Preston Leatherman Dances with an iPod in Public: "I had this idea to go to a public place (in this case, the local shopping mall) and dance like no one's business. The only catch is, there is an iPod in my ear, so no one else around me can hear the music." LOL. The best!
Here's some of what I've been reading this morning [trigger warning for child abuse]...
The Hill—Senate Passes $662B Defense Bill After Deal on Detainee Language:
The Senate passed a $662 billion Defense bill Thursday evening after a long fight over how the U.S. military detains terror suspects.For more on the detainee legislation, see Glenn Greenwald, whose piece underscores why this is an economic issue: War is big business for US corporations, especially as war is increasingly subcontracted to profit-making enterprises. Forever war is forever money, for them.
The bill passed overwhelmingly 93-7, following an agreement reached late Thursday afternoon to add compromise language on the detention of U.S. citizens and terror suspects on U.S. soil.
Now the Defense bill goes to conference committee with the House, which had its own language on detaining terror suspects that must be reconciled with the Senate version.
It is not clear whether the change will satisfy the White House, which has threatened to veto the Defense bill over the detainee provisions.
The Obama administration expressed its opposition to the use of military detention within the United States, but also had concerns over the legislation tying the hands of federal law enforcement by mandating military custody and prosecution of al Qaeda members. The administration also opposes restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees.
More children are living in poverty than ever in Texas. About 1.7 million Texas children — 26 percent of the total population — live below the federal poverty level, according to United States census data released this week. Experts speculate that a key factor in the increase in reports of child abuse and neglect is the struggling economy; the number of reported cases of abuse has gone up 6 percent in Texas since 2008, before the recession.Texas is, of course, not the only state in which this is happening.
In Travis County, the number of new cases opened with Child Protective Services rose 36 percent from 2008 to 2011.
"In an economic downturn, when you're losing your job, it pushes you over the edge in terms of the resources you have both internally and externally to care for your kid," said Jane Burstain, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal research group.
...Child Protective Services, like most state agencies, was hit with severe cuts during the 2011 legislative session.
Child abuse prevention financing was slashed by 44 percent. And because the Legislative Budget Board did not increase financing for caseload growth or to support family services or relative caregivers, the agency will continue to operate on a budget designed in 2009. Shelters and facilities that care for children and provide services like domestic violence prevention and protective parenting classes are struggling to find ways to serve more families with far fewer dollars.
If you were offered the choice between an afterlife over the design of which you could not exert control, or no afterlife at all, which would you choose?
[This post originally ran in February, but the included video is making the rounds again, and I've gotten a bunch of emails about it, so here it is again. Enjoy!]
In August of 2007, the state of Iowa's prohibition on same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional. In 2008, the case for marriage equality went to the Iowa Supreme Court, and, in 2009, the Court unanimously ruled in favor of marriage equality, thus making same-sex marriage legal in Iowa.
So of course Republicans in the state House introduced an amendment to the state's constitution to outlaw it again—a futile gesture, since state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal flatly refuses to allow it to come up for a vote in the Senate. (Rock on.) But there were hearings nonetheless, because homobigots love to hear themselves talk in poorly appointed rooms on shitty microphones.
What they weren't counting on was providing a platform to 19-year-old Iowan Zach Wahls, who was raised by a same-sex couple and whose compelling testimony has gone viral, making a passionate appeal for marriage equality the most talked-about event of their stupid symbolic hearing. Whooooooops!
Take it away, Zach.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan, an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women.
My biological mom, Terri, told her grandparents that she was pregnant, that the artificial insemination had worked, and they wouldn't even acknowledge it. It wasn't until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson. Unfortunately, neither of them lived to see her married to her partner, Jackie, of 15 years, when they wed in 2009.
My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994; we actually have the same anonymous donor, so we're full siblings, which is really cool for me. Um, you know, and I guess the point is that our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family—you know, when I'm home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations. But, you know, we have our hard times, too—we get in fights, um, you know, actually, my mom Terri was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2000; it is a devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair, so we've had our share of struggles.
