Sophianotloren

This essay first appeared in Cliterati on February 16^th; I have modified it slightly for time references and to fit the format of this blog.

As you probably know unless you’ve been living in a cave, three months ago the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the laws which made the legal activity of selling sex much more difficult and dangerous, just as similar laws in the UK, India, parts of Australia and many other countries do.  As I wrote in “What Next?” just two weeks after the decision, “there is nothing in it to prevent the imposition of American-style criminalization”:

Were this the United States, you can bet the legislature’s immediate response would be criminalization. However, it’s a little different in Canada…[which] has since the late 1960s maintained a [relatively] strong tradition…that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”…On the other hand, the government has heavily invested its…case in neofeminist rhetoric, and recently adopted the Swedish model as its official position; several MPs have released long-winded “explanations” of the “fact” that women are permanent victims who shouldn’t be allowed to choose sex work.  There is little likelihood that a system proven to increase violence and stigmatization of sex workers would pass muster under Bedford, yet at the same time it would be rather embarrassing for the government to push for the direct criminalization of sex workers after proclaiming us too weak to avoid being controlled by morally-superior clients and “pimps”…

Once politicians started returning to work after the holidays, they immediately began to issue the predictable torrent of nonsense and panic-mongering.  The chief font of this flow of sewage has been Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who emitted the ludicrous (but typical) claim that Canada would become “a haven for sex tourism” (despite the fact that New Zealand and New South Wales have not), and the even more absurd statement that the sex industry is more complicated than the medical industry; he then pontificated on the “significant harms flowing from the sex trade” (ignoring the court’s finding that the laws he supports are the cause of those harms) and delivered a pitch for the abominable Swedish model (which, as pointed out above, could not possibly stand under the Bedford decision because it’s at least as harmful as the laws that were overturned, if not more so).  He also boasted that the new laws would be ready “well before” the court’s December 20^th deadline.

But outside of Conservative Party enclaves, evangelical Christian churches and anti-sex feminist cults, there just isn’t much support in Canada for the puritanical pretense that consensual sex magically becomes violent and sinful merely because money overtly changes hands.  Young Liberals in British Columbia are pushing for their party to officially adopt a pro-decriminalization stance and have castigated Justin Trudeau and other party leaders who seem ready to get in the Swedish bed with the Conservatives.  The Vancouver City Council has “unanimously passed a motion to accept recommendations intended to increase safety and services for sex workers”.  British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta are all declining to pursue ordinary prostitution charges, and Newfoundland has had virtually no new cases since the Himel decision in 2010.  Newspapers routinely print sex worker-friendly articles, and editorials like this one are typical:

You’d think the sky was falling with all of the misconceptions circulating concerning the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down our prostitution laws.  No, the Supreme Court has not legalized prostitution…[which] was [already] legal…No, sex trade workers will not be flocking to your neighbourhood any more than they already have…They are already in many neighbourhoods…[seeing] clients in the warmth of their homes, apartments, condominiums and hotel/motel rooms…albeit illegally…because the use of any home, apartment or even a hotel room on a frequent basis for the purposes of prostitution violates the brothel prohibition.  No, the Supreme Court decision won’t increase the number of sex trade workers…Does anyone think…[they] decide to get into the business after a thorough study of the criminal law and the legal risks of prosecution?…No, the decision won’t increase the incidence of sex slaves and human trafficking…attempting to enforce a moral code by criminalizing prostitution, or the activities surrounding it, is a waste of resources…

There’s still no way to tell how long and winding a road Canada will have to traverse before it reaches the inevitable conclusion that Canadian courts, sex worker rights activists, the UN and organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are correct in saying decriminalization is the only moral and effective model for sex work; it may be mere months, or years, or decades, and the way may be littered with the corpses of failed attempts to re-criminalize it before the busybodies eventually give up.  But unlike the UK (which seems to be going in circles) or the US (which is insanely marching in the wrong direction), the Canadians at least seem to be on the right course.

by Lucia C. Lykke

In case you missed it, Ellen DeGeneres was recently asked to shill for a new product in the wide world of unnecessarily gendered products: Bic pens “for her.” Ellen pointed out the absurdity of the pens on her television show, using the pens as a point of departure to call out the absurdity of various gender stereotypes such as women using “lady pens” to write recipes to cook for their men. The Amazon product reviews offer similar, entertaining perspectives on the pens. While I appreciate Ellen’s debunking gender stereotypes, the truth is, are ladies-only pens really that far outside the realm of normal? Women are already targeted with pointlessly gender-specific products ranging from socks to shaving cream and razors, even yogurt. Really, pens might be one of the final frontiers in gendered products.

In Ellen’s spoof commercial for Bic for Her, an adolescent girl tells Ellen, “Sometimes I just feel… different.” Ellen responds, “That’s because you’re growing up!” Or maybe it’s just because you’re a woman. This is the heart of Bic for Her: women as different; women as Other. This is nothing new, of course: as Simone DeBeauvoir (1949) wrote, “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other.” And so, regular pens are for regular people, who are men; lady pens are the others, who are women. (Regular pens are probably also for Whites, heterosexuals, the middle class, and the other unmarked social categories that operate as normal by default.)

Ladies-only products are nothing new, but the real issue with Bic for Her is that they take gendered marketing a step further by focusing on the biological difference between the sexes. West and Zimmerman (1987) point out that we do this with public bathroom equipment, emphasizing the difference in male and female genitalia in public spaces despite the fact that we all manage to use the same equipment in private homes. While bathroom examples are familiar, Bic for Her applies physical dimorphism to pens. Ellen reads from the package: “They’re designed to fit a woman’s hand,” then asks, “What does that even mean?” It means that Bic is firmly rooting gender differences in biological difference, specifically, the dimorphism of hand shapes, as if there is such a drastic difference between men’s and women’s hands that they would actually require separate writing utensils. This serves to emphasize that men’s social bodies, including their hands, are the measure of the human body, as medicine has long underscored by presenting the human body as male in Grey’s Anatomy (Lorber 1994). Maybe Bic’s marketing department has been watching too many animated movies: in his blog, Philip Cohen points out that in movies such as Tangled, human men’s bodies – including their hands – are grossly bigger than women’s, emphasizing gender through size differences (and perhaps helping to socialize children into seeing exaggerated physical differences as the foundation of gender from a young age).

But we’re just talking about pens, so what’s the big deal? The big deal is that gender inequality rests on our belief in hierarchical difference between men and women, reified through its connection to bodies. Bic for Her pens may be equally functional pens compared to “regular” Bics, but by marketing Bic for Her as different pens – ladies’ pens – women are situated, once again, as different, Other, not the default human body. And the fact that Bic would see a market for these pens – and that consumers might agree and buy them – is yet another example of how our belief in gender, rooted in our belief in stark biological differences, permeates everyday experiences.

In closing, I offer an alternate Bic for Her commercial idea. Ellen’s commercial harkens back to a pre-feminist era and the accompanying gender stereotypes. But really, if it’s modern women who are supposed to buy the pens, Bic may want to appeal to a postfeminist sensibility. Picture this: several single ladies wearing designer high heels are having drinks together at a bar, paying for said drinks with their own paychecks. One woman breaks out a Bic for Her to sign her receipt. She tells her friends, “I love that I can choose a pen made just for me. It allows me to express my individual femininity – and feel sexy while writing!” Her friends marvel at how empowered she is. This post is not the place to debate the meanings of postfeminism or “choice” feminism (but see Braithwaite 2002, Hall and Rodriguez 2003, and McRobbie 2008 for insights on this issue). The point is that perhaps in our current cultural climate, the way to resonate with potential consumers is to present this pen as an opportunity to express one’s true feminine self by accentuating one’s small, lady-like hands – if one so chooses, of course. 

And of course, Bic leaves me asking one final, important question: does the fact that I’ve been doing just fine for years with pens-for-humans-but-really-for-men mean that I have man hands?

 

Lucia C. Lykke, University of Maryland — College Park

Filed under: Culture, Media & Communications, Uncategorized

Roses are Red is [out to a commanding lead]

Violets are Blue [has fallen behind]

This is also an excellent way [is making a tremendous charge in the final turn]

To write poems too [has won in a stunning photo finish!]

My eldest Manchild, The Pickled Jester, asked me to post one for him — his writing on his dismay over a Democratic President in an allegedly representative democracy signing into law a continuation of the erosion of American liberties:

In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center several highly questionable political decisions have occurred.  Iraq was an unnecessary measure in the so-called “Global War on Terror.”  The Patriot Act was unnecessary.  Rampant nationalism sweeping through the nation was unnecessary.  The reduction of and the removal of civil liberties and Constitutional rights is unnecessary.

Many writers and pundits like to look at the post-9/11 policies regarding securing the American state as something that occurred after, and because of, the terror attacks in September of 2001.  They are not wrong, but they are not entirely correct either.

William A. Niskanen published “The Several Costs of Responding to the Threat of Terrorism” in 2006.  He had not yet seen the true excess of government power – the really frightening policy did not come for another five years.  However, Niskanen pointed out that the lust for increased governmental power is not new; many threats to American civil liberties were already in place prior to September of 2001:

• The U.S. military was allowed to imprison American citizens without charge or access to attorneys.
• Trials before military commissions.
• Total Information Awareness database run by the Pentagon.
• A database of all students aged 16 through 25.

So threats to American rights and liberties existed prior to the attacks.  Yet these threats were, comparatively speaking, low key.  Feel free to read Niskanen’s work yourself if you require additional verification.  The information provided by Niskanen is not pleasant – it is alarming to have to acknowledge that our government actively sought increased authority without justification.  Even more alarming is the fact that the post-9/11 world has allowed the government access to the authority they have long sought.  And our elected officials gave it to them.  Even now our elected officials offer compliance to the demands of a power hungry federal government – against the collective will of the American populace.

Here is how everything unfolded.

1. 11 September 2001:  Attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an unknown third target.

2. 14 September 2001:  The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is passed.  The AUMF contains the following passage:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

3. 26 October 2001:  President Bush signs into law the USA PATRIOT Act.  The legislation granted the government the following abilities – all of which are seen as unconstitutional:

• Information sharing
• Roving wiretaps
• Access to records
• Sneak and Peek warrants
• Material support clause

You can read more on these provisions here.

4. 10 March 2006: President Bush renews the USA PATRIOT Act.

5. 2 May 2011:  Osama bin Laden is killed by US forces.

6. 26 May 2011: President Obama signs the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act; a four-year extension of three powerful provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act – roving wiretaps, search of business records (library records, medical records, banking records…)and the surveillance of “lone wolves.”

7. 30 September 2011:  An American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, is killed in a US drone strike.  Awlaki was not charged in an American court, nor was evidence presented to a court or judge; his death was issued by the Office of the President.  Additionally, his death occurred at the hands of a CIA controlled drone strike in Yemen – a country we were not at war with.

