I keep putting this one off because updates take time that I should be using to email volunteers, but I still think it's important to keep everyone in the loop so here is another transcript update. As you can see, we are so close!! I am freaking out with happy.
(More below the cut.)
Transcript Update!
Piers Morgan Is Terrible
[Content Note: Transphobia; gender policing; privilege; rape culture.]
Last night, trans advocate Janet Mock returned to Piers Morgan's CNN show to follow up after her previous appearance in which Morgan said she was "born a boy," and other deeply ignorant shit, which resulted in a firestorm of criticism on Twitter, and Piers Morgan claiming he had been attacked.
It was a horrendous segment, in which Morgan barked at Mock: "I have spent an infuriating 24 hours and I want you to explain why I've had to go through this," followed by accusations that she is dishonest and giving her unsolicited advice about how to comport herself during interviews.
The transcript is here.
Following that segment, in which Mock tried valiantly to communicate the problems with cis people defining trans* people's lives for them, Morgan invited a panel of cis people to debate whether it's okay to say that a trans woman was "born a boy."
Throughout, he insisted that he is "an ally" to the transgender community.
I don't know how to say this any more plainly: If you are a cis person who believes it's okay to play arbiter of trans* people's identities and lives, you are no ally.
The most basic piece of ally work that a cis person must do is respect trans* people's right to define their own lives, to be the absolute authorities on their own lives.
If you treat anyone's self-identity as a debatable subject, you are not their ally.
Morgan was disrespectful; he was not listening. He was filtering Mock's life through his Validity Prism, and found wanting her description of her own life. He positioned himself as the Objective Outsider, refusing to even entertain the possibility that his cis privilege does not make him more objective, but in fact compromises his instincts for empathy, by urging him to view himself (and other cis people) as a norm from which trans* people deviate.
That is not reality; that is a false construct created by privilege.
[Note: Morgan followed his rank policing of Mock and other trans* people with segments in which he sided with Jerry Seinfeld for saying some garbage that totally disregards structural inequalities, and in which his panel condemned people for siding with Dylan Farrow, for "litigating this in public, litigating this over Twitter."]
Question of the Day
What is your favorite "I'm stuck in the house because of the weather" activity? Too cold, too snowy, too hot, too rainy, too much pollen, too much mold, whatever.
Maude Save Us
Quote of the Day
"Social media is viewed by gatekeepers as simultaneously worthless and a serious threat. Balancing these opposing views requires a hypocrisy that can be facilitated only by the assurance of power."—Sarah Kendzior, in a piece for Al Jazeera responding to the Nation piece about "Feminism's Toxic Twitter Wars."
Relatedly: Yesterday, the Nation tweeted an "open call for responses to our cover story on Twitter and Feminism," apparently to be published in their letters section. There are some excellent responses below that tweet at the link, and of course there are lots of good responses elsewhere on Twitter. (Drop links in comments!)
I like what Andrea Grimes said (here and here): "The Nation issuing an 'open call' for responses to the Twitter feminism piece shows the degree to which it misses the whole point. Not that there isn't value in printing opposing views, and I hope they do, but the publication retains control over that conversation."
And I like what Sana Saeed said (here, paraphrasing Rania Khalek): "indeed, why pay WOC to respond to a racist, reductionist, dishonest piece about them when we have letters!"
The problem. Here it is.
Marissa Alexander Update
[Content Note: Violence; guns; misogynoir.]
Marissa Alexander is the black woman from Florida (the same state in which George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, under the same prosecutor) who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot into the ceiling when her abusive husband was trying to harm her. After a campaign to petition for her release, Alexander was granted a new trial.
I just got a dispatch from the Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign about what's happening ahead of her retrial, scheduled for this summer, and I'm just going to post the entire thing in full (emphases original):
On Thursday, January 30, Marissa Alexander was granted a request to have her trial rescheduled for July 28th. Alexander's attorney, Bruce Zimet, said the initial March 31 trial date was too soon for adequate preparation. He said he needs additional time to line up expert witnesses on Battered Women's Syndrome, ballistics, and research into contested testimony at Alexander's first trial.
In 2012, Alexander, an African American mother of three from Jacksonville, Florida, received a 20-year sentence for firing a warning shot to stop her estranged husband, a serial abuser, from attacking her. No one was injured by Alexander's action. Alexander was denied Stand Your Ground protection and received a lengthy sentence under Florida's Mandatory Minimum laws. After serving nearly three years in prison, Alexander was granted a new trial by a Florida Appeals Court, which said the first trial improperly forced Alexander to prove her innocence. The U.S. legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. Alexander was released on bond on Thanksgiving Day 2013 and is under house detention until her new trial concludes.
