Art of the Possible

On tolerance...

2011-12-22T12:47:00.000-08:00

"I hope you've all learned a very important lesson today. Just because Mordechai's people are different from us, and just because they may appear strange to us with their furry hats, beady eyes, and long sideburns, not to mention their bizarre customs and unnecessarily gutteral funny-sounding names. Just because they control ALL of the world's money, yet they are too cheap to buy their children anything better than spinning tops for presents, does not mean that we can't learn to love and respect them as our equals. Happy chanuyakah day 7, Mordy!"

The Hebrew Hammer begins with this speech by a teacher who represents "Hanukkah Past". For us Jews it kind of encapsulates the whole idea of being "tolerated" at Christmas time. Of course things have changed (sort of) since then, but I don't think I'm alone in the frustration over being merely tolerated in American society. And that's why I like this movie so much. Sure, it plays on on a lot of Jewish stereotypes, but that's a means to an end.

That end is so that we can have this little conversation about being tolerated.

tol·er·ance

noun /ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
tolerances, plural

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

- the tolerance of corruption
- an advocate of religious tolerance

The capacity to endure continued subjection to something, esp. a drug, transplant, antigen, or environmental conditions, without adverse reaction

- the desert camel shows the greatest tolerance to dehydration
- species were grouped according to pollution tolerance
- various species of diatoms display different tolerances to acid

Google seems to be under the impression that tolerance is the ability to put up with something that sucks: corruption, dehydration, pollution, and acid. So, because my religion doesn't suck. Because my holidays don't suck, because I don't suck as a person and am in no way similar to corruption, dehydration, pollution, or acid: STOP tolerating me.

You know what would be a whole lot better? Being accepted. Not being told, "Merry Christmas" by someone who knows I'm Jewish, because it's more important for the dominant Roman paradigm to subvert my people's attempts to stand up for ourselves and refuse to celebrate the holiday of another people. Hanukkah is out holiday this time of year. It may not be as important as Yom Kippur or Passover, but it is important because this holiday represents a people's refusal to be subjugated and forced to celebrate someone else's holiday.

So, stop tolerating me. If you don't like that I have a holiday that celebrates my people's differentness in a homogenized society, get over it. Don't tolerate it like some tension headache. Get over it. Move on. I don't tolerate Christmas, I even participate in some celebrations of it. If you don't like the "politically correct" greeting "happy holidays", get to know me well enough to wish me a "Happy Hanukkah and a Happy Secular New Year".

Or save yourself some effort and just get over it.

Debt: The Real American Way

2011-12-09T14:47:00.001-08:00

Natalia got me going on this topic, so read her piece first.

I graduated from college in 2007, and got a job later that year that didn't pay enough that I was able to pay my student loans, which at the time totaled somewhere around $45,000. The majority of my student loans are federal loans, subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, which are guaranteed by the federal government. My Stafford loans and one private loan are serviced by Sallie Mae, and since 2007 over $9,000 has been added to my total amount owed in "capitalized interest". That's a nearly 25% increase in total amount owed in just 4 years.

The other loan, a Perkins loan, which is also a federal loan, and is serviced by the school that I attended, has accrued less than 10% "capitalized interest" in the same amount of time. Granted, it's a much smaller loan, but my point still stands.

It could be argued that this is my own doing. After all, I went to college. I got a degree in something other than finance (which is the only thing that our society values), and was unable to find a job that paid me sufficiently to make payments on my student loans when I was working full time. It could be argued that I am to blame because I chose to start a business rather than scratching my eyes out to try to get another J-O-B after being laid off in 2009.

However, what cannot be argued is that my debt wouldn't have increased by a CAR (which I don't have) if I had been making payments all this time. Even if I had been paying some $600 a month for my student loans for the last 4 years, nearly a third of that $600 monthly payment would have gone toward INTEREST.

It doesn't matter who you are, that's usury.

I'm far from innocent in all of this. I know that I am responsible for my student loans and I intend to pay them back, not because any of that money has any value in my life, but because I spent 4 years living in a Bohemian paradise (as much as I might like to complain about it...), and that experience will end up being worth far more than whatever I will end up paying to Sallie Mae. However, many people are in much worse places than I am, and the fact that debt is what's discouraging Americans from becoming more educated is disgraceful. It's disgusting, and corporations like Sallie Mae who are "servicing" tax payer dollars should be ashamed of themselves, and quite possibly dismantled. (SOCIALISM! There, I yelled it for you so you don't have to waste your precious time in the comments.)

The people who should profit from educating Americans are teachers, not corporations. Sallie Mae did nothing to enhance my educational experience, and so they should be charging less interest on my student loans than the school I went to has charged.

Fortunately, no one I know is without some amount of debt either from a mortgage (that is worth more than the house its for) or student loan debt (more than one of my friends owes more than double what I do!), or even credit cards. So, debt is the American Way. That's it. Debt.

Hooray.

