Shakesville

Scientists Find Possible Evidence of Life on Mars

A year after reporting that NASA’s Curiosity rover had found no evidence of methane gas on Mars, all but dashing hopes that organisms might be living there now, scientists reversed themselves on Tuesday.

Curiosity has now recorded a burst of methane that lasted at least two months.

For now, scientists have just two possible explanations for the methane. One is that it is the waste product of certain living microbes.

"It is one of the few hypotheses that we can propose that we must consider as we go forward," said John P. Grotzinger, the mission's project scientist.

The scientists also reported that for the first time, they had confirmed the presence of carbon-based organic molecules in a rock sample. The so-called organics are not direct signs of life, past or present, but they lend weight to the possibility that Mars had the ingredients required for life, and may even still have them.

"This is really a great moment for the mission," Dr. Grotzinger told a news conference here at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

The presence of methane is significant because the gas cannot exist for long. Calculations indicate that sunlight and chemical reactions in the Martian atmosphere would break up the molecules within a few hundred years, so any methane there now must have been created recently.

It could have been created by a geological process known as serpentinization, which requires both heat and liquid water. Or it could be a product of life in the form of microbes known as methanogens, which release methane as a waste product.

Even if the explanation for the methane turns out to be geological, the hydrothermal systems would still be prime locations to search for signs of life.

I think now would be an excellent time to listen to David Bowie's "Life on Mars." Because everything is better with a Bowie song, no less such a perfectly appropriate one.

MAYBE THERE IS, DAVID BOWIE!

Open Wide...

District Court Judge Declares President Obama's Immigration Action Unconstitutional

This is incredibly strange: Yesterday, a Republican-appointed judge in a federal court in Pennsylvania, Judge Arthur Schwab, "declared aspects of President Obama's executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional." What's strange about this ruling is that the constitutionality of Obama's executive action was not under scrutiny; it was a pretty typical immigration case in which the defendant had been deported and then reentered the country illegally, and the defense team did not raise the issue of the new immigration action. The judge instigated it.

In considering how to sentence the defendant, the court sought supplemental briefing on the applicability of the new policies to the defendant, and whether these policies would provide the defendant with additional avenues for seeking the deferral of his deportation. In this case, however, it's not entirely clear it was necessary to reach the constitutional question to resolve the issues before the court with regard to the defendant's sentence.

...It is quite unusual for a district court to reach this sort of constitutional issue in this sort of case. Indeed, Judge Schwab appears to have reached out quite aggressively to engage the lawfulness of the President's actions. Based upon the procedural history recounted in the opinion, it appears the court requested briefing on the applicability of the new immigration policies on its own order. That is, the issue was not initially raised by the defendant in his own defense. As a result of the court's decision, however, the defendant now has the option of withdrawing his guilty plea and potentially seeking deferral of his deportation under the new policy.

At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser calls this "an extraordinary opinion that transforms a routine sentencing matter into a vehicle to strike down a politically controversial policy."

Schwab spends just five pages discussing his rationale for this conclusion, an unusually short amount of legal analysis for a complex question regarding the scope of the executive branch's power to set enforcement priorities. Notably, Schwab also spends nearly three pages discussing quotes from President Obama which, the judge claims, indicate that Obama once thought his present actions are illegal — even though Schwab eventually admits that these quotes are "not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration."

Half of Schwab's analysis of the Executive Action's constitutionality is devoted to a strawman. Noting that Obama cited Congress's failure to act on immigration in his speech announcing the new policy, Schwab devotes half of his analysis of the policy's constitutionality to explaining that "Inaction by Congress Does Not Make Unconstitutional Executive Action Constitutional." He's right on this point, just as Schwab would be correct if he argued that President Obama's authority to create this new policy does not come from a magic hat that Obama keeps in the Oval Office. But it's somewhat curious that the judge feels the need to present Obama's political rhetoric as if it were a constitutional argument and then tear that non-argument down.

The remainder of Schwab's brief constitutional analysis concludes that the new policy "Goes Beyond Prosecutorial Discretion — It is Legislation." Notably, however, Schwab cites no judicial precedents of any kind to support this conclusion.

...So Schwab's legal analysis is thin. He spends nearly as much time making what appear to be political attacks on the president as he does evaluating actual legal matters. And what little legal analysis he does provide fails to cite key Supreme Court decisions that seem to contradict his conclusion. Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision, and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.

I eagerly await conservatives' complaints about activist judges. Nope? Not on this one? Huh.

