Friday, February 27, 2009

SeaTac police officer assaults 15 year old girl

I just saw this on the news tonight and I am pissed off.

A young woman (of color, from what I can tell), is shown to a cell, kicks a shoe out the cell door as it is being closed and then an officer rushes in, slams her against a wall, throws her to the ground by her hair, punches her twice, and then after she is hand cuffed pulls her up by her hair and carries her out of the cell.
The officer, Deputy Paul Schene, 31, has pled not guilty to misdemenor assault charges in King County District court.

"The girl was arrested after she was caught in her parents' car, which had been reported stolen from her parents' Tukwila home. Deputy Travis Brunner spotted the car driving without headlights about 3:45 a.m. on 32nd Avenue South in SeaTac and pulled it over.
She and another 15-yearold girl were arrested and taken to SeaTac City Hall to be fingerprinted before being transported to the youth detention center."

But she had the audacity to be brown and kick a shoe at the officer. How dare she.
I hope this motherfucker, Schene, is convicted, thrown off the squad and actually serves a sentence of some kind.
My heart goes out to the young woman and I hope that she finds some way to trust police again (and doesn't steal her parents' car again, if that is in fact what happened).

Well that was unnecessarily complicated

I had a helluva time getting the new banner up, but there it is:

I chose this particular composition for two reasons:
1. There wasn't enough pink on my blog.
2. I fucking love cupcakes.
Now that I know how to get the new banner up, I can change banners like I eat cupcakes (usually one every 6 or 7 weeks, depending on when people have birthdays and whatever), and never get bored with this whole internet thing. Not that I'm bored right now or anything.

Got my LSAT score...

151. Right smack dab in the middle. 50% of the people who took the test I did on that day did better than me. Conversely, I did better than 50% of the people who took that test that day.
My first thought was "geeze, can I still get into law school? Should I even try?" My next thoughts were of all the people who have told me "if anyone can do law school, you can", and my next thoughts, by far the most reassuring, were that perhaps that test didn't test the skills I possess that make me a good candidate for law school or a good potential lawyer. (Later things like, "I was really stressed out..." and "I've never really been that good at taking tests anyway" popped up too.)
So, I looked at the previous stats for people who were admitted to the school I want to attend. I don't remember which year it was, but 3 people with similar LSAT scores and GPAs were admitted. Three. To some, that might seem dismal. To me, it means there's still a chance. I will be applying, but for now I'm going to get my act together working my business (something that makes me a unique candidate), volunteering, and getting my brain back in shape so that when the time comes I will appear as an ideal candidate, even if my LSAT score doesn't necessarily reflect that.
There's also the possibility of taking it again too. I haven't ruled that out.

Friday Feminst Fuck You: Ron Reagan

Liberal talker Ron Reagan (son of the president, brother of the right-wing wacko talker) rarely evokes the bullshit moralism traditionally associated with the political party of his now-sainted father, but today was another story all together.
Today Reagan had Steven Hirsch, co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment on to discuss Vivid's offer of $1,000,000 to Nadya Suleman for being in a single pornographic movie. The question Reagan intended to get answered was

"is Hirsch being a good [sic]humanitarium and helping this woman or is he a sleazeball who is out to make money off of someone's unfortunate circumstances?"