8. 31 December 2011: President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.  The NDAA of 2012 formally codified the ability and authority of the United States military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial.  More important is that the 2012 NDAA allowed, under section 1021, the military to “arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus.”

9.  2 January 2013: President Obama signs the NDAA 2013.  The revised bill is essentially the same as 2012 – the military can still arrest American citizens with Presidential authority.  An amendment to the bill was inserted that authorized detained American citizens their Constitutional rights – but no measure was taken to combat or erase the provision for indefinite detention.

10. 26 December 2013:  President Obama signs into law the NDAA 2014.  The provision allowing for indefinite detention remains in full effect.  Additionally, the 2014 version of the bill contains provisions that strengthen surveillance powers.

That is a brief timeline of how the government has usurped the public authority in a presumed democracy.  While the information provided in this post may not seem alarming to the majority of people, I assure you that every American citizen should not only be alarmed, but enraged.

The recent exposure of efforts at the NSA to spy on, and collect information of Americans should be cause for concern even without the abilities detailed above.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” That right is ignored with impunity by various agencies with the Federal government.

The ability of the military to act as internal police force is anathema to a democratic nation.  The old phrase, crossing the Rubicon, refers to Caesar crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC – an act that was condemned as an insurrection against the lawful authorities of Rome.  While America has not yet witnessed marital law, nor to my knowledge has the military acted upon its newfound authority, the fact that such power is codified in national law is a dangerous and frightening precedent.  To make matters worse, the government is not required to provide the American public with a list of any citizens detained by the military – only Congress is entitled to such information.

This unprecedented grant of authority for the central and state governments is appallingly anti-democratic.  For the past 14 years Americans have been in a fear-induced coma regarding the violations of their civil liberties and constitutional rights, and we have ceded far too much power to shadowy organizations; and that power will not be easily removed.

Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense and American revolutionary, wrote that “Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; it its worst state an intolerable one.”  Paine believed that government was necessary to curb the worst elements of human nature – and he is correct – but he also believed that a government could exceed its mandate and become a monstrous reflection of the most criminal facets of human nature.

If Paine were alive today he would be both furious and outraged at what our government has become.  Thomas Jefferson would be humiliated that his nation had descended to what he would no doubt call despotism.  The entirety of our national history – every man and woman who has dedicated their life to the cause that was the American dream – would be ashamed at what we have allowed this nation to become.

Filed under: Philosophy, Politics Tagged: constitutional-toilet-paper

“Stories are not chapters of novels. They should not be read one after another, as if they were meant to follow along. Read one. Shut the book. Read something else. Come back later. Stories can wait”

So said Mavis Gallant, who is one of the world’s greatest short story writers. Or was, until she died recently at the age of 91.

I think stories can wait to be written too. They shouldn’t be forced. You don’t have to rush to read them and you don’t have to rush to write them.

Mavis herself waited many years to discover that people liked her stories. Her agent had been selling them to The New Yorker without telling her. Mavis couldn’t afford to buy the magazine but read a copy in a library one day and found one of her stories in it. Eventually The New Yorker published more than 100 of her stories, more than any other writer apart from John Updike or S.J. Perelman.

I read a very sad blog last night by a writer who was struggling to increase her output from 2,000 words a day to 10,000 to meet the demands of a ravenous publisher.

Wait! Take a step back!

Writing is not manual labour. It’s the least effective way in the world to earn money. It would be illegal if it weren’t self-inflicted.

Hanif Kureishi can vouch for that.

“It’s a real nightmare trying to make a living as a writer.”

He was talking at the Bath Literature Festival, taking time off from promoting his latest novel and from his job at Kingston University where he teaches creative writing. Well, not really taking time off. Writers never take time off. He was pretending to take time off but really he was “working in the market.” He was making headlines.

“Creative writing courses are a waste of time.”

he announced. His students, he said, were talentless.

“A lot of my students just can’t tell a story. They can write sentences but they don’t know how to make a story go from there all the way through to the end without people dying of boredom in between. It’s a difficult thing to do and it’s a great skill to have. Can you teach that? I don’t think you can.”

I disagree with him. I think you can teach how to tell a story. Syd Field has been doing it successfully for years (and many books for writers have copied his ideas). But I acknowledge that Hanif has a fair point. Writers get very anxious about style.

“They worry about the writing and the prose and you think: ‘Fuck the prose, no one’s going to read your book for the writing, all they want to do is find out what happens in the story next.’”

Yes! Fuck the prose. That is a very profound point. Fuck the prose because what matters is the story.

I am putting these ideas out there because I want to refer to them in my next book review without cluttering it up with a lot of literary theory.

Talking of which, I want to leave you with another quote, this time from Stephen Fry’s book on poetry, The Ode Less Travelled. Stephen Fry, you could say, was fucking the prose but in a different sense. He was fucking the prose and loving the poetry. But he still insisted that all his readers follow his first golden rule: Take Your Time.

“Among the pleasures of poetry is the sheer physical, sensual, textural, tactile pleasure of feeling the words on your lips, tongue, teeth and vocal cords.”

That quote was not quite the one I wanted but I love it. Oh, wait, here is what I wanted to him say:

“It can take weeks to assemble and polish a single line of poetry. Sometimes, it is true, a lightning sketch may produce a wonderful effect too, but as a general rule, poems take time. As with a good painting, they are not there to be greedily taken in at once, they are to be lived with and endlessly revisited: the eye can go back and back and back, investigating new corners, new incidents and the new shapes that seem to emerge.”

Actually he goes on and on and on about taking your time.

So, summing up. Stories can wait. It’s a nightmare making a living. Fuck the prose. Take your time.

That’s the literary theory. A book review will follow shortly.

Well, it’s that time of the month, again.  Time to check the GOP corpse for post-autopsy vital signs (see RNC Growth and Opportunity Project).

Speaking of which, just this week, Prince Rebus had breakfast with the good folks of The Christian Science Monitor to celebrate the Autopsy’s one year anniversary [seriously!] and warned us to look out for a Republican Tsunami!!1! in the mid-term elections. 

Just think of this exuberant outburst as a semi-annual employee self-evaluation.  As chairman of the RNC, it is Reince’s charge to project a robust and manly confidence in his party’s prospects.

Right now, Mr Priebus must focus on 2014 but that doesn’t mean that the Chairman hasn’t spent considerable time and effort looking ahead to The Big One in 2016 and parsing the results of the 2012 presidential election.

Here are his startling findings:

. . . the fact of the matter is Mitt Romney won on the message. He won on jobs, he won on the economy, he won on the question of, ‘Who do you actually think would make a better president?‘ But where he lost was on the question of, ‘Who cares about you?’

Deliberately ignoring the dinosaur in the room, Mr Priebus probably figured it would be too much of a buzzkill to mention the BIG reason Willard lost:  “Why vote for an out of touch, old-school Republican plutocrat?”

I’m guessing though, that, somewhere deep inside his otherwise empty suit, he knows the truth and is struggling mightily to drag his broken down party closer to the 21st century. 

As with any visionary, however, Mr Priebus attracts his share of skepticism like, for instance,  that of Hrafnkell Haraldsson, of PoliticusUSA  who feels that the RNC’s efforts, so far, have been limited to building a “million dollar technology” to broadcast a “two bit message.”

Some might find that assessment harsh so I decided that the only fair thing to do was to investigate current iterations of “the message” and determine whether it is still “two bit” or getting better.

Hearkening back to the autopsy itself, you’ll remember that the point was made again and again that the GOP has to do a better job of communicating its awesome message to voters who just don’t seem to be getting it i.e., anyone who isn’t a gun-totin’, bible-thumpin’, freedom-lovin’ white male over 50.

So.  Let’s see how the message to the target demographics are evolving . . .

Poors:

This, of course, is Young Gun, Paul Ryan’s personal mission since time began.  Mr Ryan wants poors to succeed and be American.  And the answer is, evidently, “More Gumption” because if poors didn’t embrace the culture of laziness and dreamed, instead, of holding a real job—like congressman, for instance—they would pretty soon be rich, move out of the inner city, be less black and more happy.

And for those of you unemployed who are quickly becoming poors because you’re not out hustling for new jobs? Don’t expect any help from Paul Ryan because he specializes in “inner city poors” although you long-term unemployed have something in common with them—the Hammock, yo!  So, Ix-nay on the extended benefits.  Someday you’ll thank us and contribute to the RNC.

Wimmin:

It’s been a very busy week for GOP Wimmin Outreach. There’s a new Red State Women PAC for busy wimmin of The Loon Star State which has kicked-off considerable discussion about Equal Pay for Wimmin.  And the Republican consensus on this hot womancentric issue?  Definitely Not Necessary.

Only whiny Librul Wimmin even care about this because they’re not busy enough and only want to work ONE JOB!.  And if they weren’t such sluts they’d have baby-daddys who bring home the bacon and cherish their wimmin for home-schooling and ironing and such.  Who can put a price on such family-centric services?  Priceless, amirite?

If wimmin absolutely must go into the workforce, well then, they should learn how to negotiate like men and shut up about ever-lovin’ Lilly Ledbetter.  Let Uncle Sugar in on your paycheck and next thing you know he’ll be crawling under your duvet to see what you’re getting up to in there.

On an entirely different front, the ever-cunning Eric Cantor (R-VA) has come up with a totally awesome bi-partisan idea that’s sure to pack polling booths with gullible new Republican Wimmin voters—ready? construction of a “National Women’s History Museum” on or near the National Mall, no less.

Rush Limbaugh, the Other RNC Chairman, rushed to nix that idea because:

We already have, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know how many museums for women all over the country.  They are called malls.

Hyockhyockhyock.  Oh that Rush

The Unborn

You can always tell that Mitch McConnell is up for re-election when he dusts of his Senate 20-Week Abortion Ban.

Latinos

All of you natural-born-conservative Latinos will, of course, understand that when states require that you prove your citizenship before you vote? it’s only because every vote is sacred, in America, and we’re trying to root out the embarrassingly rampant voter fraud that plagues the Greatest Democracy on Earth every time we go to the polls.  It’s a miracle we ever get the Right people elected.

Also, conservative pundit, Ann Coulter, has some outreach-y thoughts on immigration reform bound to attract Latinos to the GOP Big Top:

Amnesty is forever and you got to vote for the Republicans one more time and just make it clear; but if you pass amnesty, that’s it, it’s over and then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.

Immigration Reform? who needs it? If Immigration is reformed, more immigrants will just want in.

Oh! and the ninos? yeah, they’re automatic citizens, and all that, but that doesn’t mean you should run right out and sign ‘em up for frickin ObamaCare! think like a Republican.  We’re going to repeal that sucker as soon as some of you natural-conservatives get on board and elect us.  And our plan is tons better, just wait and see.

LGBT

Interesting developments here because, aside from the annual No Gayz Aloud CPAC kerfuffle, Republican politicians have gone dark on the pre-election anti-gay messages.