A Mary Kay consultant walks into a bar...

2011-12-02T15:38:00.001-08:00

A while back I watched a TED presentation (and I don't remember who the presenter was) on marketing. He talked about marketing businesses from the inside out, that is, start with the WHY you're working toward a particular goal, then how you'll do it, and then focus on the what.

In my business, the what is fashion, the how beauty, and the why is wisdom.

"Uhm... what?"

Fashion is the strategic application of potions, acids, razors, tweezers, waxes, pigments, and fabrics.

Beauty is a desire to present one's best and most authentic self.

Wisdom is the knowledge that each person's best, most authentic self is different.

I have chosen a job in the fashion industry because I know that everyone's best self is a little different, and that we each have an innate beauty that should be expressed and I make it my business to help everyone I know to have greater access to their own authentic beauty. See, it's not about the potions and the pigments that I happen to sell and give great advice about, it's about knowing who each one of my clients is and telling her that she's amazing and deserves to be expressed.

I realize that most of the rest of the fashion industry is not like this, and that more people focus on decoration rather than beauty, but that's never been my why. The decorations don't matter. A woman who never shaves and just wants to take care of her skin and let it age gracefully is just as beautiful to me as someone who uses the entire age-fighting line, has as many eye shadows and lipsticks as I do, and always updates her colors with the season.

If I was driven by profit, (which, capitalism, yay; but I'm not), one of these women would hold more value, and it would be the one who spends more money. If I was driven by fashion (which, decoration, yay; but I'm not), one of these women would hold more value: the one that uses more makeup. My drive is beauty, though. No one that I've consulted in my career holds more value than anyone else, because each has thought, "well, she seems kinda crazy, but not in a bad way... and I do have skin," then agreed to be consulted by me, tried product, liked or hated it, and gotten one step closer to the expression of her most authentic self. (At least I hope she did.)

The other thing is, (as you can tell by reading anything else I've ever written), I'm not your typical fashionista, your typical Mary Kay consultant, or even your typical direct-sales-force member. I'm a little different. I recognize that everyone has their own individual flare, and some will reach people that I can't, but that I will be able to reach people that others can't. And I'm okay with that because there are people who are turned off by my industry because of the cookie-cutter ideals: every woman must wear makeup, women who don't are [whatever] and need help, every woman needs to be decorated.

I don't agree with the prevailing (that's the word I was looking for!) ideas of the fashion industry that "beauty" is interchangeable with "fashion" or "decoration". It's not. Beauty is innate. Fashion takes work and effort. All you have to do to be beautiful is treat yourself with kindness, be healthy, and have a good attitude. No one needs makeup or high heels; no one needs to be trendy to be beautiful.

I hear "I don't use makeup" all the time as an excuse of why someone doesn't want to try something new. It doesn't bother me that these women don't use makeup, and most of the time I'll say, "but you've got skin, don't you?" Liven things up a little. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't affect me at all how any other person chooses to decorate her- or him- or hirself. I only ever ask people to try my product if I think they're cool and might be receptive to me helping to access their own already existing beauty. I couldn't make anyone beautiful if I tried, like the pyschologist's lightbulb, a person must want to be beautiful.

So, if you ever find yourself in a conversation with a Mary Kay consultant, remember this: she thinks you're great and wants you to think it too. That's why.

Monogamy doesn't work

2011-09-05T11:43:00.001-07:00

Ha! Made ya look!

One thing I've learned about blogging it's that (1) the more inflammatory your post-title the more people are going to read it. In a similar vein, (2) if you make broad, sweeping generalizations based on a biased sample size, you'll garner even greater readership. And if readers were nickels, I'd have about 75 cents.

Anyway, I've been out of the bloggosphere for a while, but every now and then, an article comes across my Facebook feed, and I read it just to make sure I still can get mad at stupid things. Most of the time it doesn't work, and I juts roll my eyes (good exercise), but today is Labor Day, so I have a bit of time for a bit of snark. This post over at Poly In the Media, concerns a stupid post by a person who has also learned rules 1 and 2 stated above, and decided that it was a good idea to blog about something where she had no real expertise or experience. (Suffice to say she has heard about "open marriages" and thinks that they are scary.)

The main point of her article "Why 'Open' Marriages Don't Work" is a valid one: people sometimes go into swinging (which is what I think she means when she speaks of ""open marriages"" - double quotes because I'm quoting her scare quotes too) without thinking about the emotional repercussions. Now, to say that initial foolishness in a venture means that that venture is always doomed is kind of silly. Just about every type of innovation ever seen by the human race has been met by someone calling it foolish.

She goes on to be rather silly, saying that once an emotional bond is formed between one primary partner and a (what we're now calling) satellite partner, a triad is formed (not true) and that is dangerous (not true) because, and I'm paraphrasing, you will never be able to love your mom as much as you love your dad. Paging Dr. Freud? Someone never made it past the early 1900s in their "History of Psychology" online course at Devry.