But frames it in such a way that no one with any possible amount of self-respect would do pornography. Fuck you, Ron Reagan.
"How would you feel," Reagan asked Hirsch, "If you found out that your mother had done a porno when you were a child?" Hirsch answers thusly: I would respect my mother for doing what she needed to do in order to take care of her family; then talks about how Suleman needs to be able to take care of her family and needs a job to do it.
"But she would have to have sex with a bunch of strangers," Reagan chides, then gets up on his high horse about how the children will react, "what if they see it?", and how Hirsch is exploiting Suleman, closing the interview with "don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you will someday be ashamed of what you're doing here." (That's not a direct quote, mind you.)
Fuck you, Ron Reagan.
First of all, regarding the children: IF Suleman decides to do this movie, gets her million bucks and raises her children with that income, I'm pretty sure someone is going to have the mind to tell her that there's no shame in doing pornography (which is essentially what Reagan is pushing), and would teach the kids that mom did what she "had to" and that there's no shame in doing some work in order to provide for your family. Moreover, what child would ever want to have anything to do with a porn movie that their parents were in? I realize, Ron, that with so many people so morbidly obsessed with your father that you might have a hard time with the idea that not everyone has parents with whom society is obsessed, and regardless of whether Suleman makes this movie or not, her 15 minutes are up.
Secondly, about "exploitation": I realize that having sex on camera is a little different from sitting down on every talk show in the nation to tell people about why you had 8 children at one time, but it's completely ridiculous to chide one person who is taking advantage of a good business situation (that is, an obsession with a woman who had 8 children at once when she has no partner, no job and lives with her parents), while talking endlessly about that woman and how she's been on every talk show in the country. Really? You really don't see the disconnect?
Finally, about shame: Doing pornography is not shameful in and of itself, and the idea that it is comes from the idea that sex is shameful, which is stupid and anyone who continues to push this asinine idea aught to be forced into abstinence for an entire year (at the very least). There are some shameful aspects of the porn industry, just as there are in every industry in the entire capitalist world, however, it is not your place, Ron Reagan, to decide who is moral and who is not, and saying that someone should be ashamed of themselves is anathema to liberalism.
After Hirsch's segment, Reagan took calls, and right before I turned off my radio said "there are some things that are more important than money, like self-worth" (again, not a direct quote), implying that to do pornography means a person's (a woman) lacks self-worth. I'm not talking about Nadya Suleman here, he said; no, you're talking about any and every woman who has ever sullied herself by having sex, for free or for money.
Fuck you Ron Reagan. Fuck your whole family.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Why is Rachel Maddow so hot?

Is it that she defies classification by being at once butch and femme at the same time?
The reason Rachel Maddow is so hot is because, wherever she goes, she is the smartest person in the room. This country had George W. Bush for president for 8 years, and the likes of Sean "More hair than brains" Hannity are still on the air with viewers. The smart people in this country are sick and tired of morons. Sick of them. Rachel Maddow's sexiness has nothing to do with her physical beauty (or the gendered standards of beauty to which she does or does not conform depending on whether she's doing her own show or Jay Leno's), and everything to do with the fact that she is a Rhodes Scholar, with more brains than pretty much anyone else on the teevee (and I'm not just talking cable), that she's a good interviewer who makes an effort to always be polite to her guests even if they are being douchebags; and then there's that sparkling wit.
So, the sexiness of Rachel Maddow does not make thousands or perhaps millions of liberal nerds like myself want to sleep with her, but rather have drinks with her and talk politics, economics, and other nerdy things that nerdy liberals do. I can honestly say I have no sexual feelings toward Maddow (but I may be in the minority on that one), but the amount of respect I have for her as a commentator and intellectual makes me see her as thoroughly sexy.
And I believe that that is an awesome trend. (I also hope that all of this attention and flattery doesn't make her uncomfortable... I'd never get to have drinks with her if I made her uncomfortable.)
Keith Olbermann on the other hand...

Monday, February 23, 2009

Snatching WIN from the jaws of FAIL

If you know me, you kn0w that I love sweets. Soda, ice cream, cookies, candy... this proclivity for sweet things partially explains why I've had 9 fillings in the last 10 days. If you know me at all, you also know that I love to cook -- just one more thing that makes me a bad feminist.
It makes sense to me, then, to occasionally bake. Usually I prefer Pamela's Chocolate Chunk Cookie Mix (with a packet of instant oatmeal thrown in -- YUM), but this week, I decided to try Bob's Redmill Gluten Free Chocolate Chip Cookie Mix.
The mix tasted so strongly of garbanzo beans I was disheartened... thinking up a way of getting rid of the cookies if they tasted the same as the mix.
When the first cookies came out... I sampled... tasted like a cookie. Actually, it was pretty good. Not good enough to supplant Pamela's, but good enough to eat... I may still take them to my Mary Kay meeting tomorrow, but at least they weren't a total failure.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Angels in my house

Who knew they were so photogenic?
I've been going through a whole bunch of shit lately. Lost my job, sick Schmoogie, 6 fillings in one day, shingles, two ER trips in two days (we're both fine, but pain is a powerful motivator), and despite it all I'm trying to stay positive.
And then this angel shows up. I know, I know, it's "just" a sunbeam coming through the glass vase. Sure it is. But when you're suffering, what's the harm in seeing inspirational things all around you? Even if they are imaginary?
My Mary Kay director, Stephanie, keeps pushing home this idea that the more frustrated you feel, the closer you are to a breakthrough. She's talking about Mary Kay, the business, but when you're self-employed, your business has a lot to do with the rest of your life. So, I keep telling myself, the last couple weeks, that I must be really close to something so awesome that it defies reality, because something keeps trying to pull me back. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm afraid to succeed, maybe I'm being tested, but the one thing I know is that all the shit that's going on, I can't let it stop me.
And neither can you. So while I know "good" bloggers" don't talk about their personal lives, I'm doing this because I know there are a lot of people going through some horrible shit right now. Illness, un- or under-employment -- things are actually kinda bad right now, but you can't let the bastards get you down.