The void, however, has been amply filled by Republican surrogates doing overtime.  Just today, The American Family Association‘s boycott operation, One Million Moms, has called for the annihilation and utter damnation of Nabisco because of a Honey Maid ad that includes a gay family eating graham crackers.  OMM is “highly offended” by its (Honey Maid’s) “disrespect of millions of American families by supporting the homosexual agenda.”

Furthermore [there’s always a furthermore with these people]:

Honey Maid — and its parent company Nabisco — “should be ashamed of themselves” for their “attempt to normalize sin” by “pushing the LGBT agenda.”

Catholic League‘s Bill Donohue vows that he’s had his “last pint” of Guinness over the beer company’s withdrawn support because of NYC’s St Patricks Day Parade ban on LGBT groups.  Guinness shareholders should be very afraid.

God’s spokesman, Bryan Fischer reminds us that:

. . . anyone who holds public office is a “minister of God” with “a responsibility to use that authority in a manner that is consistent with the truth of God.” As such, any law that gives any sort of protection or equality to gays is a violation of that responsibility . . .

And old Papi Cruz shared that:

. . .  he opposes gay rights — which he believes are part of a Communist plot and lead to child abuse — because he loves gay people and does not want to “prostitute the Gospel.

So. OK.  Maybe Hrafnkell is right about the “million dollar platform for a two bit message.”

Keep trying, Reince.

And she’s only one of the meaty offerings up for display this fine day.

A Whole Lotta Fail, The Usual Suspects:

So thanks to educating the young sprogs of America, I have managed to catch the Grand Daddy of Fuck You Colds. As such, I’ve been reduced enough in mental faculties to be able to shotgun far more than the usual amount of toxic chemicals… I mean, wingnut bullshit, I mean… wait, was I right the first time.

Point being, dwelling on the plague bearers that cursed me has reminded me of the favorite wingnut rant about kids these days (as in literally, rather than the usual all-encompassing rants about anyone under the age of 60).

That being that kids have been COMPLETELY RUINED by the “everyone wins” culture. A demonic consortium that rewards participation instead of only celebrating those whose jaws drip red with the limbs of those who came in 4th. Or at least that’s how they would categorize it.

Which has baffled me, because the types of assholes who whine about this are not at all the sorts who would be winning any competition that wasn’t bought and paid for with their daddy’s money (or perhaps an Upper-Class Twit of the Year style event). I mean, sure, they rubbed themselves until they spurt blood at the thoughts of the swaggering jock assholes, but that doesn’t mean they were anywhere close to the running.

And that’s when it hit me. The poor bastards are jealous and have misinterpreted rewarding the effort to at least try as a conspiratorial action against their clear and obvious genius in combing Obama’s birth certificate for kerning.

As such, I think it’s right time we rewarded these recognition starved incompetents and hand out some awards for what meager spoils the poor bastards do succeed at.

First up?

The Prize for “I’m Not Sure You Understand How Dog Whistles Are Supposed to Work” goes to:

Clarice Feldman, American Racist Tantrum:
Calling a Spade a ‘Garden Implement’ Doesn’t Make it a Hoe

Shorter:

• Not being able to scream nigger and have that teach all those uppity escaped slaves their place is literally tearing me up to the point that I have to recycle hate euphemisms from the 50s just to let it out.

A fine choice indeed in a tough field. At American Thinker itself there is an admirable field (wait not admirable, what’s the antonym of admirable, oh right despicable) of basket case racists who went fully off the rails at the notion that “one of them” was raised to that most high office in our land trading in all manner of outdated racist conspiracy theories.

But only one had the bravery and foresight to go that one step beyond and literally demand the right to call black people spades without looking like the pointy-hooded racist they are in their anti-multiculturalism rant as if that was subtle 40 years ago.

It’s a rarity in these times of PC stormtroopers roaming the land, hurting millions of fee-fees by noting that disproportionate power displays intended to dehumanize and terrorize non-dominant members might be slightly viewed by the half of the country that gives a shit as slightly uncool.

Godspeed, Clarice. No really, let God speed you right on your way so you can catch up to the last 150 years of development you apparently missed while asleep in your cryogenic plantation.

Next up?

The prize for “Do You Use that Line in the Bar Too?” goes to:

Charles C.W. Cooke, National Votes are Fucking Magic:
Inverting the Question

Shorter:

• Goddamn women voters leaving us in droves just because we’re raving misogynists against women having any and all rights! Don’t you dumb bitches understand that we don’t hate you, we just hate those of you who haven’t yet been replaced with Approved Men’s Association Replacements.

Cause when you are bleeding more votes than a hemophiliac with a democratically elected blood stream, what you need is to remove all fucking doubt that you despise literally every group that isn’t rich, white, psychotically Christian, straight cismen and thus cement your position in the ever-dwindling basement of history (so that’s where I put the crusher walls, I was wondering).

I think the best part of this post is the eagerness in which he’s found the ultimate switch that’ll make the Earth spin backwards as if Superman was trying to erase Man of Steel from existence and somehow make Republicans brand of intense hatred of all things connected to women somehow sell with the (a) fairer (shot with the plasma cannon) gender.

Cause, you know, when you blow your wad and reveal the whole anti-abortion movement to be about intense hatred at the notion that sometimes girls are allowed out of the kitchen without intense punishment and that following the “proper” path wouldn’t save you from their wrath, what’ll really turn it around and fix everything is yelling at the women running away in fear from you that she’s a bitch anyways.

My only solace is the knowledge that you never get laid.

Coming in third, we have a special award for a long-time participant in the Failympics

The prize for “…Are you sure you’re really gay?” goes to:

V the K, Gay… Yeah, no:
A Meme is Worth a Thousand Word Post

Shorter:

• Fuck caring about anti-gay discrimination, that doesn’t serve Republicans at all.

Oh, what is there that needs to be said about our favorite Quisling punching bags. I mean, every time I glance over their way, I know I will be in for painful selling out of their own people, massively internalized self-hatred, dancing for people who would gladly see them die, massive laziness, and a complete disconnect from even the most basic understanding of the queer community they supposedly are part of.

But, this post takes it to a whole new level by wholesale swallowing the latest homophobe line in the push for more publicly supported and funded anti-gay discrimination and dismissing a concern that might just affect a queer conservative supposedly just interested in “the free market” and “economic liberty” and instead calling for more focus on a non-story that never had legs to begin with.

All wrapped up in someone else’s meme referencing other memes that are so far behind the times, they are using little pushcarts to try and go down the rails.

It’s a perfect distillation of exactly why the growing acceptance of queer people may be the worst thing to happen to Bruce and his little den of self-hating homos.

Our penultimate prize is awarded to one lucky contestant, but could possibly be shared by the wingnuttosphere as a whole.

It is the prize for “Long Term Planning Ain’t Your Specialty Is It?” and it goes to:

Jeanne DeAngelis, American… HA! You Fell Like a Meteor:
Exercising Your Right to Choose a Doctor You’d Never Choose

Shorter:

• Let me spin an elaborate conspiracy fantasy to explain why I think there is a difference between the number of people who have filled out the forms on the ACA webpage and the number of people who currently have health insurance. Hint, it completely ignores the reality of a shit-ton of poor people and a lot of hoops we force new applicants to the public option to jump through before we will fully believe they are really twuly poor enough to qualify. You know, even though we are the reason those hoops exist in the first place.

Yup, it’s old giraffe lady herself.

But I think the hilariousness of this post isn’t just that it’s made of liquid crazy (no really, reading her “logic” is like a free hit of LSD) or that it recycles every bit of right-wing fantasy over the years surrounding Obamacare like a little old hoarder hoping the endless piles of milk crates won’t crush all the feral cats.

No, I think it’s the way that this crap isn’t really all that uncommon on the right. Pretty much every day there is a new “Obamacare is secretly a scam, no good Republican should trust its laser death beams” scare article trying to make hay out of the supposedly “low” numbers of enrollment as if that wasn’t a fact due to change very shortly in the future.

Pretty much every previously uninsured person I know is currently waiting. Waiting to hear back from the public option of my state (which is a damn good public option, I must say. Like holy shit, did I randomly wake up in Denmark again, good). Most, if not all of them will be eventually accepted after the requisite amount of double-checking and understaffed departments forced to absolutely 100% verify that they aren’t a Liar McLiarton who shouldn’t receive life-saving medicine.

And I can say as someone who waited and now has that awesome shit, it feels amazing. Like, me and Obama are totally cool and I’ll swallow all the shit I gave his wheeling and dealing during passage and accept I was completely wrong, amazing. And I was not only able to actually see a doctor, but get to see the cool trans-aware clinic I had been trying to get into for years before with no luck.

And that’s going to be a common feeling of a fuckton lot of people in short order, despite all the random barriers and bullshit that Republicans have tried to throw in people’s way.

Which leads one to wonder, just how are they going to deal with the reality when Obamacare turns out to be just as popular as a blind man would expect?

I think we can all see the answer is “they won’t”.

And last but not least, we have a real treat.

The prize for “Well that’s certainly a Freudian Slip of a Metaphor” goes to:

Mario Loyola, American Really? That Metaphor? Are You Sure? Okay, Then…:
The Two Towers of Progressivism

Shorter:

• We need to ram our Planes of Free Markets into the Twin Towers of Progressivism in order to release the Asbestos Filled Cloud of Economic Liberty.

…yeah. A shitton of pseudo-intellectual language, but nope, that’s really the central metaphor. Bringing down the Twin Towers and placing “righteous conservatives” and their not at all similar brand of economic terrorism in the role of the terrorists (but like heroic and shit). Yeah, this is a thing that happened.

No, really, see for yourself:

I try to show how these two towers of the progressive movement were built atop the ruins of the Tenth Amendment. I argue that we must knock them down and revive the Tenth Amendment if we are to save the Constitution.

“Nevar Forget” indeed.

---

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. I for one am glad our political liberties were severely curtailed because 9/11 was such a huge tragedy that it demanded the highest price… until conservatives got bored with it and started openly respecting the terrorists, I guess. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

---

…oh, “f” is for so many things.  Everyone who knows me well would tell you it is for “fuck” — a rather too-favorite profanity of mine.  Well, yes, but that isn’t exactly part and parcel of my paganism, unless, of course one mentions spells with names like “Fuck that UP.”

Ahem.  I cast about for what to do with the letter “f” for quite a long time.  I thought about blogger Lupa who writes about plant totems.  And that made me think “foxglove” would suffice although I don’t claim it as a totem.  But it was one of the first plants I put in my gardens.  Something about a tower of bell-like flowers gently moving in the late spring breezes far over my head enchanted me.  The formal name “digitalis purpurea” is not nearly so descriptive as the many folk names: fairy thimbles, witch bells, witch’s thimbles, fox bells, and so forth.  It was once used to make black dye and has a varied mythology of protection and dire harm — fitting for a plant that provides both a poison and a medicine.  Foxgloves say “home” to me although this is the only place I’ve ever lived where they were in the garden.  Perhaps, like my name “Labrys” it is the double-edgedness of the beautiful flower?  It can help or harm – a metaphor for magic, for humanity even, if ever I saw one.