Now, I know that this silly person isn't talking about my relationship style. She's talking about a very specific kind of relationship style. One wherein the partners may sleep with whomever they wish, and where emotional connections with the "satellite" partners (and I really am offended by this term, I have to say) are verboten. This does not describe my relationship style, nor the styles of relationships of any number of people that I spend time with in the poly community (most of that time is spent not having sex, if you must know). So, I'm not sure why the poly community is upset about this article.

I'm also puzzled by there being enough "angry phone calls" to merit Psychology Today taking down the original post. Being any kind of sexual minority (female, gay, non-monogamous) does tend to make one a bit of an activist, but there was an insistence on being civil and articulate in response to this article... so, I guess PT doesn't really get that dissent != hatred and anger. Whatever.

Anyway, the lesson to be learned here is this: bloggers are silly people who say silly things because one day they think that they'll be on Oprah or Countdown. This is, in fact, a very significant problem in our society: people make sweeping generalizations so they can get a rise out of others and eventually use their intellectual prowess to win an argument on the internet with someone they don't know. I know it's a problem, I've done it myself and it turns you into a really annoying person.

Also, we need to learn to be a little more specific in our language. ""Open marriage"" can mean a lot of things, but when you put it in scare quotes like that, it means swinging. Not polyamory. So, really, unwad your panties before you say something stupid.

The thing about taxes

2011-06-11T12:05:00.000-07:00

Think about your checkbook for a minute. There are things you have to spend money on:

Mortgage/rent
Phone
Electricity/gas/water/sewer/garbage
Credit Cards
Car payment/maintenance/fuel
Food
Health care

And there are things you like to spend money on:

Clothing
Entertainment
Being clean and having nice skin

You find all the money to pay for these things by having a job. You provide a service to an employer or clients/customers, and they pay you. That's how it works. If the cost of your bills go up, you might try to cut back your spending in he optional areas -- like, maybe you won't buy new clothes -- and there are some things that are super-necessary that you might be able to reduce by moving things around -- like you might decide to find cheaper health insurance, or drive less, or conserve electricity.

But if you try to reduce spending by refusing to pay your bills, you're just being irresponsible. And in most cases, when you need more money you find some way to earn more money. You might ask for a raise. You might find a second job. You might cash out some of your investments or dip into savings (if you have any). As a last resort, you might try to coast on your credit cards until things get better.

Usually, if you ask for a raise or get a different or second job, your problems end up leveling out financially. Cashing out investments or savings creates problems down the road, and you end up having to earn double to replace what you took out. Meanwhile, trying to live on credit cards for too long is going to land you in bankruptcy court.

So, think for a minute about the government. There are things that the fed has to spend money on (as defined in the Preamble to the Constitution):

Forming a more perfect union
Establishing justice
Ensuring domestic tranquility
Providing for the common defense
Promoting the general welfare
Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity

And there are things we like to spend money on:

Helping our neighbors when they're in trouble or struggling
Encouraging innovation in the private sector

And federal, state, and local governments pay for these things by having a job. Unlike us as individuals, though, "paying the bills" as it were, is the job in question; also unlike us as individuals (or corporations), the government isn't supposed to make more money than it needs to do its job. But, when the output becomes higher than the income, more people are in trouble.

As citizens and constituents, we are the boss of the government. We pay the government to do its job. That's what taxes are. That's why the people who wrote our founding documents made sure to put a little note in Article I, Section VIII that "Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes". So, when the bills start piling up, the best option for this particular checkbook, is to ask for a raise (raise taxes) or find another job (lay new taxes).

The other thing the government could do is cash out its investments, by cutting spending on education. But, as we've already established with our own checkbooks, is a bad idea. However, this is an even worse idea on a federal level, because reducing spending on things like education reduces the earning potential of the next generation; which obviously compounds problems down the road.

Finally, governments can try to live off credit cards and loans from other countries (which is what the go-to policy has been for the last 30 years). And look where it's gotten us.

Instead of being responsible with spending on essentials (like NOT spending trillions of dollars on wars that we had no business waging), or asking to be paid what it's worth (raising taxes), or finding alternate sources of revenue; governments have been living off credit cards and are now trying to cash out their investments (education, social security, medicare, etc) in order to make ends meet.

But there's a very simple solution. Some of the government's employers (like the top 1% of income earners) and clients (giant corporations) haven't been paying the fed for the work it does, and if those employers would just pay their taxes, we'd have enough money to pay all of our bills, and maybe get some health insurance.

F*** you, from Art

2010-12-09T13:46:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager has his panties in a wad because rap artists swear too much, but are still intellectually capable of making good music. I'm reasonably certain that my comment on the article won't make it passed the screeners at the National Review, so here are my thoughts, with notes.

Why is it such a big deal that a music video by a black artist has an all-black cast? No one's panties ever get in a twist about a music video by white artists having all-white casts. [Notice how he never actually illuminates why this is a problem.]