I understand why there are people who don't like that President Obama enacted immigration reform via executive action. Frankly, I'm not thrilled about it myself—but the ire about that is best directed at Congress, who failed utterly to even seriously consider no less pass meaningful immigration reform when it was desperately needed. President Obama didn't circumvent a legislative route; he did what the legislature refused to do.

And he did it in an entirely legal way. Not for nothing, but it ain't liberals who have traditionally argued for a strong unitary executive. Careful what you wish for, friends.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

screen shot of Wednesday Addams from the old television show, holding up a doll which is missing its head

Hosted by Wednesday Addams.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker Quinalla: "What's your favorite teaspoon success story? When you spoke up or pushed back on something and got a positive result."

Open Wide...

Good Grief

[Content Note: Antifeminism; misogyny.]

Hey, remember when David Finch, the husband in the husband and wife team to whom DC handed over the Wonder Woman franchise, said some incredibly stupid shit about Wonder Woman and feminism? And we were all OH NO, and people were like BUT GIVE THEM A CHANCE YOU FIENDISH FEMINIST CYNICS?

Wellllllllllp.

When the Finches' first issue was released last week, I bought it immediately—and nearly threw it out just as fast.

[SPOILER ALERT]

On the cover, Wonder Woman resembles a 16-year-old model doing a pee-pee dance. Her first full scene is a shower sequence where she's in a towel. She has ridiculous mood swings. Without any evidence or provocation, she attacks Swamp Thing—and then gets beaten in the only fight she has in the issue. Thankfully, Aquaman is there to save the situation and give her a pep talk, while she clutches a teddy bear. Her biggest worry isn't Cheetah or the Silver Swan, but how to achieve the proper work-life balance. There are actually two characters that talk about misogyny and the subjugation of women, but they're both evil amazons we're meant to hate.

That comics are a bastion of sexism is a truism so banal it almost goes without saying. But it is particularly galling to watch the feminist superhero be treated in such a way. The Finches have made no small point of the fact that Meredith is one of only a handful of women to ever write Wonder Woman. "I love the idea that it's a woman writing a woman," David said in an interview with USA Today, "because we're trying to appeal to more female readers now."

Whoooooooooooops!

What are you even doing, DC? What. Are you even. Doing.

[H/T to Aphra_Behn.]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Sophie the Torbie Cat sitting in a metal container on my desk

Sophie sits in my in-box. Special delivery! First-class adorbz!
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

Today in Rape Culture

[Content Note: Rape apologia.]

Yesterday, Bill Cosby's wife Camille released a statement defending her husband and suggesting he is a victim of vindictive women. The statement reads:

I met my husband, Bill Cosby, in 1963, and we were married in 1964. The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew.

A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months. It is the portrait of a man I do not know. It is also a portrait painted by individuals and organizations whom many in the media have given a pass. There appears to be no vetting of my husband's accusers before stories are published or aired. An accusation is published, and immediately goes viral.

We all followed the story of the article in "Rolling Stone" concerning allegations of rape at the University of Virginia. The story was heart-breaking, but ultimately appears to be proved to be untrue. Many in the media were quick to link that story to stories about my husband — until that story unwound.

None of us will ever want to be in the position of attacking a victim. But the question should be asked — who is the victim?

I am not inclined to speculate on the reasons that Camille Cosby wrote and issued this particular statement. I'm sure her reasons are more complex than I could even imagine.

And I won't comment on her assertion that Cosby is a victim, which is absurd, nor her assertion that Jackie's story has been proven to be untrue, which is false.

What interests me most about her statement is this: "The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew. A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months."

This false dichotomy plays expertly into the pernicious rape culture narrative that rapists are undiluted monsters. That if a man is kind and generous and funny and wonderful to some people, he can't also be a rapist.

That narrative is what underwrites every single piece of rape apologia which is some variation on: He doesn't seem like a rapist.

He is a good guy; he can't be a rapist.

He is so ethical at work; he can't be a rapist.

He is so nice to my kids; he can't be a rapist.

He makes great art; he can't be a rapist.

He plays such great ballsport; he can't be a rapist.

Et cetera.

But having decent qualities that are common among humans does not mean that someone cannot also be terrible. We're all some combination of good bits and bad bits.

In fact, someone who is a serial rapist, who has gotten away with raping dozens of women, is very likely to have lots of good qualities. That's how he's able to keep getting away with it. That's how he's able to groom his victims.

Most survivors were sexually assaulted by a person known to them. Someone they knew, someone they may have trusted, possibly even someone they loved.