But, you know, we're Iowans; we don't expect anyone to solve our problems for us; we'll fight our own battles; we just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government.
Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same-sex marriage comes up quite frequently in classroom discussions. You know, and the question always comes down to, "Well, can gays even raise kids?" And the question, you know, the conversation gets quiet for a moment, because most people don't really have an answer—and then I raise my hand and say, "Actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I'm doing pretty well."
I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT; I'm actually an Eagle Scout; I own and operate my own small business. If I were your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I'd make you very proud.
I'm not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn't so different from yours. After all, your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, "You're married—congratulations!" No, the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other, to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones; it comes from the love that binds us. That's what makes a family.
So what you're voting here isn't to change us. It's not to change our families; it's to change how the law views us, how the law treats us. You are voting for the first time, in the history of our state, to codify discrimination into our constitution—a constitution that, but for the proposed amendment, is the least amended constitution in the United States of America. You are telling Iowans that some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.
So will this vote affect my family? Will it affect yours? Over the next two hours, I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But in my 19 years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple.
And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character.
Thank you very much. [applause]
If you, like me, are a fan of big-ass bugs and think big-ass bugs are supercool, then you should definitely click this link, at which you will find some very cool pictures of the biggest-ass bug ever found. Who, by the way, is a big-ass female bug with a wingspan of seven inches and a weight equivalent to three mice.
If you are not a fan of big-ass bugs, I strongly advise against clicking on the link. You're welcome.
[Via.]
"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday."—Multimillionaire Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who has evidently never actually met any poor people, defending his endorsement of repealing child labor laws.
Via @AdamSerwer, who also notes that it's "More accurate to say poor children often have 'no one around them' because they frequently have one parent who is *always* working."
Again, I would just like to note that Newt Gingrich is one of the best candidates the Republican Party can find in a nation of 308 million people.
Herman Cain, who was said to be reassessing his campaign after the news broke of his 13-year extramarital affair, has concluded that his campaign is DEFINITELY AWESOME and thus has put out a hot new campaign advert.
You know, I wasn't going to vote for him before, what with all the sexual harassment, cavernous void of personal ethics, comprehensive lack of competency, and general garbage ideology, but now that I see he's got the moxie to indirectly throw down a straw-gauntlet against imaginary presidents who hate America, I'm going to reassess my own campaign of resounding contempt.
Ha ha just kidding I'm for sure never voting for him or anyone in his stupid party of bootstrap-hollering dirtbags.
Anyway! To the video!
Herman Cain in voiceover, over patriotic music and images of a busy factory where the forklifts sport US flags: The engine of economic growth is the business sector. Now this is good. [images turn to a still factory, as the music segues to an ominously howling wind] This is bad. [cut to Cain onscreen, with "I Am America" music from previous ads] Our fifteen trillion dollar national debt is killing our children's future, and it's not going to get any better until we put an executive into the executive office. [more scenes of busy factory] I've spent a lifetime creating jobs, and, if you make me America's CEO, we the people will take this country back. We can do this. I'm Herman Cain. I'm running for president. I approve this message, and I will never apologize for the greatness of the United States of America.I would just like to note that Herman Cain is one of the best candidates the Republican Party can find in a nation of 308 million people.