Further, I will speak to the only song on the list I have heard. Eminem's song "Love the Way You Lie" is an amazing portrayal of the emotional tumult one goes through when involved in an abusive relationship. As such, it is not only appropriate, but necessary for the F-word to be used in the lyrics. The thing about art is that sometimes it deals with things that are icky, because art is a necessary expression of the world the way it is seen by the artists' eyes. Pieces that deal with volatile subject matter necessitate swearing in order to get the point across that sometimes life is awful.

When an artist is telling their own story about how their lives have been challenging, it isn't simply moral degradation that causes said artist to swear, but the fact that they are reflecting a culture that is degrading. Art is not something that is subject to the delicate sensibilities of Dr. Prager, because the minds of artists don't get run passed society's self-appointed content-screeners before being published; just as what actually occurs in their lives that inspires these depictions is not passed by anyone, save g-d, perhaps.

In truth, it is not swearing which belies the moral degradation of our society, it is the poverty in which too many Americans grow up that demonstrates that we are a broken nation. It is the unwillingness of certain groups of people to accept the basic humanness of other groups of people, simply because their skin is a different color, or their religion is different or because they love a person of the same gender. You want to talk about moral degradation? Spend a night on the street with a homeless vet whose mind was annihilated during war. Take a look into the lives of teenage girls who are forced into prostitution either by coercive violence or because an adult got her hooked on meth. Then tell me it's inappropriate for an artist to repeatedly use the F-word in a song.

Rap music isn't the cause of moral degradation and it's not even the result of it. It's the artistic depiction of the horrors that escape persons of privilege, like Dr. Prager who cannot see four feet in front of their own faces.

"They who begin by burning books will end by burning man."

2010-09-09T19:39:00.000-07:00

So sayeth a 19th century German philosopher whose name I can't recall.

All week there's been chatter about the legalities, the rights, and wrongs of the asshat in Florida who declared 9-11 "International Burn a Koran Day". Everything has been said about this, including that said asshat will instead be having a powwow with the "Iman" (guess he's going to David Bowie's house) in charge of Park 51, the not-mosque that's not at Ground Zero. Also included in the discussions has been "hey, it's just a book", which leads me to the only thing that hasn't been said in this whole debate:

It's not just a book. It's a book. Books are important.

Leaving aside the content of this particular book (to which I am ignorant, since I don't own and have never read a Koran; something I intend to rectify this coming Buy a Koran Day), this idea in people's heads that something can be "just" a book is laughable. The only reason we've progressed as far as we have as a society is because of books. Our personal histories, our cultural histories, our philosophies, the entire concept of objective analytical thinking is not possible without books.

Books are important. You read them. You share them. You pass them on to be read by others. You discuss the content (unless it's Dan Brown, then you have to make a movie starring Tom Hanks first). You get up early on Saturday and go to temple to sit in a room with other people who have different ideas on that week's Torah portion, and you disagree with each other, broadening horizons and making new friends.

Now, in Judaism, books are revered. Most of all, the Torah, whose study is the most pious and holy of pursuits (aside from saving lives). The Torah is NOT just a book, and I don't know any religious person who would say that it is. No Jew, no Christian, no Muslim, no Hindu (well, some branches of Hinduism...). For Christians and Muslims, as well as we Jews, the Torah is the basis for their faiths. Hindus understand the importance of books because they've been around about 5,000 years longer than any other culture (that's a conservative estimate). Meanwhile, the Buddhists would say "if it gives you comfort, then it is of significance". (Or was that Tia Dalma in Pirates of the Caribbean?...)

I would imagine, then, that the Koran is emphatically not "just a book". So quit saying that it is. It's a cultural history. It's a piece of art. It's something that gives comfort to a billion people.

If history is important because it allows us to learn from our mistakes, then books are important because they contain history. If ideas are important because they allow us to progress, then books are important because they contain ideas. Books are not a luxury. Books are not symbolism. Books are not simple trifles whose existence is to be taken lightly.

Perhaps, I am in a unique position, as a member of a group often called "the people of the book", I can say that I believe that a book is no less precious than a life. Some books are simple and shallow. Some books are of immeasurable significance. Some books are good, some books are terrible; but in the end every book is the child of someone's mind. As we say in the art world, the medium is the message; and "they who begin by burning books will end by burning man." (It was Heinrich Heine.)

What's your fuel?

2010-08-27T16:06:00.000-07:00

Right: homemade organic

cheddar-jalapeño challah

In my house, we're kind of obsessed with food. Part of that is because we're naturally health nuts, part of it is because of dietary restrictions and food allergies. A third, more important part, is that we're both nuts about eating, and if it doesn't taste good, why bother?

I discovered earlier this year, for instance, that the reason I never liked bell peppers before was that I was eating conventionally grown peppers that taste like dirt. Organic bell peppers are sweet and crunchy, and delicious in just about everything.