Or still love.

The maniacal predator whose destructive sadism is evident in his every expression and action is a stereotype—a stereotype we've designed not only so that we might feel safer, with some imaginary ability to spot sexual predators from afar, but also so that we might turn victims into liars, sheerly by holding out evidence that the men who raped them are smart. Funny. Talented. Generous.

"Rapist" does not exist in juxtaposition to any of these things.

"Rapist" exists only in mutual exclusion from "someone who always and forever seeks enthusiastic consent for sexual interactions with partners capable of consent."

Rapists are not literal monsters. They are human beings, and often deceptively charming ones at that. They can be in one moment cruel, and the next kind, even with their victims.

To mask this reality is to uphold the rape culture, and to determine culpability for rape based on what we see, rather than what victims experience.

Those who say Bill Cosby doesn't seem like a rapist never get to the part that empathizes with his victims: Perhaps that's why they trusted him.

Open Wide...

Feminism 101: Helpful Hints for Dudes, Part 10

Following is a primer for men who are genuinely interested in learning about how to be a more feminist-friendly dude. Most of the information in this piece is, as always, generally applicable in terms of being decent to the people around you, but this has been written to be most accessible for men in keeping with the objective of the series, which is responding to commonly emailed questions from privileged men (here, generally meaning straight cis men) seeking advice on how to interact with the women in their lives.

[Content Note: Misogyny; misogynist slurs.]

Here is something that has happened to me countless times in the ten years I've been blogging: I share something about my lived experience reflecting some part of my individual experience of womanhood, and a dude who I don't know and with whom I've never interacted before but who assures me he is A Feminist Ally will pop up in comments, or on Twitter, or in my email in order to "discuss" it with me.

I put "discuss" in quotes, because "discuss" often really means play devil's advocate, or demand proof, or ask for personal education, or offer a tiresome contradictory observation as though it's thoughtful and helpful.

I then respond with all the kindness I can muster in that moment. Which sometimes isn't very much. Sometimes, I just ignore them altogether, because I can't say anything I wouldn't regret.

If I ignore them, they often continue to pester me. If I continue to ignore them, then I'm a bitch. Oh, you're too good to have a conversation with me? Don't be on Twitter if you don't want to talk to people. I'm trying to learn and you won't even help me. Bitch.

If I say, politely, that I'm not going to have that conversation right now, then I'm a bitch. You don't have to be a rude bitch about it. Bitch.

If I tell them to fuck off, then I'm a bitch. GEEZ, I was ONLY SAYING. You don't have to tear my head off. Bitch.

If I engage with them, but then draw a line under it if and when I realize it's not going anywhere, despite their protestations that they are definitely totally for sure my ally, then I'm a bitch. So you won't talk to anyone who disagrees with you? Bitch.

If I point out that auditing and/or disbelieving my lived experience isn't disagreement, then I'm a bitch. BITCH.

Basically, the way this always works out is that if I do not immediately capitulate to a man whose objective is telling me that my perception of my lived experience is wrong, then I am a bitch.

And these are the men who are ostensibly engaging with me because they are feminist allies. Not even the trolls. These are the men who imagine that acting as an ally to feminist women means assuming the role of authority on our lives and diminishing our agency.

Of talking at us, rather than listening to us.

I've watched this scene play out over and over, watched men doing the same thing to other women. "Helpfully" offering an observation that they believe is truly original and trenchant, but is in actual fact condescending as fuck, and then becoming deeply aggrieved when the woman to whom it was offered fails to appreciate their insights.

Sometimes, the way we are called bitches is by clueless men acting like kicked puppies, because of our insufficient appreciation.

And I get it. I do. I get that they were full of good intentions and really care and are only trying to help and all that crap. So it stings when their Shiny New Attempt at Feminism gets dinged by the disdainful ingratitude of a feminist.

Here's the thing, dudes: You're not the first guy who has offered whatever observation it is you think feels like the best new thought ever in your head. You're probably not even the first guy today.

And I know it feels like a personal slight when a feminist woman does not take time out of her day to personally educate you on why what you said is not nearly as helpful or supportive as you think it is. But try to keep this in perspective: If I stopped what I was doing to personally educate every hapless dude who was too lazy to invest the time it takes to be an ally who doesn't say stupid clueless things, I would literally never do anything else.

In a moment when you feel that sting of indignation for our failure to be kind in the face of your unhelpful comment, don't make it about you. If you want to be a real ally, empathize with the "bitch" who doesn't have time for your nincompoopery, unintentional though it may be.

