door open to another wrenching debt-limit battle in just a few months.
"Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans' continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support," Reid said in a written statement. "Speaker Boehner's plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President."
Someday people will look back and wonder, What were they thinking? Why, in the midst of a stalled recovery, with the economy fragile and job creation slowing to a trickle, did the nation's leaders decide that the thing to do—in order to raise the debt limit, normally a routine matter—was to spend less money, making job creation all the more difficult? Many experts on the economy believe that the President has it backward: that focusing on growth and jobs is more urgent in the near term than cutting the deficit, even if such expenditures require borrowing. But that would go against Obama's new self-portrait as a fiscally responsible centrist.Seriously, go read the whole thing.
...The question arises, aside from Obama's chronically allowing the Republicans to define the agenda and even the terminology (the pejorative word "Obamacare" is now even used by news broadcasters), why did he so definitively place himself on the side of the deficit reducers at a time when growth and job creation were by far the country's most urgent needs?
It all goes back to the "shellacking" Obama took in the 2010 elections. The President's political advisers studied the numbers and concluded that the voters wanted the government to spend less. This was an arguable interpretation. Nevertheless, the political advisers believed that elections are decided by middle-of-the-road independent voters, and this group became the target for determining the policies of the next two years.
That explains a lot about the course the President has been taking this year. The political team's reading of these voters was that to them, a dollar spent by government to create a job is a dollar wasted. The only thing that carries weight with such swing voters, they decided—in another arguable proposition—is cutting spending.
...The Republicans displayed a recklessness that should have disqualified them from being taken seriously. Any deal that was reached would contain substantial cuts in the coming fiscal year—too soon, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the head of the Congressional Budget Office Doug Elmendorf have recently warned.
The antitax dogma of the Republican Party is strongly rooted in mythology. The theory that tax cuts create jobs has been discredited by the results of George Bush's tax policies. The Republicans cling to the myth that "small business" owners are the "job creators," and so they oppose proposals to eliminate the Bush rate cuts for even those earning over $250,000. But relatively few small business owners earn $250,000—in fact, fewer than 3 percent of the 20 million people who file business income on their personal tax forms (the 1040s) earn that much.
Finally, the antitax position of many conservatives would seem to be illogical, since they also hate deficits: but their real aim is to reduce or eliminate federal programs. They call efforts to redistribute wealth "socialism," but have no problem redistributing from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through taxes.
After Melissa posted a piece yesterday in which she used the word "dénouement" as a verb, I noted in comments and by email,
Bonus points for using "dénouement" as a verb. Take that, prescriptive grammarians!She mailed back:
I will almost certainly get yelled at for using dénouement that way, but I don't care! I like the sound of it! :)Then, a little while ago, I got the following email from Melissa:
And I may, just MAY, have decided to go ahead and use it even knowing someone would probably complain because I was feeling irascible, lol.
Do I really need to add "Don't email me about my fucking wordplay?" to the email policy? LOOKS LIKE IT LULZ!Attached to the email was, of course, a message from a reader explaining to her that the word "dénouement" is a noun only.
Re: denouement--UPGAL Official Business: We Have Received Complaints
Dear MELISSA MCEWAN,
We have received Complaints about your use of the French noun "dénouement" as a verb. Our investigation has determined that this usage falls under Poetic License for Wordplay (#305).
Please find attached your Poetic License for WORDPLAY issued by Nosey Parker, Secretary of All Up in Your Grammar Business here at the Uptight Grammarians of America League (UPGAL!)
Please display your official UPGAL Poetic License in your Place of Business so as to avoid such static in the future.
This License comes with a fancy border and an official seal. There is no frame, but as you can see it is backed by a sparkly blue ironing-board cover. You may notice a smudge of white-out where we had misspelled "America". If that doesn't indicate our rigorous dedication to utmost perfection, well then what the hell will?