Today on The Karel Show, the passionate host, Karel, spent an hour talking about how the Corporatization^TM of our food chain is poisoning us, making us fat, and increasing the prevalence of metabolic diseases to the extent that there is now a classification of illness called "metabolic diseases". To quote another favorite liberal talker:

OF COOOOOOOOOOOOOOURSE!!!

As crazy as it sounds, it's 100% true. Most of the available sustenance is half-artificial. Most of even our freshest fruits and vegetables are genetically modified, or at the very least grown in such a way that they are nutrient deficient and taste non-existent. Don't believe me? Do an experiment with me: purchase two of your favorite fruits or veggies, like a honeycrisp apple; one with a produce code that starts with a 3 or 4 (conventional), and one with a produce code that starts with a 9 (organic). If you're really feeling adventurous, grab one starting with an 8 (that's your GMO, bleh!). Take your fruit home and try each of them. What you're going to find is that the conventionally grown apple is soft and meally and has that waxy flavor that is only supposed to come from apples at the food bank. Meanwhile, the organic apple will be crisp and sweet and will taste like, huh, an apple.

Truthfully, most people actually don't know the difference between organic and non-organic foods -- and a part of that is because they avoid vegetables because they don't taste good. Or they were raised with canned veggies, and those are good enough. Except that their not. Things that come in cans, pretty universally don't have any nutrients.

The thing is, if you don't have time to pay attention to what you're eating, you need to reassess your priorities. The less time you devote to feeding your body what it needs -- not just something to put into your stomach, but nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and NOT preservatives, additives, or things that metabolize into formaldehyde in your liver -- the less time you're going to have to be alive.

The chemicals that Big Food is pumping us full of is causing more harm than the chemicals we get from Big Tobacco! Think about it. Do you know what monoglycerides are? I can't even figure out if "monoglycerides" is the plural or singular expression of that word! Is there a reason something with common ingredients to nitroglycerin is in food*? Is there a reason an ingredient has ingredients?!

We all know that these things are cheaper than actual food. And for some reason we've been socialized to think that the amount of food is more important than the quality of that food. And truthfully, an entirely organic diet is just as satisfying and not that much more expensive than a conventional diet. (And trust me, organic chocolate is so much better!) For some reason, the idea that money trumps value has been transferred from the people who make the garbage and sell it to us, through the "food", and into our subconscious minds.

Well, we're paying for it now. The money that we saved eating eggs made in factory farms, shrimp grown in pools with chicken coops suspended above them, and high fructose corn syrup, will eventually be spent on our healthcare bills. And then some. Having diabetes costs way more than you ever would have spent on bread made with sprouted whole grain instead of flour. It takes a lot more effort to deal with the impact these poisons have on our health than to avoid them in the first place. Just ask my friend Kelley.

Americans aren't fat because we eat too much and exercise too little. We're fat because our bodies are filled with garbage. And it's incredibly difficult to get that stuff out once its in. Start by drinking more water.

_____________________________________________

*If you can call it food.

Oh for-- really?

2010-08-19T15:30:00.000-07:00

I have to admit that follow ForbesWoman on the Facebook. After their post this morning, however, I'm not entirely sure why. I'll save you the FB typos and just say that the post went to this article on Forbes.com. "Smart girls marry money". Sure, girls. Right.

Now, I personally don't believe in marriage (that's why I'm not married), and I honestly could give a crap about what other people do with their personal lives. My issue here is the sheer intellectual laziness and incongruence that is this entire 500 word article.

"It's time to start treating your life like reality," says the headline. "We live in a world that runs on dollars and good sense." And then goes on to advocate that women wake up to the fact that they're going to miserable 4evr unless they marry a man with a fat wallet. It's called the "Gold Digging Imperative". Marry a rich guy so that you can take vacations and get hot-stone massages instead of being a "lady lawyer, doctor, or MBA still slaving away after 40" like a man. EW!

The biggest problem with this article (and the viewpoint it promotes) is this:

"The average guy believes most gals are only looking for money, but the truth is too few of us are interested in their income at all. The modern gal is earning her own cash and is looking for emotional security.

Too bad it doesn't exist.

What's worse, national statistics show women suffer far more economically than men when marriages fail. With this in mind, we have some advice: Instead of looking for love, let's look out for our own security, the kind you can count in dollars and cents."

In essence, instead of preventing economic disparity after a failed marriage, marry someone who has way more money than you so that when he dumps your ass you get a huge alimony check. If you live in an alimony state, that is. Not to mention the fact that if a woman takes care of her own assets, marries, and then divorces, but still has those assets the economic disparity isn't going to to be as great. The other thing that it's important to remember here is that the perpetuation of the idea that men should be in control of the finances is what usually gets women into trouble at the end of their marriages. Sure, she pays the bills, buys the groceries, whatever; but he's in control of the debt. The house. The three water-logged boats sitting useless in the backyard.