"The error in Alexander's first trial has cost the state and taxpayers. But Marissa and her family have paid more than anyone financially and emotionally," says Sumayya Fire, a leader of the national Free Marissa Now mobilization and the African American/Black Women's Cultural Alliance. "While we are anxious to see Marissa exonerated and free from house detention as soon as possible, we also want her to get the best trial possible. Marissa's family appreciates the court's flexibility in rescheduling the trial and allowing more time for preparation," says Fire. "Marissa's thousands of supporters are confident she will win when the jurors understand her situation as a battered woman. Justice really demands that State Prosecutor Angela Corey drop the charges now and not put this woman through the cost and anxiety of another trial."
At the January 30 hearing, Judge James Daniel said he would impose strict rules on media coverage of the case in order to "control what picture is being shown" in pre-trial publicity. The judge also wants to ban live-streaming and the use of Twitter in the courtroom.
Supporters of Alexander believe it is crucial that the prosecutors' office not be the only public source of information. In early January, Prosecutor Corey attempted to revoke Alexander's bond and went public with accusations that Alexander had "repeatedly flouted" the conditions of her bond; "demonstrated her utter disregard for conforming her behavior to the rules others must abide by"; and "disrespected" the Court in "blatant fashion." In fact, Corey's office knew that all of Alexander's trips outside her home had been fully approved by an experienced Correctional Service Counselor. Judge Daniel upheld Alexander's bond and said that her trips outside the house had followed correct procedures and were not intentional violations.
Helen Gilbert, another Free Marissa Now leader and a member of Radical Women, says: "We've already experienced an issue with Angela Corey trying to manipulate public opinion and with community members being shut out of one of Marissa's public hearings. Free Marissa Now wants full transparency and accountability at every step of this trial. The world is watching this case because it will impact not only Marissa's future but also all survivors of domestic violence."
The Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign is calling for a week of action from February 8-16 to draw attention to Alexander's case and other criminalized survivors of domestic violence. On February 14-16, thousands of activists around the world are anticipated to raise awareness about violence against women.
-- Campaign organizers urge supporters to hold rallies and forums, create art, fundraise for Alexander's legal defense fund, send cards to Alexander and other survivors of violence, and use social networking to help get the word out.
-- On February 8, supporters on Twitter will raise awareness about Alexander's case and the growing mass incarceration of women and girls in general. Using the hashtags #FreeMarissa and #SaturdaySchool, participants can find the conversation on Twitter @freemarissanow.
-- February 10th is the third anniversary of the day Alexander entered prison. On that date, the Free Marissa DJ project will be launched (www.freemarissanow.org/free-marissa-dj.html). Through this activity, the public is invited to dedicate a song to the cause of freeing Alexander and ending domestic violence and mass incarceration. Donors can contribute at http://igg.me/at/freemarissa2, then post a link to a music video, a quote from their chosen song, or a video of themselves singing the song at facebook.com/FreeMarissaNow. Free Marissa Now hopes to raise $30,000 by early March. The cost for Alexander's legal defense is expected to be over $250,000.
The Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign is an international grassroots campaign led by a core of organizers representing the African American/Black Women's Cultural Alliance, New Jim Crow Movement - Jacksonville, Radical Women, INCITE!, and the Pacific Northwest Alliance to Free Marissa Alexander. For more information, see www.FreeMarissaNow.org.
Please, as always, feel welcome to leave links to additional resources in comments.
And I can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is just to make noise about this case, and let the prosecutors know we are watching.
It's Almost Like People Have Noticed That They Are Working Very Hard and Getting Nowhere Fast
A CNN/ORC International survey released today has found that a majority of US respondents want the government to implement policies that reduce the income gap:
A majority of Americans surveyed believe the government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and the poor, according to a new national poll.It's not the sentiment that puts Republicans in a difficult position. It's their policies. Like being opposed to raising the minimum wage to a paltry $10.10, and THINKING THAT PEOPLE AREN'T ENTITLED TO FOOD.
A CNN/ORC International survey released Wednesday indicates more than six in 10 Americans strongly or somewhat agree that the government should work to narrow that gap, compared to 30% who believe it should not.
"That sentiment may put Republicans in a difficult position, because nearly seven in 10 of those surveyed believe GOP policies favor the rich compared to the 30% of respondents who said Democratic policies benefit the wealthy," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
...Most Republicans oppose such measures, and nine in 10 Democrats favor them. Among independents, two-thirds believe the government should work to reduce the income gap.
The Republican Party has spent a very long time winning elections on the basis of obfuscation and scapegoating, instead of winning on facts and superior policy. But they can't spin the reality that people are hurting, and they want the pain to stop already.
She Said, He Said
[Content Note: Sexual assault.]
The New York Times public editor has announced that the paper may publish a rebuttal to Dylan Farrow's piece authored by Woody Allen.