SIGNED,
Nosey Parker, UPGAL Secretary of AUIYGB
(1 attachment)
Re: denouement--CORRECTION
That's Uptight PRESCRIPTIVE Grammarians of America League.
Our bad.
UPGAL: "Our bad, but never yours!"
I almost can't believe it. Sixty days until that horrible piece of institutional bigotry is dead.
Blub.
I have several close friends (including a regular Shaker, who may identify himself in comments if he feels so inclined) who have served this country in the military, forced to secret a part of themselves by the country they loved so much they were willing to lay their lives on the line to protect it, to fight for freedom and equality they weren't even granted themselves.
They are some of the greatest patriots I have ever known, and nothing honors their service better than making sure that no one ever has to serve in a closet again.
Good riddance, DADT.
Last month, a Calgary radio station announced a contest where women could compete for free breast implants by submitting a photo and a personal statement. Predictably, reviews were, um, mixed. Last week, Amp Radio selected ten finalists, from which online voters chose a winner.
The votes are in. Avery, a Calgary trans woman, won the ten-way contest with seventy-six percent of all votes cast. Beautiful.
This is how we work the system.
Societies are not generally open to paying trans* people's medical bills. Those of us who live in the United States aren't guaranteed health insurance. To the extent that we might have our own insurance, the corporations that profit from us typically don't pay for the care we need. Medicaid and Medicare don't cover our needs, even for qualifying individuals.
While Canadian society generally views health care as a fundamental human right, various governmental agencies determine what "health care" actually means. Some provinces (like Alberta) don't cover SRS/GRS at all. It's pretty typical for politicians to treat trans* people's bodies as budget lines and political footballs. Thus, it's never clear what various provinces will pay for at various points in time.
Toying with trans* people's lives is not a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. There are places that have "universal" health care that only allows an outlandishly low number of trans* people to access services each year. Some places have "universal" health care, but force trans* people to conform to narrow standards and submit to horrific psychological evaluations as a condition of their care. Often enough, both of these conditions exist simultaneously.
Of course, there's tons and tons of essential health care that pretty much all trans* women have to either pay for or forgo. Facial hair removal can, depending on circumstances, cost upwards of $10,000. Psychotherapy, which can be useful and/or required and/or horrifyingly unuseful can cost thousands more dollars. Getting breast implants cost additional thousands of dollars. SRS/GRS can costs at least $10,000, and frequently upwards of $20,000. Depending on the surgeon, SRS/GRS may require extensive hair removal beforehand, which again, may cost thousands. Hormones can be pricey, as can visits to the doctors that provide them, both in terms of travel and payment for services rendered. Have I mentioned that some trans* women need (and occasionally undergo) facial reconstructive surgery? Don't even ask how much that costs.
Trans* women typically count themselves as extremely fortunate if the have a health care provider that pays for therapy, hormones, and SRS/GRS. Everything else? Forget it.
--
I've been on the Internet once or twice, and I'm pretty sure typing the words "need" and "breast implants" is a sure-fire way to piss many readers off to the point where they won't make it more than halfway through your essay. I'm not going to bother with a lengthy, Ativan-fueled explanation of why many trans* women need certain medical procedures. Goddess knows, I've had plenty of strangers tell me that I'm living my life all wrong, and I'm supposed to suck it up and be comfortable in the skin they tell me I'm supposed to have. Bullshit.
However, permit me to explore breasts for a moment or two.
My breasts are spectacular. I'm not saying that merely to get a rise out of you. Even before I came out, I could occasionally feel the weight of my breasts. That might sound strange and disconcerting. I can vouch for the latter. Owing to the particulars of my transition, it was a good three years after my transition before I developed tits (Really? You know the name of the blog, right?). When it happened, it was very, very reassuring. I honestly can't say much that a bazillion trans* women haven't said before. I felt relieved and unstressed at the reality of finally having breasts. It was, in a word, spectacular. So, hugs and congrats to Avery on that score-- I hope she feels the same relief.