I also considered the old pagan saw — “f” could be for “familiar” as well.  I don’t believe in familiars, although others tell me my pets are more familiar-like than any they’ve seen.  And that, then, made me think more about the concept of a familiar.  While I intensely dislike a common perception that says the familiar is an animal helper which lends energy and such to one’s magical efforts (Thank you very much, if I am going to vampire-feed off something, it will be a GOP neck and with my own teeth, ok?) because that would victimize the animal.  So, if I was to use the term “familiar” it would have to have more to do with associations like “family” or being UTTERLY familiar with said beastie.

But the pets of my house have almost always been special, most specially since we settled in this place.  The best pets came to us instead of us selecting them — Grendel the wolf-cross dog who would be the perfect security clearance granter.  If Grendel didn’t like someone, there was a damned good reason why nobody else should EITHER.  Grendel, the bounding gray-black dog who stopped and dropped butt to ground six inches from my cringing pain-wracked body when I returned home from my first spinal fusion — he knew somehow and did not rapturously barrel into me in greeting. I had always loved cats more than dogs; but I loved Grendel more than any cat.

And perhaps most archetypically of all, if one speaks of familiars — my ferrets, the epitome of the letter “f” even in shape!  I’ve had eighteen ferrets** — twenty if you count two that I placed with another person.  Over half of those were rescued, the rest were ordinarily acquired.  All were irrepressibly Nietzschean in philosophy of life.  They taught me a lot.

The gentlest of the wild bunch is Farley, that thief of hearts, and he taught me that no matter how loving, how gentle one is; if one is being ignored it is perfectly acceptable — nay, practically a Kantian duty — to set one’s teeth in an ankle (or an ass) to re-focus the necessary attention where it belongs!  But it is the most “familiar” of all, Helen who sustained me through a psychological trial by fire — she who came to me wearing the name of the Nordic goddess of the underworld, “Hel”.  (I don’t name pets after mythological beings or deities.) She who wakes although she is deaf, when I am sleepless, and always does get extremely “Let me out, out, out!” whenever I am doing magic. That is her, staking her claim to a wooly bed in the basket!  Helen is at least nine years old this year, very old for a woozle.  A prolonged agony of a mourning is in my future.  If ever there was a familiar in my life, it is she, and she will leave a hole in my life when she leaves it.

But another “f” I don’t believe in?  ”Fate” — seems to have taken a hand in that grief to come, mitigating it with little Gray Gracie, the rescued kitty who is my morning alarm clock.  She is young and is also Farley’s new best friend.  She moves me from my bed of depression, she tries to break the ferrets out of their cage at night to play in the dark.

I am blessed with familiar ferrets and other furry things.  May I be equal blessing to them.

Tagged: familiars, ferrets, gardening, metaphors, pagan life

Because Rand Paul really, really can't help himself with this "If you people were only smart enough to listen to me" garbage, this time as he goes to UC Berkeley to tell black folks that Democrats are the real racists, again.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, says President Obama should be particularly wary of domestic spying, given the government’s history of eavesdropping on civil rights leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The first African-American president ought to be a little more conscious of the fact of what has happened with the abuses of domestic spying,” Mr. Paul said, previewing remarks he planned to deliver to a group of students and faculty members Wednesday afternoon at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Martin Luther King was spied upon, civil rights leaders were spied upon, Muhammad Ali was spied upon, antiwar protesters were spied upon,” he said. “The possibility for abuse in this is incredible. So I don’t care if there’s never been any evidence of abuse with the N.S.A., they should not be collecting the data.”

To recap, it takes a lot of balls to be a white guy who would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and believes business owners have the right to discriminate against customers based solely on race, creed, religion and/or sexual orientation to be speaking to the first black POTUS this way.  And now he is suddenly worried about black people and doesn't understand why we haven't turned against Obama over the NSA?  No.

His trip to the university here is the latest piece of a carefully constructed plan by Mr. Paul and his political operation to try to broaden his appeal beyond the Republican Party. Mr. Paul has had tough words for his party and its leaders lately, saying they risk shutting themselves out of power for years to come if they do not start convincing young people, blacks, Hispanics and others who have abandoned Republicans that the party can and will change.

He picked Berkeley as an ideal place to test out his message on a group of new potential supporters, he said, because the issue of domestic spying has deeply upset many liberals and turned many of the president’s loyal constituents on the left against him.

His message of course being "You people are stupid to not vote for me even though I'm clearly trying to manipulate you and split the left, leaving Republicans in charge of everything so we can abolish nearly all of the social and civil rights advances made in the last 80 years."

And we're not buying it, especially whenever President Obama does acknowledge race in America, he's immediately portrayed by Republicans as divisive.  Race doesn't matter unless it's a situation where Rand Paul thinks it should matter? 

Take your privilege and shove it, man.

bitterseafigtree:

jhameia:

savagemike:

irishmexi:

meow-sense:

goodsmellmeow:

kzhang:

Yep, I just yelled “fuck you” at some blow job who said “ni hao” to me in the park.

My good friend Phoenix, posted this Facebook status a few weeks ago that turned into this interesting hotbed of resentful Western White male privilege.

Not only did this guy, Luke, brazenly display an incredibly condescending whitesplaining, mansplaining attitude, but he demanded that my friend, a woman of color, explain to him why the behavior that this man displayed while yelling at my friend in the park was harassment.

I hope I do not need to explain how utterly ridiculous and entitled of him it is to tell a Chinese-American woman to “present [him] with depth” and prove to him why it’s unacceptable for some dude to approach strangers in the park, saying “ni hao” at them. I hope it’s evident as to how absolutely arrogant it is for a White man to defend some stranger he’s only ever heard about rather than believe a woman of color when her life experiences deem this encounter to come from a point of racism/sexism. As obvious as how presumptuous Luke’s entitled reaction may be, I would like to make it clear that White men injecting themselves, uninvited, into conversations women and people of color are having about oppression happens all the time.

All. The. Time.

And worse than White men assuming their opinions are welcome in this place, White men believe their opinions should be valued above all others’, for theirs are the only ones that are “un-biased”. Notice the silencing tactics Luke uses. Women of color who are upset by racist/sexist remarks made to them in public who dare to react to those violations are “angry”, “irrational”, and not deserving of this White man’s Facebook friend list. Welcome to Gaslighting 101, everyone! Racist, sexist, privileged, arrogant gaslighting.

However, I don’t want to write about awful gaslighting today. I actually want to write about something else this privileged White dude brought up, being White in China vs. being Chinese* in the U.S.

Luke wrote,

[…] and for the record, I’ve had numerous similar experiences as being the ‘white guy’ in China for the past decade. I never reacted like that but then I don’t think this is about race as much as it is about Phoenix […]

First of all, way to be an asshole, Luke, by again dismissing the validity of Phoenix’s experiences and her assessment of the situation that she was in and you were nowhere near.

Second of all—and I want White people to understand this so—YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A WHITE PERSON IN AN ASIAN COUNTRY IS NOT THE SAME NOR AT ALL “SIMILAR” TO MY EXPERIENCE OR THE EXPERIENCE OF FELLOW ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER PEOPLES IN THE UNITED STATES. Got it?

But, “why, Kathy?” you may ask. “Why can’t I just swap out different races/ethnicities in any scenario and the end result be the same?”

Really? Why? Because read a fucking history book—preferably one not crafted by the hegemonic White Western discourse.

The same people who think saying “ni hao” or “konnichiwa” to an Asian person in the U.S. is the same as an Asian person saying “hello” to a white person in an Asian country are the same people who think “reverse racism” is a thing. Guess what? Reverse racism isn’t real and those two situations are not at all the same thing.

Let’s just start with demographics. We all know that race is a social construct, but for simplicity purposes, let’s use it.

Population of China: 1.35 billion
Population of the U.S.: 316 million

Percentage White in the U.S.: 72.4%
Percentage Asian in the U.S.: 4.8% 

Percentage Asian in China: 99.x%
Percentage White in China: (the number of White people in China is so insignificant compared to the entire population, it hasn’t bee properly documented)

Wow! There is a significantly smaller percentage of the Chinese population that is White compared to the American population that is Asian! Who would’ve thought?

Okay. That shouldn’t be a shock, right? The United States is a “land of immigrants” (even if certain states and politicians seem to spit on that fact). Being non-White in the U.S. isn’t supposed to be a novelty, it’s a truth. The U.S. census estimates that in 30 years, non-Hispanic/Latin@ Whites will make up less than half of the population. So seeing a non-White person really shouldn’t be a shock in the U.S. in 2013. And considering Phoenix works in Boston, and not middle-of-nowhere, Maine, she shouldn’t be treated as an anomaly walking through a park.

Approaching a random person of color or any person you do not definitively know the ethnicity of and saying “ni hao”, “hola”, or “jambo” at this person (particularly if you do not speak Chinese, Spanish, or Swahili) is not only obnoxious, but it is othering. The effect (regardless of whether it’s intentional or not) of this action on the person of color is to point out that they are somehow different from the White person (and legitimate American) speaking to them while transmitting the message “you are not welcome here”. API peoples constantly receive this message. From “where are you from?” to “what language do you speak?” to “what does your name mean?”, White people are consistently reminding us that because we are not White, we are not American.

So when some stranger says “ni hao” to my Chinese-American friend in the park, it is absolutely not  to be “friendly”, it is to invade her space and remind her that no matter what her birth certificate, voting record, or life experiences are, she will never be considered American and she will never be welcome because her hair isn’t blonde and her last name isn’t Smith.

People of color built this country. They did so despite political, economic, and social barriers erected to prevent them from prospering. The first wave of Chinese immigrants arrived in the 1800s, brought over to work on the transcontinental railroad as cheap labor at wages. Chinese workers were paid $27-$30 a month, compared to Irish workers, who were paid $35 a month and provided with living arrangements. Not only were the Chinese paid less than the Whites, they were also treated terribly. The White construction crews would order Chinese workers to enter caves where not all the dynamite had gone off, killing dozens of Chinese men. These men were forced to risk their lives, placed in to baskets and lowered over cliffs or into mines to drill holes and place dynamite, staking their luck and their lives on how quickly their fellow workers were able to pull them up. The term “Chinaman’s chance”? This practice is one of it’s origins. Over 1,200 Chinese workers died building the Central Pacific Railroad alone.

And what did the U.S. do to repay these Chinese immigrants for building such an extensive railroad system in this country? They passed the Chinese Exclusion Act to prevent Chinese immigration and then passed the Geary Act to extend the exclusion and placed new requirements on existing Chinese residents of the U.S. Among these requirements was a law that Chinese residents must carry proof of their residency at all time or risk a year of hard labor or deportation. Sound familiar? The Geary Act also forbade Chinese residents from bearing witness in a court of law and denied Chinese bail in habeas corpus proceedings.