Monday, February 16, 2009


I have them. And not the roof kind either.
The weird thing is, with the place they are (my upper thigh), the waves of nerve pain are half excruciating pain and half orgasm. It's kinda... I want to say unnerving, but that's just completely inaccurate.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Nitrous musings or "numb me, drill me, floss me, spank me"

I went to the dentist today to get some fillings (six, that is), and as I was sitting in the chair, high as a kite from the alternative to a serious panic attack, I started to think that dentist/patient relationships are kind of like a sterilized, non-sexual D/s relationship.
Think about it for a second.
I go to my dentist, pay him money, and consent to allowing him to do all of these things which are good for my health (in other words, ultimately enhancing my pleasure), despite the fact that many people find these things to be incredibly undesirable.
Now, in order to prevent trauma, my dentist goes to a number of lengths to protect me (as well as cover his own ass). I am given nitrous oxide, several shots of Novocain in several areas of my mouth to numb me.
And while pain is not intentionally inflicted, (surprise not all BDSM scenes result in pain being inflicted and enjoyed), there is definitely a Dominance/submission thing going on here. I don't want fillings. I don't want my wisdom teeth out (that's gonna be a few months yet), but my dentist has sufficient dominance over my dental health that he can convince me that this is something I need in order to ultimately enhance my pleasure in life. I honestly believe the D/s thing that goes on between dentists and patients is a big part of why so many people strongly dislike going to the dentist.
Maybe this analogy doesn't hold true for everyone, but considering the firestorm that has been raging in the femisphere over BDSM, this analogy is meant to make people think differently about BDSM sex and D/s relationships in particular. My relationship with my dentist isn't abusive, despite the fact that within two days of being his patient he's scared the crap out of me with the mention of general anesthesia to have my lower wisdom teeth surgically removed (they're lying down flat), and given me six of ten fillings. I have consented to being his patient, and agree that it is important for me to go through this psychological horror show in order to maximize my pleasure.
Let me clarify one thing before I go: all people need to see a dentist regularly in order to maximize their individual pleasure. The same is not true for all people of BDSM sex and D/s relationships. I am merely pointing out that the dentist/patient relationship is similar in structure and externally perceived unpleasantness to that between a Dominant and Hir submissive.
(And yes, I do have daddy issues, but that's completely unrelated to my teeth.)

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

How about we keep our hands to ourselves -- for starters

I have only been casually observing the latest go-round between the rad-fems and fun-fems (frankly, it's all too much for my pretty little head to really give a fuck about -- arguing with people on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded -- unless I agree with you, of course.) But the entire thing has gotten me thinking about something that I think about a lot, and this entry has been brewing for about a week now.
I have a huge problem with adversarial philosophical models. Like, Donald Trump's hair huge. "Us" versus "them". "Good" versus "evil". "Feminists" versus "patriarchy".

Everyone, for some reason, has to have an enemy. Even on Myspace surveys, "do you hate anyone?" "Who's your enemy?" (Although, to be fair, Myspace surveys are more likely to as "wh00z ur enemy".) My problem here is that having enemies, hating people, making something like a patriarchal structure with a history of favoring (white) men to the detriment of women (and people of color) into something that can be personified defeats the purpose of things such as feminism. The other problem with this divisive approach is that you end up alienating people who could otherwise be allies.

Not all feminists and feminist theory does this, and that's wonderful. But some feminists promulgate some forms of feminist theory that actually ends up doing more harm to women than good. Feminist theory that embraces this idea that all sex workers are unwilling, and if sex work were just illegal it would end and no wimminz would be subjugated by teh patriarchyz. Feminist theory that embraces the idea that if women would just refuse to give in to the "arbitrary beauty standards of the patriarchy" (like shaving, wearing make up, wearing skirts/dresses/high heels/other uncomfortable shoes) and be natural, the subjugation of women would end (or something). Feminist theory that embraces the idea that men are the enemy because by their very existence they prop up the patriarchy.