Yesterday, Melissa sent me a link to this story, saying that this probably wasn’t news to me as I work for an HIV/AIDS services organization, but that I might want to write about it. I decided to save the post for today, as it is World AIDS Day (although as we say at my agency, “Every day is World AIDS Day.”). And yes, reading this isn’t particularly surprising to me (although I was blown away by the discrimination statistics), but the numbers are still shocking:
Medical progress now ensures that HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence, but only for those who can access good medical care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that almost three out of four Americans with HIV are not receiving enough medicine or regular health care “to stay healthy or prevent themselves from transmitting the virus to others.” Out of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. have HIV, 850,000 aren’t receiving regular treatment to keep the virus at a low enough level to prevent transmission or hurt their own health and 240,000 Americans don’t even know they’re infected with HIV.Indeed, as the first sentence states, HIV is now a very manageable medical condition if you can access care. Access to a knowledgeable medical provider is very important, but without access to medications, the phrase “HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence” doesn’t hold much water. With so many people lacking insurance that covers prescriptions, and with so many states creating ADAP (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) waiting lists, access to the medication needed to combat HIV infection is a very real problem. For people not living in the USA, access to medications may be impossible. Many of the problems that made HIV so difficult to combat early in the epidemic are still very present today, such as lack of education and stigma.
When discussing how HIV is working inside someone, the most common terms you will hear are “CD4 count (or t-cells) and “viral load.” Basically, CD4 cells help your body fight off disease, and viral load refers to HIV virus cells. Doctors measure the number of these cells in a cubic millimeter of blood (a small drop). So, the goal is a high CD4 count and a low viral load. Sometimes you will hear people say they are “undetectable.” This means their viral load is so low, the HIV cells cannot be detected in that drop of blood.Until there is a cure, knowing your status, educating yourself, and eliminating stigma are the best ways to fight HIV/AIDS.
However, this does not mean the person is cured of HIV, or that the HIV cells are gone.
And most importantly, even with an undetectable viral load, it is still possible to infect someone else with HIV. Although it is more difficult to contract HIV from someone with an undetectable viral load, it is still possible. This is why we encourage people to always practice safer sex.
[Trigger warning for harmful language, emotional manipulation, rape culture.]
This is the first post in a series about language. Specifically, harmful language.
We talk about physical and emotional abuse a lot in this space, and, to some extent, we also talk about abusive language: Under the "this shit doesn't happen in a void" refrain, I've frequently addressed hate speech, and we acknowledge that bullying is abusive even without any physical violence.
We also recognize, in discussions of rape culture and in conversations about institutional oppressions, that systemic harm is not limited to physical violence, but additionally manifests as harmful language in the form of rape jokes or slurs or violent rhetoric, as examples.
In discussions of privilege, we also begin to get at the ways in which language that is not explicitly violent or marginalizing can also be oppressive, and we recognize how a failure to own one's privilege using accountability deflecting language extends and exacerbates the hurt, anger, and alienation caused by privilege and expressions thereof.
The language of defensiveness, projection, emotional auditing, non-apology apologies, false choices, and magical intent is ubiquitous in social justice spaces—and pretty much everywhere else.
This series is intended to really examine how this brand of accountability deflecting language manifests as abuse in everyday interactions with the people around us. In the same way that discussions of consent as a broad concept beyond sexual interactions have inspired people to reconsider other consent issues, even something as common as posting photographs online, I hope that this series can make us more sensitive to what we're actually communicating when we engage accountability deflecting language, and underline why it is inherently harmful.
We begin with Magical Intent.
Magical Intent is the principle by which someone who has said or done something offensive, hurtful, rage-making, marginalizing, and/or otherwise contemptible argues that the person to whom they've said or done it has no right to be offended, hurt, enraged, alienated, and/or otherwise disdainful because their intent was not to generate that reaction.
In other words: "I didn't intend for you to feel that way, so if you do feel that way, don't blame me! My intent magically inoculates me from responsibility for what I actually said and how it was received!"
This is one of the most harmful—and common—manifestations of accountability deflecting language, rooted in the false contention that intent is more important than effect. It is a most curious habit, given that most of us would readily acknowledge that "I didn't mean it" isn't an excuse for not having to apologize when we bump into someone or accidentally step on someone's foot. Yet we have nonetheless created an entirely different standard for things we say that inadvertently hurt other people.
Intent does not, in fact, magically render us unaccountable from the effects of our communication, no more than not intending to step on someone's toes magically renders us unaccountable from the effects of our movement. Pain caused unintentionally is still authentic pain.