Women fare worse in divorce because our society is set up to shit on them economically. We're taught, and teach each other, that we shouldn't worry about money, just find a man. We're discouraged from going into "masculine" fields of work, like engineering, law, medicine, when those fields pay more. And as a woman business owner, I have lost count of the number of people who have paid me less respect for my business prowess because I have a uterus. (Of course, my business is makeup, so I get a little more credit than the woman who owns a construction company. At least I'm in a field that I know something about.)

There are other issues with this segment too. For instance, assuming that the "average guy" thinks that women are only after money in relationships. That really should say "the average misogynist", which by my own research is about 15% of the male population (and an opposing 15% of the female population, including the authors of this book and the publishers of Forbes). The truth is, most guys I know are more interested in having a spouse to whom they feel themselves equal in all arenas, including finances. In relationships where there is a good deal of economic disparity, neither partner is happy.

The message is clear, ladies: marry a man who has lots of money so that you don't have to work. (And we wonder why certain conservative groups paint all poor people as being lazy...) And gentlemen: no matter how awesome she is, you're going to have to pay for it somehow or another. Let's just demean everybody, shall we?

However, in reality the bottom line is this: smart women make their own money, and most people marry within their own socioeconomic class. It's not a secret. Cinderella, the fairy tale upon which the "Gold Digger Imperative" is based, doesn't follow what happens to the girl after she marries Prince Charming. Do you really think they lived happily ever after?

For g-d's sake! Even the women who do become successful solely through the glory of their squacks have to work for it! Real life is going out and making it for yourself, not just depending on someone else (a man or otherwise) for your own fulfillment, happiness, and hot stone massages. It's the American dream!

Why does ForbesWoman hate America?

A few things we learned while flipping through the bios for WA state senate candidates

2010-08-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

The Senate bios start on page 8.

1. Don't write about earth really being a spaceship.

2. Proof-reading should be done by someone who speaks English.

3. Hot air balloons don't have brakes.

4. There's no "u" in John Galt. That's the whole point of the question "Who is John Galt?".

5. Your bio should not feature a scene from a movie starring James Gandolfini. No less than a movie starring John Travolta should be quoted in any bid for national office. Have some goddamn respect.

6. The children of potato farmers can go on to win 3 Super Bowls in no other country than the United States. Amirka. Fuck yeah.

7. If you're a physicist, you should stick to physics. Any idiot can run for congress. Seriously, this is beneath you "Skip".

8. Once again, the person who proof-reads your bio needs to SPEAK ENGLISH.

9. Don't write your bio in iambic pentameter. Its next performance will be by George Takei on the Stephanie Miller show.

That is all. Please take these lessons with you in in the coming years, as they might come in handy should you ever choose to run for office.

Couldn't have said it better myself

2010-06-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

So I won't. Via Ren.

I also believe in "truth in advertising" as it were...in so much that if a woman is dressed sexy, well, she might be interested in sex. HOWEVER, that does not mean she is interested in sex *with you* or any and every other man who might approach her. And sure enough, men who do NOT take no as an answer are fucking asshats. End of story. A woman could be half naked, drinking, doing your best friend on the bar and if she says "no" to you, well gee, men should take that as a no and move on. End of story. Not taking that no is one of those things that leads to rape, and well, gee, if the horrible hussy did not really mean it...well, she can look elsewhere and the dude who walked away has maybe just saved himself some future drama (and people say I am not a humanitarian?) And further more...it is not the job of women to police the behavior of men. End of story. Once y'all are past the stage when momma is bringing you up- you are on your own and responsible for your own behavior, and no woman owes you shit or is obligated to make sure you behave yourself. That there is what we call being "grown up."

Condoms, pulling out, abstinence, outercourse...

2010-05-27T16:43:00.000-07:00

What the hell am I talking about? Well, there seems to be a little bit of a squabble going on (perpetually) about men's right to choose.

Summary: single, stay-at-home dad has girlfriend. Single, stay-at-home dad doesn't want more kids, but knocks up girlfriend. She has an abortion. He knocks her up again, and even though they had previously agreed that if it happened again, she would terminate without discussion or hesitation, she changed her mind (as is her prerogative). However, she saves herself from becoming a hero in this story by not only having the baby, but suing single, stay-at-home dad for child support. Dick move. Seriously.

Anyway, Single Stay-at-home Dad has become a poster child for some men's organization who want to give men a say in whether a woman terminates or keeps a pregnancy. There are two problems with this idea, and it's not hypocritical for me, as a feminist, to tell men that they don't get abortion rights. Men don't get abortion rights because men don't get abortions. If we were all intersexed and could procreate that way, sure, if one partner wanted to keep a pregnancy and the other partner didn't, you could just go "okay, here, you have it", and then everyone would be grown-ups about it and not try to sue somebody for child support. But we don't live in that world so...