For a country so proud of its immigrant-roots, its laws speak differently. Or are only White, Anglo-looking people allowed to claim this country as their own and all people of color must simply accept that we can never call the United States our homeland?

Let’s just step back a minute. Many Chinese families have been in the United States just as long or even longer than your European ancestors. Chinese workers played a big part in building this country. Yet, Chinese-Americans are being treated like they don’t belong in this country daily. Yes, even in the 21st century.

So don’t you dare fucking compare how you as a White man are treated in China to how a Chinese-American woman is treated in the United States. I haven’t even started exploring the rampant sexism that’s entwined with White men fetishizing API women as submissive and exotic. This view is a stereotype. It is a stereotype largely rooted in a history of Western colonialism and the geo-political dynamics between American soldiers and local women in the various wars and military aggressions of the late 20th century waged in East Asia and the Pacific, a stereotype that’s been perpetuated by Western, White, male-dominated mainstream media.

If you are a White person in China, you are most likely a tourist, or your job has located you there and you make significantly more money than the average Chinese worker (~$9k/yr). If a Chinese stranger approaches you and says “hello”, that might be annoying, but it doesn’t come with any of the same history and implications as a White stranger saying “ni hao” to an Asian person in the U.S., regardless of whether that person is Chinese. Considering the fact that British and U.S. imperialism has made English the default official language for multinational organizations and the forced lingua franca of many states in the Global South, the power differential between the White person and the Asian person in both of these situations favors the White person.

To Luke and every other White asshole who doesn’t “think about race”:

Your experience as a “minority” in an Asian country is not comparable to Phoenix’s experience as a Minority (Capital M for all of the historical, political, social baggage of that word) in the United States.

So sit down and shut up.

 

—————

*You can apply this same theory to Japanese-, Korean-, and other API peoples in the U.S., in so much as noting that being White in Japan is nothing like being Japanese in the U.S. (or Korean, Vietnamese, Malaysian, etc.). However, remember that although API peoples have a shared identity, the histories of each ethnic group’s legacies in the U.S. are different and the geo-political histories of the U.S.’s respective relationships (and wars and imperialism, etc.) are also distinct. It is ludicrous to assume that all 17.3 million Asian-Americans have the same histories and that nations with a combined population of 4 billion people have the same diplomatic relationship with the U.S. It is not only irresponsible, it is also racist.

My cousin’s white boyfriend brought up being white in China as a parallel to being a person of color in the U.S., and I had to tell him, “Noooooooo…”

Read the whole thing.

Awesome

The “land of immigrants” discourse is a joke, since the U.S.A. is a land built on settler colonialism, not immigration, but yes, very well laid out.

My favorite part is when she says she has a right to exist in a park in peace and Luke literally says “You have no such right.” 

Really?

Really?

Ok.

The other thing is that a lot of us have been getting s- like this since we were children.  I know I dealt with other (non-Asian) kids going “ching chong chung” or “NI HAO” or whatever Japanese/Chinese word or fake stereotyped “Asian” gibberish they’ve heard to me.  And not in a nice way, even the proper words are said AT me, to frighten me, or unsettle me, or make me feel unwelcome and different.  And it takes on another layer for us if we’re women and Asian when we get older and white guys use it to harass us.

We KNOW.  Those of us who are marginalized and have put up with this stuff forever, KNOW.  We know when people are talking AT us, not TO us.  Women know when something guys yell or say to us on the street isn’t meant as an opening to dialogue, it’s something said AT us.  Trans people know when we’re being misgendered to make us feel unwelcome and powerless.  PoC know when we’re being treated or talked at in a way to make us feel foreign and like something on display for the white person.  We’ve been putting up with this s- forever.  The one instance we talk about isn’t the ONE TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED TO US and should be treated as if in a vacuum.  These are our lives, and we understand how people see us and what people mean better than people who don’t have to live with this stuff.

This thread had a discussion of the the Supreme Court damaging the Medicaid funding mechanism in Sebelius,leaving to the inevitable argument that it was a 7-2 vote and hence Both Sides Do It and so on. My position continues to be that had Breyer or Kagan been the median vote on the Supreme Court there’s a roughly 100% chance that the Medicaid expansion would have been untouched. Equally inevitably, this leads to people expressing shock at the very idea that a Supreme Court justice’s vote could ever represent something other than their sincere, optimal preference. It’s sort of like the argument that if Obama puts Chained CPI in his budget with conditions that make it unpassable or a Republican proposes health care reform that will vanish the second a Republican takes the White House, we have no choice but to assume that this reflects their sincere preferences. Only in the case of elected politicians, this argument is virtually always being made in bad faith; nobody really believes it (almost everybody who assumed that Chained CPI in his budget reflected Obama’s passionate commitment to killing Social Security also assumes that Obama spent most of his first term secretly stopping Congress from adopting legislation he publicly supported.) When it comes to the Supreme Court, though, I think many people really do have a weirdly naive belief that justices rarely do and never should vote strategically. So let’s explain again why this assumption is transparently wrong empirically and unpersuasive normatively.

The political science literature is unambiguous in demonstrating the ubiquity of strategic voting. Epstein and Knight is a superb primer, although nonspecialists may want to start with Walter Murphy’s Elements of Judicial Strategy; the future bestselling novelist wrote very well and it’s an extremely smart and elegantly argued text. In addition to the examples in the first link, there’s an excellent recent example: Northwest Austin. John Roberts’s faux outrage notwithstanding, it should have been obvious what was going on in Northwest Austin at the time: Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens joined the Court’s opinion not because they were persuaded by Roberts’s bare assertion that the Constitution protects an extratextual Equal Sovereign Dignitude of the states, but because they preferred an epically specious opinion upholding the Voting Rights Act to an epically specious opinion that went ahead and gutted it, and if they didn’t provide Roberts with the appearance of consensus they substantially risked the latter in 2009. Unless you think that Ginsburg and Breyer radically revised their views in the intervening four years, the former’s dissent in Shelby County settles the question. But Ginsburg and Breyer weren’t lying or acting in bad faith in Northwest Austin (although their strategic judgment might have been wrong); voting for the viable position closest to your own is a perfectly ordinary and defensible practice.  What matters is that the Voting Rights Act survives, perhaps until there can be a different median vote on the Court.  Getting the satisfaction of having spoken your mind isn’t much consolation to everyone whose vote would be suppressed.

Indeed, you don’t really need a lot of legal scholars digging through old conference votes and memos or using fancy game theory to see that strategic voting is inevitable in any court where five votes are necessary to get a majority. Just compare, say, a typical Thomas solo dissent with a typical Thomas majority opinion; the latter will be as a rule much blander and less idiosyncratic, because they have to represent what’s minimally acceptable to every member of the majority coalition. We know Brennan wrote an opinion subjecting gender classifications to intermediate scrutiny (which could command a majority) although his preferred position was strict scrutiny (which couldn’t) because we have the relevant memos, but it should be obvious that this kind of thing is going to happen all the time.

Which brings us back to Sebelius. On the Medicaid expansion, there were three options on the table:

• (ArtI) The Spending Clause in Article I means what it says.  There is no precedent for striking down an exercise of conditional federal grants given to states, and this modification to Medicaid is no less constitutional than any of the previous 50 or so.
• (.5NeoCon) The half-neoconfederate: Congress cannot make Medicaid funding contingent on the accepting the new expansion, even though it would be unquestionably constitutional for Congress to create the new Medicaid from scratch on one hand or to repeal it entirely on the other, because…look, John Calhoun!  Equal Sovereign Dignitude! The Cornhusker Kickback!  Congress, however, can offer the new money as long as it doesn’t threaten to withhold the old money.
• (NeoCon) The full neoconfederate: All of the illogical states’ “rights” gibberish of .5NeoCon, only the expansion is struck down entirely.

Everything about Breyer’s history suggests that his ideal preference ordering is ArtI>.5NeoCon>NeoCon.  If you can name one Supreme Court justice in history with a broader conception of federal authority, that’s one more than me.  With Kagan, we have less history to go on, but she’s a typical Democratic nominee and that means that any preference ordering but ArtI>.5NeoCon>NeoCon would be enormously unusual.  (Members of team Democrat potentially disagree about many issues, but national power isn’t one of them in 2014.)  The oral arguments confirmed this, with both Breyer and Kagan expressing notable hostility to the neoconfederate spending power arguments (not surprisingly, since they were an afterthought even to most people who took the argument that the mandate was unconstitutional seriously.)  Taken literally, however, their votes would indicate a preference ordering of .5NeoCon>ArtI>NecCon.  Did Breyer radically revise his views? Was Kagan a disastrous pick after all?

Almost certainly not.  The only two relevant options — the only positions with a chance of getting 5 votes — were .5NeoCon and NeoCon.  Particularly in a context in which Roberts initially voted to strike down the ACA in its entirety, by far the most plausible explanation is that Breyer (who, you’ll remember, was part of a doomed effort to salvage the Florida recounts by trying to form a consensus on 14th Amendment violations with an actual remedy) and Kagan wanted to add their superfluous votes to ensure Roberts wouldn’t move from the .5NeoCon to the NeoCon camp.   Can I prove to an absolute certainty that Breyer hasn’t radically changed the views he’s consistently held for decades and won’t suddenly start casting votes placing arbitrary limits on the congressional spending power?  No, but the overwhelming likelihood is that his vote was anomalous.  And, certainly, the only thing we can safely infer from the Breyer and Kagan votes is that they preferred .5NeoCon to NeoCon.

H. Savinean asks:

I would like to hear your thoughts on liking problematic things, e.g. media with historically accurate but objectionable portrayals of gender/race/etc., media with no historical excuse for the above, media that simply ignore women and people of color, comedians/actors/writers who plant their feet firmly in their mouths way too often… It’s something I spend a fair amount of time on.

Oh, boy! A can of worms! Let me just come over and open it!

Let me skip lightly over what “problematic” means in a larger sense and suggest that for the purposes of this piece, the word means “work/people I have issues with for some substantial and to me relevant social/moral/ethical reason.” With that understood:

I think it’s fine to like or recognize the value of problematic people/things. I think it helps to additionally recognize two things: One, that the person/thing is problematic, regardless of the fact that you like it; two, that the fact you like it doesn’t mitigate the fact that it is problematic. You can hold the two thoughts in your head simultaneously.

So, an example from my own personal problematic files: Chinatown. Fantastic movie, and the guy who directed it drugged and raped an underage girl. The film is a classic and Roman Polanski should have gone to prison. That the film is one of the best films of the 1970s doesn’t change the fact that Polanski is also a rapist. Should you feel uncomfortable about Polanski and his actions? Yes you should. Can you acknowledge Chinatown is still a substantial piece of work? Yes you can.