And, although it's true that sometimes our communication is simply misunderstood, more frequently, the (mis)communications that led to the invocation of magical intent are the result of implicit intent not actually matching what is being explicitly communicated. To illustrate what I mean, some examples:
Example One: Alex has a PhD in Subjectology. Jamie knows that Alex has a PhD in Subjectology, yet, during a discussion of Subject, Jamie, who has an interest in and is reasonably knowledgeable about Subject, condescendingly explains basics of Subject to Alex without regard for Alex's demonstrable proficiency. Alex expresses that Jamie's insistence on explaining basics makes Alex feel as though Jamie does not respect Alex's competency or intellectual capacity. Jamie, whose intent was actually to impress Alex, insists that hir intent was not to make Alex feel that way. Alex makes a valiant attempt to explain why Jamie behaving as though Alex doesn't know the basics of Alex's professional field is disrespectful, at which point Jamie gets miffed, reiterates that the intent was not to make Alex feel bad, accuses Alex of looking for things to get mad about, and misrepresents Alex's good faith attempt to address demeaning language as a personal attack on Jamie.
Thus, what had started out as an inadvertent slight becomes a harmful exchange, as Jamie refuses to acknowledge that the effect of the action irrespective of its intent was hurtful to Alex, and deflects accountability by casting Alex as unreasonable.
Example Two: Kelly and Terry are friends. Kelly is fat; Terry is thin. Terry routinely expresses disgust with hir body by saying things like, "I am so fat" and "This cellulite is disgusting." Kelly tells Terry that such expressions are hurtful and make hir wonder what Terry must think of hir, since zie is much fatter than Terry. Terry, whose intent was actually to solicit support and validation from Kelly, insists that hir intent was not to make Kelly feel that way. Kelly makes a valiant attempt to point out that even if it was not intended to make hir feel bad about hir body, it does, because Terry is associating fatness with something bad. Terry reacts defensively, reiterating that the intent was not to make Kelly feel bad and accusing Kelly of being jealous and oversensitive.
Thus, what had started out as a misguided attempt to connect becomes a harmful exchange, as Terry refuses to acknowledge that, despite a lack of intention to be hurtful, zie was hurtful nonetheless, and deflects accountability by projecting hir void of sensitivity onto Kelly as an abundance of oversensitivity.
Example Three: Jesse has a habit of casually using the rhetoric of sexual violence ("I got raped by that ATM fee"), even around hir friend Jordan, who was raped. Jordan has asked Jesse not to use those phrases around hir, explaining that they are triggering and make hir feel unsafe, to which Jesse agreed. Jesse nonetheless slipped up, and Jordan expressed hurt both over the use of the phrase and also over the disregard for hir previous request. Jesse, whose intent was not to hurt Jordan, responds belligerently and insists zie just forgot and hir intent wasn't to hurt Jordan and doesn't Jordan know that? Jordan says zie does know that, or else they would not still be friends, but adds that it was hurtful all the same. Jesse storms off in a huff, but not before hurling another accusation of bad faith at Jordan.
Thus, what had started out as a hurtful mistake becomes a harmful exchange, as Jesse refuses to own hir mistake or acknowledge that the effect was to disregard the feelings of an ostensibly valued friend, then further escalates the situation by attributing to Jordan accusations of ill will that Jordan did not make.
In the first example, Jamie's implicit intent was to shape Alex's perception of hir, but Jamie's explicit communication was a display of hir knowledge of Subject. In the second example, Terry's implicit intent was to elicit validation and fish for a compliment from Kelly to assuage Terry's anxiety about hir body, but Terry's explicit communication was a negative expression about fat. In the third example, Jesse's implicit intent was merely to communicate a frustration about something, but hir explicit communication went beyond that to include triggering language that broke an existing friendship agreement with Jordan.
In all three cases, there was a significant gap between intended communication and actual communication, leaving room for a grave misunderstanding.