These theories alienate sex workers, women who like make up/skirts/dresses/uncomfortable-yet-super-hot shoes, men, and pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with these standards of what I like to call "exclusionary feminism" -- in other words, if you're not part of our club, you're not a real feminist. Well, thanks exclusionary feminists, but I'm pretty sure that I am a feminist. I'm not only a feminist, but I'm a good, well-educated, not-naive, not-secretly-subjugated-by-my-patriarchal-overlords, and I think that any woman who has the courage to stand up and call herself a feminist (or act as a feminist if she's not comfortable with the title -- or any title), or even any man who stands up for the rights of women -- they can be feminists too. That basically your feminism is whatever you want it to be.

You see, the thing is, an "Us" versus "Them" mentality is a patriarchal structure in and of itself. My friend WitchUponAStar once left this quote from a Women's Studies text book in an online forum:

"...Only in a patriarchal society would the inclusion of women be interpreted as a potential threat or loss of men's power. It is a reflection of the fact that we live in a competitive patriarchal society that it is assumed that the feminist agenda is one that seeks to have power over men. And only in an androcentric society where men and their reality is center stage would it be assumed that an inclusion of one group must mean the exclusion of another. In other words, male domination encourages the idea that affirming women means hating men and interprets women's request for power sharing as a form of taking over. This projection of patriarchal mentality equates someone's gain with another's loss. ..."

In other words, by attempting to prop up adversarial philosophical models like criticizing a woman's feminism because she likes sex, or lipgloss, or eats red meat, or any other arbitrary things that have absolutely nothing to do with whether she stands up for herself or other women in asserting their rights to the same rights that people of privilege have; by doing this, radical feminists in fact perpetuate that of which they claim to seek the destruction. And that is simply something up with the likes of which I shall not put!

Using the George W. Bush model of "if you're not with us, yer agin' us" is not only foolish, but it props up the same old idea that there has to be someone on top. And, last time I checked, feminism wasn't about one person being on top (even if that person is a woman), but rather leveling the ground so that everyone has a chance to lie in the sun and get a nice privileged tan.

So, seriously, stop criticizing other women. Stop asking straight women why they sleep with men. Stop telling young girls that pretty and empowered are mutually exclusive. Stop telling sex workers that their voices only matter if they've been forced into it or abused in some manner. Stop telling submissive women that their consent is totally fake. In fact, keep your hyper-privileged-lesbian feminist-bitch-on-a-patriarch-power-trip nose out of my goddamn vagina.


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Happiness is a warm nug

My friend Jesse and I have recently started laughing at the idea that we have become housewives. She recently moved in with her very successful boyfriend, and while she works part time, he is the breadwinner and she does the cooking, cleaning, and other nonsense.

Since I've recently become self-employed, I have been picking up on the chores around the house, cooking, cleaning, and making lunch for the Schmoogie when he's working from home.

We looked at our respective situations Sunday night and cracked up. Two feminist women giving in to patriarchal structures where the man does the earning and the woman does the cleaning. We laughed. I'm still laughing, (on the inside), because it's actually kind of ironic.

Except it's not. On the one hand, Jesse does aspire to be a wife and mother (after she gets her master's degree). On the other hand, I aspire to one day make more than the Schmoogie and let him be a househusband if he is so inclined (otherwise, we'll just hire people to do all that stuff for us). And yet, I wouldn't say that I am more of a feminist than she is. And I certainly wouldn't say that, based on our goals, one of us is going to be more fulfilled in reaching them. We have different goals (and, despite our shared birthday, and the fact that we are so remarkably similiar), and will be made happy by different things. Go figure. By pursuing our own dreams (which are separate from the dreams impressed upon us by patriarchal structures that lots of people like to blame for the desires of women), we will find fulfillment. Go figure.

Now, you read this article from Pursuit of Harpyness while I go make some baked goods.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Monday, February 2, 2009

Is Obama backing away from overturning DADT?

John at Americablog seems to think that he is doing just that. He quotes the Boston Globe:
"The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions.

They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security."
While it is interesting that President Obama would call for such a study, it is not definitively or even partially indicative that he's planning on going back on his promise to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell. I have to say that if I was President right now, I might do the same thing and here's why: conducting a study prior to overturning a stupid rule proves that the rule is stupid.

One of two things will happen when the study is concluded: either the Pentagon will say "you know, what, no one in the military really cares if other members are gay, and the sexual orientation of soldiers doesn't have an impact on national security", which means that the President will be completely justified in overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell and conservatives won't be able to point to pentagonal studies (see what I did there?) that say the homos are destroying our military.