When my breasts came in, another interesting thing happened, something that Avery touched on in her statement. People stopped treating me like shit because I was a trans person, and started treating me like shit because they presumed I was a cis woman. Now, I've heard plenty of cis women call upon their personal experiences with the second clause in arguing that trans* women should be forced to endure the first.
Here's the thing: it's not trans* women's job, and trans* women's job alone, to rid the world of misogyny. Furthermore, it's completely hateful and mendacious to insist that we suck up violence and discrimination in the vain hopes that our "taking one for the team" will somehow eliminate gendered oppression, and by way of the magic of the post-patriarchy, make us no longer feel the weight of breasts that aren't there. So yeah, breasts are a human right.
The interesting part about Avery's story, of course, is that she had to go online and subvert a misogynistic contest by begging strangers (and corporations) for her rights. Believe me, as fun as cultural subversion can be, it's also stressful, awkward, and embarrassing. Thankfully in Avery's case, people were generous with their online votes. Thankfully in my case, people have already been incredibly generous with their donations.
Trans* people shouldn't have to be thankful. We shouldn't have to ask nicely. We shouldn't have to ask at all. We are human, therefore we deserve human rights.
I know there are people out there with absolutely no idea what it's like to live my life, or Avery's life, or anyone else's fucking life, who are happy to play oppression olympics, to argue that having tits (or not having tits) and having a cunt (or a wang) aren't actually real human rights, or at least aren't as important as other rights.
Bullshit.
Rights are rights. I don't want to live in a society that treats justice as a zero-sum game. There are more than enough resources and compassion in the world to meet all of everyone's needs.
So how about it?
H/t to Shaker Sarah
Crossposted
And here's some more: Ryan Seacrest made $61 million last year.
This blogaround brought to you by HEAT! And THUNDERSTORMS!
Recommended Reading...
Eric: Murdoch's New York Post Publisher Also Has a Hacking Problem
Tami: [TW for misogyny and body policing] What Rebekah Brooks Really Needs to Worry about is the Message Her Hair Sends
Veronica: The Pill's Role in Radicalizing Me at 12
Marie: Fox Host: Free Birth Control Is Liberal Conspiracy to 'Eradicate the Poor'
Resistance: [TW for homophobia] In Their Best Interest
Shiha: [TW for misogyny] Celebrating Sikh Baby Girls?
Renee: My First Vibrator (I own a Hitachi Magic Wand, too, although it was not my first vibrator. My first one was some random-brand iridescent pink thing that came with a matching mini-me for, per the packaging, "delicate anal action.")
Leave your links in comments...
Zero: Massachusetts special education paraprofessional Kathy Meltsakos' take-home pay after benefits and taxes come out of her $10.74 an hour salary.
Initially earning $13.74 for a 35-hour week with the Pentucket schools, Meltsakos paid 20 percent of her insurance, which was manageable, and she did that for 10 years until laid off in June 2010. While looking for work she received unemployment benefits. She was later rehired at a lower pay rate, with five less hours, and with a higher contribution for her healthcare.[H/T to @Brunocerous.]
"I was placed at the bottom of the scale at $10.74 an hour for a 30-hour week. After taxes, I paid 60 percent of my medical insurance. My pay stubs from February to June 24 (the end of the school year) show no net take home pay since February. Oh – and the insurance rates went up in May."
By April she was frustrated with no take home pay and knew she had to get a second job. "My husband is doing everything he can but we have kids in college and of course the regular bills to pay. I tried a pizza shop, then found work with a discount store, twenty hours a week during school, and a few more now that school is out. They pay a little more per hour but no benefits." For the summer she landed a job with special ed kids for 20 hours a week at $14 an hour.
"I'm not the only ESP worker in the position of working two or three jobs to try to make ends meet," Meltsakos said. "We are not looking for a free ride. But we have to question a system that forces workers in any profession to stitch together several pay streams to make ends meet. ... We're taught from an early age not to talk a whole lot about earnings and comparing our salaries. It's not 'polite'. Well, we've had about thirty years of being polite about work and paychecks and look where that has got us."