Now, mismatches between intended communication and actual communication happen all the time, even when one endeavors to communicate as straightforwardly as possible, and it's not always a problem. (Sometimes, in fact, it is a source of great humor.) But a harmful exchange is most likely when the discord arises from seeking something for oneself without empathizing with how it's being received by the person from whom one is seeking it.
That's the danger in trying to communicate need in indirect ways. It's easy to lose sight of what you're conveying tangentially, because you're so focused on accessing approbation, reassurance, validation, support, the placation of internal distress because you know you've fucked up, or whatever else for which you're searching.
And in instances where it begets an unintentional offense, the worst possible response is to try to shift accountability to the recipient of the communication.
It's an understandable impulse: Deflecting accountability—that is, asking the listener to be responsible for the genesis of the hurt, because they misunderstood your intent—feels a lot better than being accountable.
But seeking accountability-free absolution from whom you've wronged, asking to be let off the hook so you can let yourself off the hook, only serves you—it does not serve the person that you've hurt.
It is not merely unfair (although it is that, too) to deflect accountability by casting someone to whom you've done wrong as unreasonable, oversensitive, or alleging malice ("How could you think I intended to hurt you?!"), when they are being or doing no such thing. It is abusive.
And it is abusive because it is emotionally manipulative.
That's a difficult notion to accept for most of us, because most of us have engaged in this type of harmful communication at some point in our lives, even if it's not a regular habit. Even being presented with the idea that common defensiveness can be abusive is likely to elicit, in some readers, a magical intent response: I don't intend to abuse or manipulate people, so there's no way I'm doing it!
But that's why this conversation is so important—because a lack of intent to harm doesn't guarantee that one will never harm.
The convention of magical intent seeks to oblige a harmed person into accepting accountability for our fuck-ups. It asks them to accept that their feelings are irrational, because what matters is what we intended them to feel.
Which brings us to the auditing and asserting ownership of someone else's emotions. And that will be Part Two.
[Note: It is not incidental that, in all examples provided, the harmed parties responded to unintentional offenses done by trusted people with the good faith assumption that there was no intent to harm even when harm was done. As all communications, this particular issue has two sides: One is assuming good faith in criticism when deserved, and the other is assuming good faith in response when approached thus.]
A first peek at Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, from Steven Spielberg's upcoming biopic, Lincoln...
Protesters march on November 30, 2011 in London, United Kingdom. More than 2 million public sector workers are staging a nationwide strike over cuts to their public sector pensions. The strike began at midnight leading to the closure of most state schools, disruption to rail and tunnel services, delays at border areas inside airports and ferry terminals and the postponement of thousands of non-emergency hospital operations. The TUC has said it is the biggest stoppage in more than 30 years, with hundreds of marches and rallies due to take place in cities and towns across the UK. [Getty Images]Here's some of what I've been reading this morning...
Each of the top presidential candidates already has at least one super PAC raising unlimited funds to support his or her campaign. Now some members of Congress are getting in on the action, too.Perfect. If there's one thing that we needed in this country, it was a way to make it easier for corporations to own members of Congress. Democracy is so messy. This will be much easier for all of us.
Several new super PACs have sprung up in recent months with the explicit aim of helping a particular lawmaker... But the boldest proposal comes from Sen. Mike Lee (Utah), a freshman Republican who wants to add a super PAC component to his leadership PAC, the Constitutional Conservatives Fund. The Federal Election Commission is set to consider the request during a meeting Thursday.
The idea would allow Lee to raise unlimited funds from corporations and wealthy individuals as head of the super PAC, then spend the funds to help other Republicans. It would mark another step toward unraveling campaign-finance restrictions that generally require outside groups to act independently of candidates.
What's the worst movie you've seen in the last month?
It doesn't have to be a new movie, or even a movie you watched for the first time. Just whatever was the biggest stinker you've seen lately.
I cast my vote for Hugo—and, for perspective on how much I didn't like it, we recently rented The Zookeeper for Bad Movie Night, and I'm still casting my vote for Hugo, lol.