Woody Allen has asked for, and may get, a chance to respond — in an Op-Ed piece in The Times — to a recent column and blog by Nicholas Kristof in which the filmmaker's adopted daughter detailed her memories of his sexually abusing her.So the decision comes down to the fact that "it was so personal," and not the fact that Woody Allen is a powerful, famous man with lots of privilege. Okay.
"They asked and we said, 'Yes, send it in,'" Andrew Rosenthal, The Times's editorial page editor, told me today by phone.
It's not certain that The Times will publish the piece. "It comes down to the editing process," he said, something that all Op-Ed pieces are subject to.
Publishing such a piece is unusual for The Times's opinion pages.
"Normally, we don't publish a direct response" as a full Op-Ed article, Mr. Rosenthal said, but as a smaller and less prominent letter to the editor. "In this case, it was so personal, we thought that we should."
...Mr. Rosenthal said he did not know when Mr. Allen's Op-Ed piece might appear, but indicated that it could be within the next few days.
I find it interesting, ahem, that the issue was so personal to Woody Allen that it justifies publishing a response by Woody Allen, but not so personal to Dylan Farrow that it justifies not publishing a response by her abuser.
No less giving him, presumably, the last word. Unless the Times is also prepared to let Dylan Farrow respond in a subsequent piece.
I mean, it's so personal. By their own rationale, she should have that chance. Although, somehow, I'm guessing we're just going to draw a line under it once Woody Allen has his say.
Congratulations, New York Times. You're literally turning this story of childhood sex abuse into a "she said, he said." What a terrific way to encourage survivors to share their stories.
[H/T to Slade.]
--------------
UPDATE: I said a lot more about this on Twitter, which I've now Storified here.
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley had some blogging to do, but was interrupted by a nap.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by snow. So much snow.
Recommended Reading:
Jamilah: [Content Note: Transmisogyny; gender essentialism; threats] The Deadly Logic Behind Piers Morgan's Awful Interview with Janet Mock
(Aoife has some thoughts about whether it's even worth engaging with mainstream media microphones like Piers Morgan. Always a difficult decision to navigate for social justice activists whose advocacy needs visibility. No easy answers, but it's important to consider.)
Mia: [CN: Discussion of privilege and supremacy] 4 Ways to Push Back Against Your Privilege
Shantell: [CN: Violent racism] In Memory of Trayvon on His 19th Birthday
Flavia: [CN: Racism; misogyny; transphobia; violence] Why I Do Not Support the European Parliament Recommendations on Undocumented Women Migrants
Andy: A Rainbow Appeared over Scottish Parliament Right Before Lawmakers Approved Marriage Equality
Chris: 6 Elements of Arthur Chu's Jeopardy! Strategy
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There is a strobe-light effect in this video.]
Uriah Heep: "July Morning"
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
[Content Note: Transmisogyny] CNN's Piers Morgan was a total transmisogynistic dirtbag during an interview with trans activist and author Janet Mock. She called him out, he's getting criticism, and now he's framing himself as the victim. Rinse and repeat forever.
The New York Times editorial board does a good job (I know!) of pushing back on the idea that the Congressional Budget Office report on the Affordable Care Act said that the ACA is a job killer. "The report estimated that—thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums—many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. ...The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don't like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster."
Former American Idol contestant Clay Aiken is running for Congress! I'd vote for him! If I lived in his district in North Carolina! Which I don't!
[CN: War on agency] A planned protest at Louisiana state capitol became a celebratory rally instead when the state Department of Health and Hospitals "decided to entirely rescind new regulations that it had intended to pass on Tuesday," the passage of which would have resulted in all five abortion providers in the state being shut down. This fight isn't over, but that was a good victory for now.
[CN: Clergy abuse] The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has said in a new report that "the Vatican should 'immediately remove' all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers [and make them available to be held accountable by the authorities]. The UN watchdog for children's rights denounced the Holy See for adopting policies which allowed priests to sexually abuse thousands of children. ...It also lambasted the 'practice of offenders' mobility,' referring to the transfer of child abusers from parish to parish within countries, and sometimes abroad." Damn they went there. Good. The report "also criticised Vatican attitudes towards homosexuality, contraception and abortion. The Vatican responded by saying it would examine the report—but also accused its authors of interference." Protip on avoiding outsider interference: Handle your own shit in a responsible way.
[CN: Guns; injury] Wow: "How a Simple New Invention Seals a Gunshot Wound in 15 Seconds."
The Center for Media and Public Affairs counted the targets of all of Jay Leno's jokes during his 22-year tenure as host of The Tonight Show, and guess who his number one target was? Did you guess Bill Clinton? Unless you watch The Tonight Show, I bet you didn't! Because you are probably a reasonable person who does not think "Meh meh Bill Clinton is fat and horny meh!" constitutes comedy in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and fourteen!