Try to imagine what it feels like to have heard the same nonsense a dozen, a hundred, a thousand times, and understand that you are not a special snowflake to us: You are part of an avalanche we are constantly trying to outrun.

Don't be hurt, and for chrissakes don't turn on us and call us bitches. We don't owe you. You're not entitled to women's time and energy and kindness. That is lesson number one in being an ally. If you're stealing energy from the person to whom your ostensibly trying to be an ally, you're failing.

Take your licks and move on and don't make the same mistake again.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Yeah Yeah Yeahs: "Maps"

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

[Content Note: Violence; guns; death] Yesterday I mentioned there had been a shooting in the Philadelphia suburbs, and here is more information on the shooter and the people he killed, including his ex-wife and most of her family. Toward the end of the piece, there is this: "'She would tell anybody who would listen that he was going to kill her, and that she was really afraid for her life,' said Evan Weron, a neighbor of Nicole Stone... Matthew Schafte, of Lower Salford's Harleysville section, who described Bradley Stone as a friend of 20 years, said custody was definitely an issue between the parents. He said Nicole Stone was keeping the girls away from her ex-husband. But Schafte said his friend was otherwise happy." Neat victim-blaming there. He was happy, except for how she was a terrible harridan who was keeping his children from him. Considering he ended up killing her and her entire family, maybe she had good fucking reason for that. If it were even true, which it does not seem to be, since Stone's current wife's "Facebook page shows their son and Stone's daughters having their picture taken with Santa on Saturday." That fact in the same article as his friend's contention that she was "keeping the girls away."

[CN: Terrorism; death] I don't even have words: "At least 132 students and nine staff members were killed on Tuesday after Taliban gunmen broke into a school in the Pakistani city of Peshawar and opened fire, witnesses said, in the bloodiest massacre the country has seen for years. ...Wounded children taken to nearby hospitals told Reuters most victims died when gunmen, suicide vests strapped to their bodies, entered the compound and opened fire indiscriminately on boys, girls and their teachers. ...The Taliban, waging war against Pakistan in order to topple the government and set up an Islamic state, immediately claimed responsibility. 'We selected the army's school for the attack because the government is targeting our families and females,' said Taliban spokesman Muhammad Umar Khorasani. 'We want them to feel the pain.'"

[CN: Racism] I love this, although I certainly don't love the reasons that necessitated it: "After Cleveland Browns wide receiver Andrew Hawkins wore a shirt calling for justice for two black Ohioans recently killed by police onto the field before Sunday's game against the Cincinnati Bengals, the head of Cleveland's police union called him 'pathetic' and demanded an apology. But when Hawkins addressed the media on Monday, he didn't apologize. Instead, he delivered an impassioned speech defending his decision to wear the shirt and explaining why it was so important for him to do so. ...'I was taught that justice is a right that every American should have. Also justice should be the goal of every American. I think that's what makes this country special. To me, justice means that the innocent should be found innocent. It means that those who do wrong should get their due punishment. Ultimately, it means fair treatment. So a call for justice shouldn't offend or disrespect anybody. A call for justice shouldn't warrant an apology.'"

[CN: Misogyny] It's a real mystery why the numbers of Catholic nuns are dwindling: "A three-year papal investigation into America's 50,000 nuns, which inspired comparisons with the Inquisition, produced an unexpectedly benign report on Tuesday, containing somewhat tepid reprimands and calling for a careful review of their spiritual practices. ...[The report] calls for America's women religious to 'carefully review their spiritual practices and ministry to assure that these are in harmony with Catholic teaching about God, creation, the incarnation and the redemption.'" I eagerly await their report on the behavior of priests. Oh, there's no inquiry into priests? Huh. You don't say.

Terrific: "Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will 'actively explore' a run for the presidency in 2016, he announced on Tuesday, making him one of the first major Republicans to formally move toward a possible candidacy. ...'In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America,' Bush wrote on Facebook, adding that he would formally establish a political committee in January." Not interested.

I ♥ Kandinsky. Well, his art. I never met him personally.

Woot! "Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in Scotland: In February, Scotland became the seventeenth country in the world to legalise gay marriage. The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 received Royal Assent in March and government has since been implementing the new law, including passing required secondary legislation. Scotland is considered to have one of the most progressive marriage equality laws in the world. The legislation differs from same-sex marriage laws in England and Wales in a number of respects including better protections for transgender people. The law also allows any religious or belief body to opt in to conducting same-sex marriages and does not ban religious or belief bodies from opting out."