On the economy...
Paul Krugman: The Lesser Depression.
Right now we're looking at not one but two looming crises, either of which could produce a global disaster. In the United States, right-wing fanatics in Congress may block a necessary rise in the debt ceiling, potentially wreaking havoc in world financial markets. Meanwhile, if the plan just agreed to by European heads of state fails to calm markets, we could see falling dominoes all across southern Europe — which would also wreak havoc in world financial markets.And Sarah Jaffe: The Unemployed Aren't Invisible: Washington and the Media Just Aren't Paying Attention.
We can only hope that the politicians huddled in Washington and Brussels succeed in averting these threats. But here's the thing: Even if we manage to avoid immediate catastrophe, the deals being struck on both sides of the Atlantic are almost guaranteed to make the broader economic slump worse.
...The disappearance of unemployment from elite policy discourse and its replacement by deficit panic has been truly remarkable. It's not a response to public opinion. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of the public named the economy and jobs as the most important problem we face, while only 7 percent named the deficit. Nor is it a response to market pressure. Interest rates on U.S. debt remain near historic lows.
Yet the conversations in Washington and Brussels are all about spending cuts (and maybe tax increases, I mean revisions).
The New York Times said the unemployed have become invisible. Maybe in Washington, in political circles where the question is not what to spend to put people back to work but which programs to cut. But there are 14.1 million unemployed right now, scattered around the country, many of whom have been out of work for months or years.Both pieces, in their entirety, are worth your time.
..."People are the most precious resource that this country has; the determination that people have makes this country what it is. But they continue to step on the backs of people who have given their all, not just for one generation but for generation after generation, you work and pay taxes and try to live in a decent home, and then they say, we can't help you," Benita Johnson of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania told me. She's been out of work since May 2010, and has only been able to find temporary positions since 2006—after taking a serious pay cut to get a job that would allow her to get her bachelor's degree at night.
There has been a big explosion at the Prime Minister's office in Oslo today. Prime Minister Per Stoltenberg is fine, but there are reports that other people have been injured.
At the moment, the explosion appears to have been caused by a car bomb, but that has not been confirmed by officials.
UPDATE: Reuters is reporting at least one person has died.
UPDATE 2: A police officer on-scene has told Bloomberg that a bomb caused the blast.
UPDATE 3: Reuters confirms two deaths in the blast.
UPDATE 4: Contact information: Relatives can call 81502800. Witnesses can call +47 22669966.
UPDATE 5: There are reports, which have been confirmed by police, of a man dressed as a police officer opening fire at Utøya in Buskerud. Police are now on-site and have sealed off the area, but there are people hiding from the gunman in the sealed zone, and it is not known how many have been injured, if any.
UPDATE 6: The Guardian's live blog of events is here.
UPDATE 7: It is now being reported that five have been injured in the shooting. BBC coverage is here.
UPDATE 8: Oslo authorities are urging people to stay at home.
UPDATE 9: Per Reuters, seven people have died. Two more severely injured.
UPDATE 10: Reuters:
A gunman detained after shootings at a youth meeting on a Norwegian island and a bombing in central Oslo on Friday is Norwegian, Justice Minister Knut Storberget said.
"Our information is that he is Norwegian," he told a news conference. "I don't know so much about him."
He said that seven people were killed in a bombing in central Oslo and 10 injured. Several people were killed and others wounded in a shooting at a youth camp northwest of Oslo of the ruling Labour Party, he added.
The Pentagon will reportedly certify the end of DADT today. Once Obama signs off on the certification, DADT would be officially over in 60 days.
The military finally recognizing out troops will also put pressure on the federal government to repeal DOMA, in order to formally recognize the spouses of married gay troops.
*titters with anticipation*