Leno's top five targets were: 1. Bill Clinton (4,607 jokes) 2. George W. Bush (3,239) 3. Al Gore (1,026) 4. Barack Obama (1,011) 5. Hillary Clinton (939). Hmm. I seem to detect a pattern, but I JUST CAN'T PUT MY FINGER ON IT.
I Would've Told You This for Free
But surveyors of the manifestly obvious gotta eat, too:
Surveys commissioned by the Vatican [ahead of a major meeting of bishops that Pope Francis has called for October to discuss the family] have shown that the vast majority of Catholics in Germany and Switzerland reject church teaching on contraception, sexual morality, gay unions and divorce.Surprising to whom? Has Pope Francis ever met any Catholics? J/K!
[The results] were surprising in the near-uniformity of responses: that the church's teachings on sexuality, morality and marriage are rejected as unrealistic and outdated by the vast majority of Catholics who nevertheless are active in parish life and consider their faith vitally important.
Despite the findings, moral theologians warned that church doctrine won't change.Ha ha of course not.
I mean, that's the problem with asserting that your doctrine FOR SURE is 100% the absolute and immutable Will of God. You can't just go changing it willy-nilly when it turns out that the Will of God is kinda shitty.
But church doctrine changes with the culture, just as everything else. Eventually.
(This? Right here? Is why we always ask commenters to be careful to make distinctions between Catholic church leadership and "Catholics" generally. They are, broadly, not on the same page around these issues and haven't been for quite some time.)
Single-Payer Healthcare Now
This is why it was always going to be a bad idea (when it was the Republicans' idea, and when it was the Democrats' idea) to run healthcare reform through for-profit insurance companies:
After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor's office.To hold down premiums. Cost-cutting strategies. Those are terrific euphemisms for "maximizing profits."
A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.
...To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state's new health insurance market.
...Of course, complaints about outdated provider lists and delays in getting a doctor's appointment were common long before the healthcare law was enacted. But some experts worry the influx of newly insured patients and the cost-cutting strategies of health plans may further strain the system.
Insurance companies aren't in the healthcare business. They're in the making money business. And their decisions will always and forever prioritize profits over people.
Snow
We already had about a foot of snow on the ground, and now we're having another snowstorm, with another on its way this weekend. Right now, the snow has left only this much of our mailbox visible:
So, basically, if we get the additional foot of snow we're supposed to have, our mailbox will be entirely buried.
Having this much snow is a drag for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is snow removal from walks and driveways and cars. We're so lucky to have a neighbor who has a snowblower and does our driveway and several other driveways and the sidewalks in between in addition to his own, which leaves us with minimal shoveling. The biggest thing with which we are our neighbors are contending right now is that the garbage and recycling collection keeps getting delayed, or cancelled altogether.
So we've got a bunch of garbage and recycling piling up in the garage. As do a lot of people.
There's been a lot of sneering from the northeast about parts of the country that can't handle cold or a little snow, which is really shitty. We're prepared for winter, hard winter, and extreme weather is doing us in, too. Not enough plows, not enough salt, frozen pipes, roads littered with potholes that can't be fixed because the temperature is too cold for the repair materials to adhere.
Two inches of snow somewhere that isn't used to it can be just as bad as two feet of snow here.
People in places where it doesn't usually get this cold in winter might have insufficient heat. People in places where it does get cold might have heating bills three times what they'd normally expect, and elevated water bills from keeping the water running to stop the pipes from freezing. People in places where it doesn't usually get this cold might not have appropriate clothes. People in places where it does get cold don't even know what appropriate clothing for -50° temperature is. A bearskin cloak? A spacesuit? Whatever it is, I don't own it.
And while we have tons of snow, other parts of the country are experiencing a terrible drought. Too much precipitation, or too little.
Anyway. I have no plans to sneer at anyone. We're all in this fuckwinter together.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker masculine_lady: "When was the last time an ad compelled you to do something (buy, click, share, etc.)?"
Bipartisan Farm Bill Heads to the President's Desk
[Background: Republicans Think People Aren't Entitled to Food.]
The US Senate has passed the long-delayed farm bill:
The Senate voted with strong bipartisan support to send a nearly $1 trillion farm bill to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature.Ha ha except for the people in those rural communities who may rely on food stamps, of course, since the final legislation cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $8 billion (= 32 Romneys). Oh well! Let them eat bootstraps.
The Senate voted 68-32 to approve the five-year agricultural and food bill, following the Republican House's vote in favor of the legislation last week.
Obama said of the compromise: "As with any compromise, the Farm Bill isn't perfect - but on the whole, it will make a positive difference not only for the rural economies that grow America's food, but for our nation."
"The White House has said that Obama intended to sign the farm bill if it reached his desk." Welp.
Mind you, it wouldn't matter if the President vetoed the legislation. Republicans simply will not agree to pass the much-needed farm bill without steep cuts to SNAP. Because Republicans think people aren't entitled to food.