Listen guys, you already have reproductive rights. It's called pulling out. Women get birth control and abortion rights because we can't control where your semen goes. You can. Ergo, figure it the fuck out. If a man doesn't want children, and either can't be bothered or is too stupid/lazy to figure out at least one of the many ways to avoid impregnating a woman, then he's already made his choice. It's not an issue of not having sex, it's not an issue of "keep your laws off my body" either (because, let's face it, abortion laws don't affect men's bodies, they affect their checkbooks and emotional well-being).

The fact of the matter is that, for the span of human existence, men have had the say in whether a baby gets born. You can read about these things in the bible for gods' sakes -- how to cause a woman to have a miscarriage, how it's okay to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach if she's your wife and it's not your kid. Blah blah fucking blah. Welcome to the 21st century, guys. You don't get a say in what goes on in a woman's uterus anymore unless the owner of the uterus says that it's okay for you to have an opinion on the matter and she loves you enough to give a fuck about what that opinion is. Because we're an enlightened (ha) society, and once sperm meets egg, it's no longer your property or a part of your body. Period.

Speaking about the specific instance that's mentioned in the Broadsheet article, she had the right to change her mind and he had the right to walk away. It was a dick move to sue for child support, but just because someone is an asshole about something like this, doesn't mean that men suddenly have a say (again) in what happens inside a woman's body.

Now, I'm gonna say this again because it's very important:

If you're a man, and you don't want kids, figure out at least one way to avoid impregnating the woman you're having sex with. Use a condom. Pull out. Don't fuck her, or don't fuck her vagina. And if you've already gotten her pregnant once, don't make her go through another abortion. Wise up and figure it out. We can't control where your semen goes. You can. Don't act like a powerless victim when an unplanned pregnancy doesn't go the way you want it.

Can't get a rib in edgewise

2010-04-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

I like to read Broadsheet on the bus. I'm not terribly fond of most blogs while I'm traveling because the crackberry doesn't do so well with rich text and images, so Broadsheet. Well, last week Margaret Eby wrote a piece righteously chastising Tony Bourdain for something he said in an episode of No Reservation entitled "Food Porn 2".

But then Bourdain dropped a wisecrack that irked more than amused. "Barbecue: It's like chocolate for men," he quipped, introducing a segment about some succulent, slow-roasted meats.

Now, let's bear in mind that the title of the chastising blog was "Ladies, back away from the BBQ" and decided that it was time to "disabuse" Tony of the "notion that women like sweet things and men like meat things". Let's stop for second and ignore the weak premise, and set aside even calling Margaret out for attacking the wrong person -- Bourdain didn't invent the stereotype that men like meat things and women like sweet things. Let's focus on all this talk about dissertations regarding barbecue sauce.

Because, when you think about it, when you get into the nitty gritty of the foods themselves, barbecue sauce is simply the masculine version of chocolate. As a chef, I imagine (and it may be pure imagining) that Tony knows this, and that's where his comments came from not from some misogynistic idea that one kind of food is for chicks and another for dudes. I fancy myself a bit of a chef, and I'm well aware that there are as many different types of barbecue sauces as there are chocolates. Different regions have their specialties, spices, means of preparing them -- and we can't forget that chocolate and barbecue sauce converge in the delectable South America Mole' sauce.

Consider barbecue separately, and take in the idea that it is "chocolate for men". This doesn't mean that the ladies should "back away" from the BBQ, not indulge our pretty little hands in some beef spare ribs, or delight at licking the sauce off our fingers after a pulled pork sandwich falls apart. It doesn't even mean that more men than women enjoy a cook-out (although, they do seem to monopolize the grill with their grunts of "fire good"). What this means is that barbecue has the same elements, taste-wise, as chocolate does, and plays the masculine notes. It's the same flavors, the same areas of the tongue and brain are activated, but on the masculine side.

Now we consider chocolate. It has just as much ability to be sweet, tangy, hard, wise, bitter, salty as does barbecue sauce. It has multiple uses, multiple forms, and while chocolate makes for a better milkshake, at its gourmet roots it is the same as barbecue sauce -- except playing the feminine side of the taste buds and corresponding brain cells.

This is not a feminist issue -- unless it's an issue of telling a feminist to get her head out of her ass and remember that chocolate makes for a good barbecue sauce.

While you do that, I'll be enjoying my chocolate barbecue sauce on this.

Reminder: Godwin's Law is in effect

2010-03-20T19:44:00.000-07:00

I've written about this before, as have a number of other bloggers. And while I don't really have a lot of commentary on the current healthcare debate, I do want to remind both sides that comparing your opponent's positions to that of Hitler or the Nazis automatically invalidates your argument, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

But some people just don't understand why people get so uppity about using the Holocaust as a frame of reference for current geopolitics, despite the fact that it's completely inappropriate and inaccurate. Because while Barack Obama may have very good speaking skills (so did Mary Kay Ash, Martin Luther King Jr, and President Bill Clinton), he does not have plans to wipe off the planet all but those who possess a very specific group of genetic characteristics. No one in America is being arrested for political dissidence or forced to wear clothing that indicates their ethnicity, religion, or sexual identification (people may do this on their own, but as far as I know there's no law mandating it).