Another example: Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl. For reasons relating to cinematic technique, one of the major films in cinematic history — echoes of the film pop up everywhere from Star Wars to The Lion King. For subject matter, an unapologetic celebration of the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg and of Adolf Hitler, it is literally horrifying. Riefenstahl herself: A brilliant filmmaker and forever (and rightly) tainted by her association with a genocidal regime; one of the first great women directors, who unquestionably lent her considerable talents to the furtherance of evil. Can we appreciate the craft she brought to the film? Absolutely. Should we argue that this craft mitigates the purpose for which it was used? Absolutely not. Should Riefenstahl’s embrace of the Nazi party be excused because of her cinematic talent? Not in a thousand years.

And so on. I used two examples from film, but examples can be found in every field of creative endeavor, including — obviously — writing. Likewise, Polanski and Riefenstahl are easy examples because of the unambiguous nature of their actions, but for every clear cut case like theirs, there are a thousand less clear cut — or at least, less clear cut to you. Someone else might disagree, occasionally emphatically.

If you accept that you can both appreciate a problematic work/creator and recognize its problematic issues, there are a host of other issues for you to consider. Some of them:

* Should you support the work with money? Example: Would you pay to own a copy of Chinatown, or merely watch it when it came on television?

* Do you differentiate works from different eras in the creator’s life? For example, if you have a favorite book and over time the creator turned progressively homophobic, can you cherish the work written before that transformation, or do you judge it by the author’s “final form,” as it were?

* How much weight should you give to historical context?

* How much do you care about a creator’s personal life?

* Does it matter whether the creator is living or dead?

(The latter, incidentally, is one I think about a lot. I anecdotally noted a resurgence of Michael Jackson’s music in the common culture after his death, and I hypothesize that his passing removed a lot of the “squick” factor related to his possibly entirely inappropriate relationships with kids. It’s easier to get into a “Thriller” zombie line if you’re not worrying about what Jackson might be doing at one of those Neverland slumber parties, etc.)

Cards on the table: I like a lot of work I think is problematic, and I like more stuff that other people would find more problematic than I do, because they have different standards and life experiences. There’s other stuff I don’t like because I find it too problematic, but I also acknowledge there’s room for hypocrisy in my choices there, too. For example, I find some of Chris Brown’s work catchy but I’m not going to give him my money because he beat a woman and by all the evidence I can see he doesn’t especially regret having done so. On the other hand, in the early 70s Jimmy Page knowingly had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl — that’s statutory rape despite the girl’s then-consent — and I own a whole lotta Zeppelin (on the other hand, I haven’t bought any since I found that bit out. Even so).

Does this dichotomy reflect my judgment regarding their respective actions, some latent baked-in racism, my preference for rock over R&B, or the fact one was just a few years ago and the other over before I even knew about it? You got me. Mix and match. And while you’re doing that, I’m gonna have to think about it some more myself.

Which I think is a thing worth doing as well: When you like a problematic thing, rather than reflexively defending it with the “I like it and therefore it can’t be bad and why are you making me feel bad about it,” response, go ahead and ask yourself why you like it even though you acknowledge it’s got problems. You might find after questioning it, you like it less — or more, because you’ve thought it through.

As a final thought here, I think it’s probably likely that some readers of mine find my work problematic for various reasons — either for what’s in the text of the work, who I am as a person (as far as they know from my public presence and/or their private interaction with me) or some combination of both. It’s part of the territory of being a creative person. Are they wrong for doing so? No; you have to accept that everyone comes to your work with their own perspective and will have their own criticisms of it (and you), some of which you will disagree with, or find to be a feature rather than a bug, as it were.

If the reader can simultaneously hold in their mind that they enjoy the work and find it problematic, I appreciate it. If they decide they can’t and drop me from their cultural diet, then that’s fine, too. We all have to make choices. I’d hope that choice comes after some thought on the matter. Ultimately that’s all you can ask for, as a creator of possibly problematic things.

(It’s not too late to get a request in for Reader Request Week — here’s how.)

So with Bridgegate still simmering as the scandal expands to more of New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie's staff...

Gov. Chris Christie’s chief political strategist was included in discussions about the George Washington Bridge lane closure controversy, according to newly released emails.

Mike DuHaime, who has previously escaped scrutiny as members of Christie’s administration have been hit with subpoenas, was forwarded on a December email from a campaign worker asking how to respond to a media inquiry.

...and the investigations continuing while the calls for real reform mount...

The better answer is to appoint a top prosecutor with sufficient independence and integrity. Much like the state’s top judges, the attorney general serves a fixed term and can’t be fired by the governor for political purposes. He or she is expected to operate without fear of reprisals, and the Legislature has the power to block any questionable nominee.

Christie’s current pick, Kevin O’Dowd, is his former chief of staff, and can’t serve until his role in Bridgegate is definitively answered. It was his deputy who sent the note, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” And does his role as a Christie confidante make him less likely to be an independent officer of the law? That should also be on the agenda for his confirmation hearing.

In the meantime, Christie’s acting attorney general should assign a few staffers to the Bridgegate investigation, to focus on violations of state law. We need to rebuild the capacity of this office. Christie should have chosen a truly independent prosecutor for the job, instead of hiring Hoffman, a political ally. We saw the same problem on the state ethics commission, where he installed a loyalist as director.

Until the governor does that, the state’s top law enforcement office will also be discredited as just another puppet of this administration.

 ...Christie needs another scandal right now like he needs another hole in his head.

Meet his new friend Hole In The Head, who has just moved in, crashed on the couch, and is eating all the leftover Chinese food in the fridge.

But once he was elected, Governor Christie moved to award big pension management contracts to the Wall Street donors who have helped boost his political fortunes. In his second year in office, Christie’s administration proposed giving Singer’s hedge fund, Elliott Associates, a contract to manage $200 million in state public pension funds. Elliott Associates won the contract in 2012. Singer again demonstrated his political loyalty to Christie in December 2013, shortly after Christie became chair of the RGA, a coveted post for GOP presidential aspirants. This time, Singer gave the group $1.25 million, making him the largest contributor that year and significantly enlarging the RGA’s war chest under Christie.

Another hedge fund manager with close political ties to Christie, Daniel Loeb, has also won big contracts to manage state retiree money under the governor, The Nation has found.

More payola nonsense.  Christie awarded huge NJ state pension fund contracts to his biggest Wall Street donors?  Isn't that the reason Gov. Jon Corzine lost to Christie in a landslide?

Of course I've been saying Christie is a corrupt Republican (but I repeat myself) for years now.

Funny how I was right all along.

The relatives of the passengers on the lost Boeing 777 jetliner are going to have a hunger strike.  They want more accurate information, they say.  Well, see, here is the thing I wonder, ok?  How will their hunger improve information on something nobody fucking knows or understands about how a fairly large airplane disappeared like a soap bubble?

Vladimir Putin is adding Crimea back into Russia.  The people in the disputed area voted for this themselves.  It would be disingenuous of me to think that election process was totally un-manipulated, but still — surely no worse than Bush taking Florida once upon a time when the SCOTUS said to stop counting ballots?  So, sanctions, everyone says?  I wonder, does anyone really think that will work — has that EVER worked on Russia?  And as the article says, really, does anyone really give a shit about the Crimean Peninsula?  Really?  Or is everyone saber-rattling their way into some shit that goes nowhere good with no end in sight?  Maybe it would be better if everyone minded their own business for a change; because the world cannot afford to go to war every time someone we dislike (Putin) does something we don’t like.  And then, oh, yes, the hypocrisy — large segments of Crimea WANTS to be Russian again and Putin is not mass bombing and murdering in Crimea.  Sure, his lapdog puppet President did that in his own capital — but largely?  THIS mess was dependent upon the actual citizens voting and acting for themselves.  (Oh, and don’t light my fuse about American businesses using Ukrainians as cheap labor crying over their “freedom”, ok?) If anyone in Europe wants a war?

How’s about Syria, where untold thousands are dying — including children and other non-combatants.  I don’t see anyone queueing up to teach Assad how to play nicely with his own citizens.  In fact, I see America getting ready to turn tail and run.  And no, I am not suggesting sanctions.   Sanctions simply starve the little people — and Assad is already doing that, thanks, and needs no cheerleading.  What I wonder is WHY does nobody care about Syrians being shot, bombed, possibly gassed, and starved to death?  If it is just because “they are Moslems”….well, strictly speaking, not every Syrian IS.  And besides, are we going to admit to being genocidal asshats — it doesn’t bother us if only Moslems are dying “cause we hates them, Precious!”  ??  Cause damn, then we have become the monster, haven’t we — while allegedly fighting said monster.

And America?  We have got to have chutzpah stockpiled in 55 gallon drums to even talk about “freedom” in Crimea or any fucking where else these days.  We spy on ourselves, and everyone else.  We lock people up without trial or formal charges.  We murder people with death from above — even American citizens who (understandably) refused to put themselves in our government’s custody.  We enable the police to break in without warrants, and get sketchy about Mirandizing.  We consider letting the military police the home country.  We hire private mercenaries to do things (fewer and fewer things) still illegal to the military.  We should shut the fuck up about what the world does, if we cannot feed our own poor, medicate our own sick, employ our own citizens (outside of as military flesh-and-blood drones), and police our own politicians who care about pocket lining and ass-kissing the rich more than they care about actual governing.

I know, that isn’t going to happen.  Nothing for it now but over the damned falls in nail-lined barrels.  You don’t need to  be a witch with a crystal ball or tarot cards to see where this game goes.  I’m glad I am old…and frankly, there are days I wish my vision would fail faster.

Filed under: Life, Politics, War & No Peace Tagged: aviation, Syria, Tsar Putin

Today is Wednesday…and quite possibly it is the Woozle Helen’s birthday.  She was a rescue of slightly indeterminate age when she came to me in 2009, but the former owner thought she was born in early spring.  She is either nine years old…or eight at youngest.  I hope it is eight, because that would give me more time to enjoy her antics and loving companionship!

So she was given extra treats today.  And I shall share some amusing bits online with all of you as well.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t want pink milk, thanks!  Happy Spring Eve!

The goose is laying…it MUST be spring, right?

 

Tagged: humor

Two people who stop time when they orgasm team up to rob banks is Sex Criminals’ basic premise. Written by Matt Fraction with art by Chip Zdarsky, it’s a fairly new comic that’s been getting a lot of attention. The book sounds like it will be a fun sci-fi romp. And it really is. There’s […]

..that was a strictly personal moment.  To spiritually define oneself as “mystic” is troublesome because it gives even the mystic a sensation of being over the edge, off the  map, possibly crazy.  But nowadays?  Even though I once contentedly worked daily to find out what those sneaky fucking Russians (thank you, “Snatch”) were up to, it means you are an asshole, since the NSA co-opted the word to name one of their massive secret squirrel-works.  Sure, the article tells us it is for use against nasty foreign countries — but if they can do it to them, they can do (and sort of ARE doing) it to us.