[CN: Misogyny] This Texas Monthly cover is so fucking gross.

And finally! This French bulldog puppy really enjoys playing in the rain!

Open Wide...

TV Corner: The Affair

[Content Note: Sexual assault. Spoilers for the TV show The Affair.]

Has anyone been watching Showtime's new series The Affair? Nine of its ten episodes have now aired, and Everyone!^TM is talking about it, and it just got nominated for a bunch of Golden Globs (typo and I'm leaving it), and it is definitely for sure supposed to be one of the best shows ever.

I have watched all nine episodes, and, I have to say, I don't get it.

I don't think it's a terrible show, and I also usually at least understand why other people love shows that I don't care for, but this one is just completely perplexing me. It...just doesn't seem that good or interesting.

Do you love it? I hope somebody loves it, so they can tell me why they love it! I'm genuinely curious!

If you haven't seen it, the premise of the show is that Noah Solloway (played by Dominic West, who cannot do a solid American accent to save his life, so please stop casting him in American roles, please and thank you) is a middle-class teacher and aspiring novelist who is married to Helen (Maura Tierney, one of two reasons I keep watching this show), who is a rich kid whose father is a successful novelist whose favorite pastime is humiliating her husband Noah. Noah and Helen have four spoiled children together, and they summer at her parents' giant mansion in Montauk.

Also: Noah is profoundly unhappy with his life, because he is not rich and famous and has to settle for being happily married with four kids in a lovely Brownstone in New York City. Oh the humanity.

During their summer holiday, Noah meets a waitress named Alison Lockhart (played by Ruth Wilson, the other of two reasons I keep watching this show), who is much younger than he is, and she is married to Cole Lockhart (Joshua Jackson, who is terribly underused here) who has a terrific beard and a less terrific family, who deal drugs to keep their family ranch afloat.

Noah and Alison start having an affair, and Noah totes wants Alison to be his manic pixie dreamgirl, but it turns out she is instead a human being who is sad because her young son died. They fall in love and have lots of sex.

We see the show in two halves every episode: One half from Noah's perspective, and one half from Alison's perspective, and sometimes those perspectives look very different. They are both unreliable narrators. And all of this is wrapped inside a murder mystery, which we follow through flash-forwards to the present (future?), as Noah and Alison are interviewed by a detective about the unsolved death of Alison's brother-in-law, who was hit by a car.

There is a lot going on with these beautiful tragic white people!

Part of the problem with the show, for me, is that I felt disconnected from it the very first episode, after a scene that, from Noah's perspective, looks like Alison being raped by Cole, but, from Alison's perspective, looks like Cole giving her rough sex that she wants (?). I felt like I couldn't trust the show. Which is part of the point, but I was distrusting it in a way that wasn't intended, I think.

And part of the problem is that I hate Noah so much, and his privileged angst, and his obnoxious parenting, which consists of being totally checked out except when he needs to beat someone up to avoid having to acknowledge his daughter's sexual agency.

I'm basically hoping at this point that Helen and Alison are in cahoots to set him up for a murder that someone else committed. GO CRY IN JAIL, NOAH.

And then there's this other thing, which is when a television show or movie represents falling in love by a series of scenes of a woman gazing affectionately and knowingly at a man who has the expression of a naughty scamp. Which irritates me to no end, and this show is SO GUILTY OF IT OMG.

screen cap of Alison gazing affectionately and knowingly at Noah asking 'Did you fart in a library?' while Noah looks sheepish and says 'MAYBE.'

screen cap of Alison gazing affectionately and knowingly at Noah asking 'Did you fart in this hallway?' while Noah looks sheepish and says 'MAYBE.'

screen cap of Alison gazing affectionately and knowingly at Noah asking 'Did you fart on this beach?' while Noah looks sheepish and says 'MAYBE.'

screen cap of Alison gazing affectionately and knowingly at Noah asking 'Did you fart on our romantic stroll?' while Noah looks sheepish and says 'MAYBE.'

screen cap of Alison gazing with concern at Noah asking 'You're thinking about farting, aren't you?' while Noah looks serious, holding a jar of peanut butter, and says 'MAYBE.'

Forever hereafter, I will refer to this as the Did You Fart in a Library Dynamic.