The other possible outcome will be the revelation (omg!) that there is prejudice toward gay people in the military and at the Pentagon. What a motherfuckin surprise. In which case, President Obama will say "this prejudice can't stand, we need to make sure that gay people are allowed to serve in the military and not face discrimination for it", and not only will he overturn DADT, but will put in place protective measures for gays (and women) to prevent and deal with harassment (and that pesky thing called rape) in the military. And, officers who have prejudices toward gays and women will not have their commissions continued because, well, they're douchebags and the President isn't going to put up with that shit.

There is no possible way that the Pentagon can conclude that openly gay service-members are a threat to national security: because they aren't!!! Despite the ravings of the Westboro Baptists, homosex is not a threat to national security. It's not possible for a consensual sex act to have any impact on national security (despite what Republicans thought during Bill Clinton's presidency), and a person's inclination to have sex with persons of their same gender has no impact on their ability to do their jobs. Period. President Obama knows this, and wants to make sure that the rest of the country knows it too.

I don't think that President Obama will reneg on his promise to overturn DADT. I believe that he believes in civil rights, and while he may be opportunistically against gay marriage (for the moment -- it's up to us to change his mind, you know), there's no reason why he would change his mind on DADT now.

In case you missed it (which I did)

The Target Women Super Special.

Stew and I will join the Feminist Dog Uprising

via Womanist Musings

I have to admit I wasn't always a lover of dogs. When I was younger, my father had a little dog named Shadow who was treated really poorly, smelled extra-bad (even for a dog), and had mange. It was sad, and for some reason being around that dog made me think that all dogs were like that, (and truth be told, that side of the family never treated animals well, and I now know that it was not the fault of the animals that they were unkempt and smelly). But as I grew up, I remember being around other dogs who had nicer coats and were much nicer to be around because they weren't abused. Still, I didn't really ever connect with one until Stewie.

Stewie is my Schmoogie's dog. The first night I stayed up at Schmoogie's house, he told me "by the way, I have a dog -- and just so you know he sleeps on the bed." I asked what kind. "A pug." And I was relieved that it wasn't a big dog. When we got to Schmoogie's we were greeted by a very happy little puppy. He jumped around, yelping with glee, and before long I was completely in love with this pug. I was in love with Stewie before I even fell in love with Schmoogie. I wanted my own pug, I even printed out an adoption form for the Seattle Pug Rescue, with the plans of sending it in when I was working full time.

Circumstances changed, Schmoogie and I broke up, got back together, and I eventually moved in, and his dog became our dog (actually he became our dog long before that because I started buying him toys and cookies, and taking him to work when Schmoogie was out of town). I haven't been able to adopt a pug from the Seattle Pug Rescue because of my finances, but I do always look forward to my dog jumping and yelping with glee when I get home each day.

Stewie makes life better. Dogs make life better.

(And I have to give a shout out to Lucy and Ricky, the pugs of the gal who works downstairs. They are adorable!)

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Oh for fuck's sake

"PMDD occurs regularly before a woman's menstrual cycle."

I have essentially one reason for having a blog: I like to rant about things no one wants to hear about. For instance, the above quote comes from a Yaz! commercial which discusses "PMDD" (which used to be known as PMS), and how great Yaz! is for containing the symptoms of this very real syndrome associated with changing hormones, and yadda yadda yadda. Truth is, every form of hormonal birth control has an effect that contains symptoms of PMS -- in all honesty, Seasonale has helped my periodic (and I use the term intentionally) pain, mood swings, etc. more than any other hormonal birth control I've used since age 16.
My issue, however is not with this claim, or the rebranding of PMS as PMDD, but rather that PMDD occurs "regularly before a woman's menstrual cycle".
This is a semantic discussion, and essentially not worth reading, but it must be said: from menarche to menopause the entire cycle flow to egg drop to flow is entirely the menstrual cycle. The bleeding part isn't the cycle! It's the whole damn thing is!
Now, the people who write script for commercials are medical professionals (and obviously the one writing the script for this particular commercial wasn't a woman, because we learn this shit, and it is ingraned in our heads from age 9; the egg grows, matures, bursts through from ovary to fallopain tube and if it isn't fertilized, you have your period -- the menstrual cycle in half a sentence), but this is just one more reason why there shouldn't be medical commercials unless they're PSAs about health, since those are required to be accurate in order to count as a public service announcement.
Commercials for pharmaceuticals drive me insane. I think they damage public health, and are a serious symtom of all the things that are wrong with a for-profit medical system.