I pretty much think we will not get this shit stopped.  And people like Feinstein the hypocrite just want to be sure that there is an upper class level of folks NOT spied upon in this manner by the NSA or CIA, and she wants to be part of THAT.  So, since they simply don’t have enough analysts to listen to everything?  Forget ‘walking like an Egyptian’ folks…it is time to start writing and talking like a Russian of the Soviet Era.  Lose the buzzwords that will make your convo pop up to be screened.  Encode all your letters.

I hope all the analysts working on this shit die of bleeding ulcers.  Oh, wait, that can’t be right, can it? I hope Daddy DIRNSA and his minions get antibiotic-resistent clap live happily ever after!

Filed under: Politics, War & No Peace Tagged: constitutional-toilet-paper, nsa, privacy

Substantively, Democrats have virtually every issue on their side. Health care, immigration, civil rights, voting rights, Wall Street reform, science, the war on women, sane gun control -- any one of those could be a winning issue for any Democrat willing to stop treating them like taco farts in a crowded elevator.

Plus their opponents are objective awful and insane, which would actually be the issue in this election if we lived in the Better Universe where David Gregory was working a paper hat and trying to upsell you a hot apple pie with your lunch order instead of being allowed to set the terms of our national debates.

So, by any objective standard, Dems who actually want to win should be wading into the GOP, wielding Obamacare (and twenty other issues) like Samson leveling Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.

And yet...

Democrats Are In For a World of Hurt If They Keep Running From Obamacare

—By Kevin Drum| Tue Mar. 18, 2014 7:59 AM GMT

Last month, when the latest Obamacare horror story turned out to be largely invented out of whole cloth, I speculated about what this means. "I'm a diehard defender of Obamacare," I said, "and even I concede that there ought to be at least hundreds of thousands of people who are truly worse off than they were with their old plans. But if that's the case, why is it that every single hard luck story like this falls apart under the barest scrutiny?" Maybe it means that Obamacare isn't actually hurting very many people at all.

But this question can be turned around. There ought to be lots of people who have been helped by Obamacare too. So why haven't the airwaves been blanketed with their stories? Dave Weigel says the answer here is simpler: yes, there are plenty of feel-good Obamacare stories. But Democratic campaigns have neither the money nor, apparently, the desire to use them...

In other words:

Timothy Noah has a good run-down of wage theft in fast food and the role franchising plays in it:

What’s unusual here aren’t the claims of labor law violations, which are common enough, but rather, who’s being blamed. The wall that fast food workers hope to blast through with these class-action suits is the franchise system. All of the lawsuits name McDonald’s itself as a defendant, even though most of the targeted restaurants are owned not by McDonald’s but by McDonald’s franchisees.

Starting with Howard Johnson’s in the 1930s, franchising enabled fast-food companies largely to get out of the food business. Owning and operating the restaurants was mostly left to franchisees – usually mom and pop businesses that paid McDonald’s or Burger King or Dominos for the right to brandish their corporate trademark and prepare food according to their specifications. Today, most fast-food workers don’t work for McDonald’s or Burger King or Dominos; they work for franchisees licensed to sell their products.

Practically speaking, franchising makes it very difficult to hold fast-food corporations accountable for most labor violations that occur in restaurants bearing their name. Those aren’t our employees, the corporations can say; you got a problem with how burger-flippers are treated, take it up with their franchisee bosses. In franchise agreements – the contracts prospective franchisees must sign on a take-it-or-leave-it basis – franchisors explicitly disavow such responsibility. The McDonald’s contract, for instance, stipulates that “Franchisee and McDonald’s are not and do not intend to be partners, associates, or joint employers in any way.”

Like the subcontracting and outsourcing, franchising exists to increase profit for corporations while protecting them from liability. There is no reason at all why McDonald’s should not be held legally accountable for the actions of its franchisees, much as Wal-Mart and Gap and other apparel companies should be held legally accountable for the deaths at Rana Plaza in Bangladesh last year. In the recent past, judges have thrown these class-action suits out but as Noah points out, this one gathered a lot of evidence of McDonald’s direct involvement with its franchises that might suggest direct involvement in labor practices too that rip off workers.

“Helping the Poor–Gratuitous Distribution of Coal by the City–Cherry Street,” New York City, 1877

Konczal’s essay on the voluntarism fantasy of conservatives who argue that private charity used to operate as a functional charity distributor before the big bad state destroyed individualism is pretty definitive. Konczal correctly destroys this myth and spits out its remains, showing how the state has always been involved in any meaningful welfare work in this country and that the problem with the pre-New Deal welfare programs is that the state wasn’t nearly involved enough. I’d only add to this essay that federally subsidized westward expansion was also part of this welfare state, as Republicans especially explicitly saw the frontier as a social safety net that would alleviate poverty without directly giving charity to people.

Really, the Hooverism of Paul Ryan and other Republican granny starvers isn’t just wanting to destroy the federal welfare state, it’s also that they, like Hoover, hold onto myths of an individualistic past that never existed.

James Kwak has more commentary.

Comics found from here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/erinchack/comics-that-capture-the-frustration-of-anxiety-disorders

These are the 3 I think speak to me the most.

The first one… yeah. :\  If somebody seems less responsive than usual, doesn’t respond to some things I say on IM, or seems unhappier, I immediately think it’s something I did, that I screwed up, eroded our friendship, or made them realize I’m a crappy person.  I try to control it and not act on it because it would be even worse if I constantly asked people if I’m bugging them, but it’s really hard to reign in that urge and just eat the anxiety tearing up my stomach. :(

The second one, is similar to the first one, just the situations are really familiar to me.  I’ve had situations where people talk to me and I’m so sure they’re going to tell me how bad I am and instead it’s a compliment.  And if anything bad happens I’m always sure it’s something I did that caused it, which confirms to me I should always be hyper aware that I’m not screwing up.

The third one is supposed to be funny but it’s actually how I feel.  I almost rarely allow myself to acknowledge there’s anything really “wrong” about me.  It comes from spending my whole life denying my feelings and the depression caused by it.  Nope, nothing’s different about me.  Nothing to see here.  I’m “normal”.  I’m the most normal person there is.  It was the only way I knew how to cope with dysphoria because I had no place to place my feelings, and any time I expressed the real me, people hurt me.  So I eventually got used to just living with it and saying I’m “okay” so often that I believed it.  I didn’t feel like I had any right to my feelings.  And I still have trouble with that.  I realized recently that my stomach hurts constantly now, due to anxiety and eating disorder stuff, and I just… never really noticed?  Like I knew my stomach hurt every day, I just didn’t think of it as something I should tell anybody about or be concerned about, because… well… I’m always in pain in some way or another…

So that last one hits home to me.  If people ask me how I’m doing I’ll generally say I’m okay, and I kind of do mean it because I assume my default is “okay” even if my default is anxiety and paranoia tearing apart my brain. :(

Senior House Republicans — struggling to find consensus for health care legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act — are planning to test ideas in April at town-hall-style meetings that could provide a path toward a long-promised alternative to President Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

The “House ObamaCare Accountability Project” is still months away from producing actual legislation. With Democrats opposed, Republican leaders will have a hard time finding enough votes for any plan, and Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio remains cool to guaranteeing a vote.

But a road map is developing.

“It’s important to show the American people that there is a better approach to improving health care for Americans than Obamacare,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority whip. “Unlike the president and congressional Democrats, we have been listening to the American people, and what Americans want is affordability, greater flexibility and access to care, which we are focused on achieving.”

"We just have no idea how to actually achieve that,"  McCarthy forgot to add.  And let's note that an accountability project doesn't seem to involve repealing Obamacare at all...

With every passing week, the Affordable Care Act is changing the political terrain, Republican leadership aides concede. The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Monday that enrollment in private health plans through the health care exchanges had passed the five million mark, with two weeks to go before the first sign-up period ends.

That may be below the goal of seven million set initially by the administration in internal documents, but the final number will not be far below that, and it does not count millions more enrolled through an expansion of Medicaid.

The reality is that Republicans lost this battle in 2010, plain and simple.  They will make gains in 2014 because of it, but those gains will be tempered by the fact they don't have anyone in 2016.  They know they've lost.  They're trying to figure out how to take 100% of the credit for "fixing" Obamacare problems that have largely been created by Republicans themselves in red states refusing to participate.  Once that all gets ironed out and states like Texas and Florida buy in out of necessity, the game ends.  The fact that Republicans are still trying to come up with a "road map" four years after Democrats passed legislation tells you exactly how dedicated Republicans are to do anything about health care.  That would require actual governance, which is something they are intellectually incapable of.

They're desperately trying to figure out a way to prevent Obamacare from becoming the law of the land, but they have no real plans for fixing anything, and they know it.

They're far too late.

science-for-a-star:

Gracia Scale Top

#let’s all be dragons

We should be.  And this is just our human form, we go full dragon when antagonized. >:3

I’ve loved kitty play in various ways for years. I grew up a cat person, with cats as my friends and companions. If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time you’ll know about Foucault, our adopted cat with extra toes, who we spoil rotten. He’s got everything you want in a cat- playful, affectionate, curious, friendly, a little off, kind of dangerous. Oh, right, and ginger, which I have a soft spot for. He’s kind of the evil cousin to a cat I adore who scarred me for life, Teddy, out in the UK.

So when I got a chance to review something from body-positive toy boutique SheVibe, I couldn’t resist this adorable set of hot pink cheetah BDSM accessories. They’re super cute, they match, and they’re surprisingly practical.  Oh, yeah, and they’re vegan! The material is a soft vinyl, which feels comfortable against the skin (if perhaps a bit sweaty).

With this kit you get multiple things- a set of two cuffs, a plastic mask that ties on with ribbon, a breathable ball gag, a collar with a removable nylon leash attached, and a small but stingy flogger. Probably an ideal collection for someone just experimenting with kink, as the cuffs and collar are all velcroed together, so easy to put on and remove and pretty secure. The ballgag does buckle rather than velcro!

The collar part itself is about 17″ long, though can adjust up (it may not be as sturdy at that point because less of the velcro will be in use)  and down (you can always cut off excess nylon). There’s a metal O-ring in front with a 21″ nylon leash (not including the handle).

The cuffs are about 9 1/2″ when closed all the way and are adjustable a couple of inches in either direction. There’s a chain between them that’s permanently attached on one side, and clips onto the other, allowing you to put them around a bedframe (if you’re into that sort of thing) or just restrict your kitten’s movement as they crawl and play with catnip toys.

I was pleasantly surprised by the ballgag, which has a metal buckle and 10″ of length on one side. The other side is about 15″, so there’s a lot of leeway for as tight or as loose as you need. The ball itself is about 1 1/2″ I believe, so on the smaller side. It also has holes in it, making it easier to breathe while it’s in. It’s pretty comfortable to wear and can be worn at the same time as the cat mark if you feel so inclined.

The mask is a hard plastic and ties on with ribbon. Honestly, while it’s cute, I doubt I’d get much use out of it except for maybe at a costume party. It’s fairly big and would make it difficult to kiss the wearer- so, while good for dehumanizing someone, perhaps less practical for many kinky play sessions.