It's just that, you know, for a show whose very title references the affair around which all this drama is centered, they haven't done a super job of convincing me why it is that Noah and Alison have fallen so hard for each other. I mean, Noah just seems like a dipshit who is projecting onto Alison whatever he needs her to be to have the courage to leave his life, and to make sure he's got a scapegoat if and when it turns out to be a bad decision. Alison, on the other hand, seems self-destructive, and wants to be happy with Cole but can't, because inside their relationship lingers such terrible pain. So I get why the affair with Noah, but not why she's "in love" with him.

So, yeah. Those are all the reasons I am not getting this show. But I keep watching it! Because Maura Tierney and Ruth Wilson are pretty great in it! It's not even because I care what happens or whodunnit, because I don't.

Anyway! Are you watching it? Do you love it? Do you hate it? Are you dying to know what happens? Are you so glad to see Mare Winningham again? Does the theme from St. Elmo's Fire play in your head every time you see her? Are you wrapped up in the mystery? Do you love Joshua Jackson's beard SO MUCH and would just watch a television series that was him with that beard riding horses in a button-down shirt all day? TELL ME.

Open Wide...

Senate Confirms Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General

[Content Note: Guns; fat hatred; disablism.]

Despite strong opposition from the National Rifle Association, because he has the unmitigated temerity to believe that guns are a healthcare issue, the Senate confirmed Dr. Vivek Murthy as the US Surgeon General yesterday.

Murthy will be the country's first Indian-American surgeon general, serving as the United States' chief spokesman on matters of public health. He'll be the first Senate-confirmed surgeon general since the position was vacated on July 2013, replacing Acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak.

"I applaud the Senate for confirming Vivek Murthy to be our country's next Surgeon General," Obama said in a statement. "As 'America's Doctor,' Vivek will hit the ground running to make sure every American has the information they need to keep themselves and their families safe. He'll bring his lifetime of experience promoting public health to bear on priorities ranging from stopping new diseases to helping our kids grow up healthy and strong. Vivek will also help us build on the progress we've made combating Ebola, both in our country and at its source."

...Born in England and raised in the Florida, Murthy has an MD and MBA from Yale. He has worked as a physician-instructor at Harvard Medical School, created the anti-HIV/AIDS nonprofit organization VISIONS and co-founded Doctors For America (originally Doctors For Obama) in 2008. He's supported by more than 100 medical and public health groups.

Leading the opposition to Murthy was Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who is next in line to chair the Senate health committee. "Unfortunately," he said, citing the nominee's advocacy for Obama and his remarks on guns and health, "Dr. Murthy's experience does not demonstrate the leadership and knowledge of public health that we expect from our surgeons general."

Well, Senator, I can guarantee he's got more experience, leadership, and knowledge than a vacancy, so.

Which is not to say I'm super thrilled about Murthy. In his opening statement (pdf) to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions earlier this year, he went all-in on the familiar language of official fat hatred:

Using 21st century approaches and technology, I hope my tenure, if I am confirmed as Surgeon General, will be one where we marshal partnerships across the country to address the epidemics of obesity and tobacco-related disease, to reduce the crippling* stigma of mental illness, to roll back the resurgence of vaccine preventable disease, and to make prevention and health promotion the backbone of our communities.

The epidemic of obesity. Yikes.

Later, Murthy says one of his goals is to "provide the public with scientifically-based information on issues such as obesity, diet, physical activity, and tobacco cessation," which sounds terrific—except for the fact that the term "obesity epidemic" is not based on good science.

I am disappointed that yet another of the people with the most influence over the nation's perception of health is using this othering and inflammatory "epidemic" language, with zero benefit to the actual health of actual fat people.

------------------

* I am all for challenging the stigma of mental illness, but, ahh, might I suggest that the way to do that is not using language that stigmatizes physical disability.

Open Wide...

Welp

[Content Note: Coercion; rape culture trope.]

For a year now, I've been objecting over and over and over to the coercive language being used around the possible and/or desired presidential runs of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Naturally, I have been accused of overreacting (because of course), so it was really thoughtful for this guy to just go head and make it as obvious as possible:

screen cap of a tweet authored by Philip Rucker reading: A Dem source just summed it up neatly: 'Elizabeth Warren's mouth says no, but her eyes say yes, yes, yes.'

Now, I don't know if a "Dem source" actually said these words, or Philip Rucker, who is a reporter for the Washington Post, paraphrased in the shittiest attempt at humor, but, either way, this is precisely my point.

It isn't just me who's seeing this coercive language for what it is. The people who are engaging in it know precisely the nature of what they're saying and doing. The only difference between us is that they think it's a fucking joke.

Open Wide...