Finally there’s a small flogger. It’s got a 5″ handle and 9″ laces coming off it that are made of the same material vinyl as the collar, cuffs, and gag. It’s pretty stingy when used with force, though it can also offer a sensation that’s pleasantly painful without being too harsh if used a bit more lightly.  It’s cute, and not badly made for a beginner toy- I don’t get the impression it’s about to fall apart and, being vinyl, you can likely sterilize it with a bleach and water solution if you feel so inclined.

All in all the Kinky Kitty Kit wouldn’t be a bad toy set for me to bring to a play party where I want cuffs but don’t necessarily want to bring my pricey leather ones. I think it would hold up to light bondage rather than a more intense scene. It’s certainly very cute and could be fun as an access point to petplay if a couple was interested in exploring!

Thank you SheVibe for sending me the Kinky Kitty Kit in exchange for a fair review! Check SheVibe out for a myriad of other toys, both kinky and not!

Informal. the act of being humbled.

Wrestling. a move or series of maneuvers that succeeds in bringing a standing opponent down onto the mat.

Related Posts:

• Space Exploration
• Bird Girl and Fox Girl
• Black-Eyed Susan
• Faith
• Yumi Sakugawa on NPR Blog

Thanks to the incredible generosity of a particular secret sponsor (who will simply be named Pornbot) I’m going to be heading out to my very first Feminist Porn Awards in Toronto to cheer on IndiePornRevolution (up for Best Website) along with various TROUBLEFilms titles including one I’m in with the luscious Betty Blac, Hard Femme (see the whole list here).

As the PR/social media kitten for TROUBLEFilms I’m getting to livetweet, blog, and take behind-the-scenes photos of all the action, which is really exciting! I’m hoping it’ll give me a chance to get to know various IPR Foxes who will be present as well, such as Wolf Hudson, Arabelle Raphael, Zahra Stardust, April Flores, Michelle Austin, Tobi Hill-Meyer and others who aren’t Bay Area based. I’m having all the usual high femme flutters about what to wear, whether to bring my laptop or just my tablet, how to do my hair… I’m certainly bouncing up and down, but I also want to make a good impression. I’ve got a list in my head of what dresses to wear though I’m a bit afraid I’m going to freeze my nipples off!

The Feminist Porn Awards is in its 9th year, having been started by toy store Good For Her as a way of acknowledging porn that was feminist in its production, gaze, and values. It’s the largest and longest running awards ceremony of its kind. I’m glad to be a part of something so iconic, especially as I had such an interesting and fun time at the BBW FanFest.

After the Feminist Porn Awards, I’m also going to be presenting at the Feminist Porn Conference with Tina Horn, Siouxsie Q, Pinky Lee and possibly other performers on porn and privacy, a subject I’ve written a lot about and experienced my own clashes with. I’m particularly interested in privacy as it pertains to behaviour on and off set, and if someone acts unethically off set, is it the place/responsibility of an ethical or feminist porn director to take note of it? I find the topic multifaceted and very interesting.

Other topics I can’t wait to sit in on would be Maggie Mayhem‘s  lecture on porn before WWII, Loree Erickson facilitating Queercrip Politics of Re/Making Feminist Porn, Feminist Pornography: What It Is, What It Isn’t, and Why It Matters with a panel made up of Lynn Comella, Courtney Trouble, Ms. Naughty, and Tanesha H.D… I think it’s going to be a fantastic experience all around. I hope to learn a whole lot and network with some of the best trailblazers in the feminist porn world.

I’ve really only had experience with porn companies that care (or claim to care) about feminism and ethical values, so to take those experiences into the realm of this sex worker space promises to be really intriguing. If I’m honest, I’m kind of nervous- I’m pretty shy and so many of the people I know are all buddies so I’m a little nervous about being left behind! But I’m also happy that I’ll be getting to see my girlfriend from out in London, who lives in Toronto and will be a really lovely, supportive anchor for all the social madness. Maybe I can persuade her to come with me on all these adventures!

Interested in any of this? Well, if you’re in Toronto (or can make it out!) then register for the Feminist Porn Conference here,  or check out the various events (starting April 2nd with a fisting workshop!) by clicking here. If you can’t make it out, you can follow the Awards at @fempornawards, the conference at @femporncon, or TROUBLEFilms livetweeting on @IndiePorn. I’ll be making sure to post regular updates, so if you have questions, keep in touch!

Or of course you can follow me – all my social media contacts are on the sidebar! —>

Last week I published a letter from an exceptional woman:  though she’s a Christian with a strong personal aversion to sex work, she has deeply considered the issues and realized that there are many, many problems in “anti-trafficking” discourse.  After my last letter she wrote again with more good questions, but her letter was so complex that I have separated out the individual questions not only to make this column easier to read, but to protect her privacy by eliminating personal details.  If you haven’t yet read last Wednesday’s column, you really ought to do so before proceeding with today’s.

A friend of mine belongs to an anti-trafficking ministry which gives out gift bags to ladies in brothels and tries to build friendships with them.  The gift bag includes shampoo and sometimes cookies and earrings, and also a packet of tissues, inside which they have slipped a hotline for getting out of prostitution.  Would you personally find such a message with a hotline number insulting?

Most sex workers would probably consider that more funny than insulting, because the idea outsiders have that we’re all “trapped” or “victims” or “slaves” is very amusing when it isn’t backed up by uniformed thugs.  But once the cops start smashing down doors, beating, raping and robbing sex workers before caging them and giving them criminal records that will follow them for life, it goes far beyond mere insult.  The idea that we’re “victims” is a symptom of what you mentioned in your first letter:  the refusal to listen.  It’s kind of like the way gay people are treated in some churches:  “I can’t understand how a man could be attracted to another man, so there must be something wrong with them.”  The old narrative was that sex workers were “bad” women, but over the past 800 years Christianity has slowly shifted toward viewing us as “fallen” creatures to be redeemed, and that became the dominant social discourse in English-speaking countries from the 1880s on (largely due to the influence of the Salvation Army and other groups promoting the “white slavery” hysteria).  After criminalization became the norm in the US (from 1910-1914), people naturally started seeing prostitutes as “criminals”, and that view persisted until the beginning of the present moral panic in 2004 (though several years earlier in Sweden).

I have seen sites that quoted (at least they claim) comments from clients about prostitutes, 95% of which were horrendous.  So why do clients come to you?  Is it really that men who are willing to buy women are often aggressive and do not respect women in general? 

Those “client quotes” are totally cherry-picked.  The idea that men pay good money to spend time with women they hate is about as absurd as anything I can think of; it’s related to the radical feminist notion that all intercourse is rape.  The fact is, I was often treated better by the men who paid me than guys who just dated me, and that’s a very typical experience.  The majority of sex workers’ clients are either horny or lonely, and that’s it.  They’re not looking for women to “objectify” or “abuse”, and the only people who can believe otherwise without being lied to are people who believe the Marxist foolishness that all economic transactions are innately exploitative, or those who believe that all sex not sanctified by marriage (or all heterosexual sex, period) is bad.  The only reason they pick on sex work is that when they try to apply those ideas more universally, most normal people mock, shun or ignore them.  Sex workers have been turned into a pariah caste against whom rhetoric that wouldn’t last five minutes when directed against anyone else, suddenly becomes palatable.  The most common form of prostitution these days is probably GFE escorting, where GFE stands for “girl friend experience”.  In other words, the majority of clients want a girl who is nice and friendly and chatty and sweet, just like a regular date.  Yes, there are bad clients…but that’s true of every business in the world, as anyone with experience in retail or waitressing can tell you.

Do you not mind when a man comes to you only for your body, with no interest in your personality, your soul, your mind, your history?  Although if I must think of sex work as normal work, I suppose it would be as ridiculous as if I asked an office worker, do you not mind that your boss has no interest in your personality etc and that you are reduced as just a working cog in a cooperation.  In an office, ideally you’d find a caring manager who does care about your well-being – and I guess there are clients who are similar?

As I explained above, most clients are.  If you talk to sex workers who have had “straight” jobs, you’ll find they usually felt far more objectified in those than in sex work.  People who talk about “bodies to be used” must have a very low opinion of men, to believe that that’s how men see sex.  In fact, one of the most annoying client behaviors is when they go on about “I want to give you pleasure” and “what would you like to do?” and that sort of thing, which many of them do.  We hate it because it makes it much harder to satisfy a customer who won’t say what he wants, but as you can see it’s exactly the opposite of that “objectification” jazz.  When I was an escort I advertised myself as “the thinking man’s companion” because I have a hard time “dumbing down” my conversation and wanted to attract men who liked that…and there were plenty.  You were talking about reviews earlier; you know who gets the worst reviews?  Girls who just lie there like a “body to be used”.  What prohibitionists claim men are looking for, is actually the thing which will probably kill a sex worker’s business faster than anything else.

My anti-trafficking friend never says “prostitute”, but rather “ladies in the sex industry”; she also never gives out their names “in order to protect their confidentiality”.  But if sex work is just work, what difference does the word make?  And why wouldn’t prostitutes want people to know their names?

If sex work were completely accepted, normal and legally protected, I would agree with you that there would be no need for aliases.  But that isn’t the way it is, and it won’t be in our lifetimes.  Your friend is wise to be discreet.  As for the term “prostitute”, it’s a very legalistic word that has acquired  considerable negative baggage.  So while I myself use it because many outsiders with whom I discuss it (especially lawyers & politicians) see it as a neutral term, it is in fact pejorative and should be avoided.  “Sex worker” is considered the most polite term; “prostituted woman” is the most insulting and demeaning because it casts us as passive, inert victims without intellect, will or agency.

I’m uncomfortable saying that sex work should be okay and treated as any other job, but I’m also uncomfortable with criminalization because everyone has the right to choose what they will do and how they want to live their lives.  How do I resolve this conflict?

Now we’re getting into the philosophy of harm reduction, which is quite complicated but here’s the nutshell version.  I personally think cocaine is awful; I hate the way people act when they use it, I hate the way it makes their noses run and their mouths get crusty, I hate the weird fantasies they have when they’re on it.  Eventually I got to the point where I’d refuse clients I knew were using it because I didn’t want to deal with it.  However, the harms that result from cocaine aren’t nearly as bad as those that result from attempting to suppress it, such as the establishment of a surveillance state, empowerment of police to violate civil rights on a massive scale, bloody cartel wars, bad (even fatal) reactions to tainted drugs, the attraction of criminals to the business, the vast waste of money and the highest incarceration rates in history.  I don’t have to like cocaine or approve of its use to recognize that its prohibition is a horrible thing and the wellspring of myriad evils, and you don’t have to like or approve of sex work to have the same view about its prohibition.  And considering that it is the prohibition of sex work that is the chief enabler of coercion, I would think that every moral person who is truly concerned about that would join with the UN, the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many others in calling for the decriminalization of sex work.