Still, there persists this horrific meme on the right (which just as surely existed on the left during the Bush administration, and if I wasn't clear enough that it wasn't okay then either, that is my fault), that Barack Obama = Hitler, Democrats = Nazis, and healthcare reform = ha shoa (the Holocaust). This simply isn't so. It's insulting to the memory of those who suffered and died during the Nazi regime, minimizing their pain to tug on the emotions of people who don't know any better. Continued violations of Godwin's Law make a person look like an uneducated jackass (I'm talking to you, Glenn Beck). And when someone calls you out on it, don't act all surprised that you're having your ass handed to you over the issue (especially if you're trying to make the Obama = Hitler argument in a discussion with a Jew), making it a personal argument rather than a political discussion.

We can have political discussions in this country. We should. But there are rules. You can't just throw the Obama = Hitler argument into the mix and see what happens. That's why Godwin's Law exists, so that arguments don't get side-tracked by something that has nothing to do with the current conversation and does nothing but raise the hackles of all involved. The entire point of Godwin's Law transcends political ideology because, at its heart, it's about protecting the intellectual debate and not allowing emotions to distract people from the issues.

Meanwhile, violations of Godwin's Law are intentionally distracting. It is disgraceful to think that anyone would attempt to score cheap points by comparing a political adversary to the person responsible for enslaving, raping, starving, torturing, and eventually murdering and desecrating the remains of 6 million Jews, and another 6 million people he decided weren't racially or politically "pure". It isn't about charismatic leaders or disagreements about the direction of the country. Violations of Godwin's Law accomplish only the further desecrating the memories of those victims and their survivors, and that's why people (especially Jews) get touchy about the whole thing. It was irresponsible for people like Mike Malloy to call George W. Bush "Hitler", and it's irresponsible for Glenn Beck to do the same to Barack Obama. The only person whose evil was ever comparable to Hitler's was Hitler. End of story, and ignorance of history is no excuse.

So, if someone calls you on the carpet for making this comparison, take a moment and think about their perspective. How would you feel if half of your family was wiped off the face of the planet by a man whose evil only surpassed itself, and not even 100 years later the president is compared to the man responsible for the death of your family? You'd be pretty angry. Then think about how you would react when someone tried to minimize your experience of that anger by accusing you of trying to shut them up on the issues.

A person should not engage in debate if they don't know what their doing. Confusing opinion with fact, fact with emotion, and valid arguments with specious analogies demonstrate just that. So, when in doubt, remember the old saying "better to remain silent and have others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Edited to add an example of the above-mentioned meme:

This blog has moved

2010-03-06T22:45:00.001-08:00

This blog is now located at http://rachelsetzer.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://rachelsetzer.blogspot.com/atom.xml.

Being depressed makes you stupid

2010-02-08T14:53:00.000-08:00

Our nation's daughters are continuing a trend that has prevailed throughout history: they make poor decisions based on what makes them feel good. Now, of course this trend, this habit, is not unique to young women, just about everybody does it, but it is my opinion that young women are especially vulnerable to the destructiveness of this habit.

Recently, I was sitting in a coffee shop and overheard a brother and two moms discussing a young girl and the bad boy who has chosen her as his next victim*. I relate this as an allegory, an instance of a girl making a poor decision because a boy is telling her whatever he has to to make her feel worthy and reward him with exactly what he wants.

I don't know about you, but I do know one thing about myself and my relationship history: it was when I felt the worst about myself that I made my worst relationship decisions. Torn down by depression, eating disorders, disappointment in life, shitty parents with drinking problems; I've made my fair share of mistakes and like 1 in 6 American women have been raped. I'm not saying that my judgment is what cause the rape (in fact, had it not been me, that douche certainly would have raped another woman and probably has -- it seemed to be his modus operandi), but my desire for approval, my need to feel good, feel pretty, and be validated helped me to fall for this bullshit he toted; put up a smoke screen so I couldn't see what was really going on. Every time, my need for validation has lead me into disastrous relationships, taken me on fateful dates, and only lead me deeper into the original problem.

My point here is not that the poor judgment of girls or women is to blame for our misery or the continuation of it. In fact, I mean to point out the opposite. Feeling bad about yourself, your life, your purpose, your body will inevitably lead to poor judgment and bad decisions.

More directly: depression makes you stupid.

Media that is aimed to make women feel badly about themselves makes us stupid. People who belittle women and girls so often that those women and girls believe that bullshit are directly to blame for the poor decisions made by those women and girls especially if belitter is charged with the well-being of that woman or girl -- parents, teachers, spiritual leaders, youth leaders, etc. Negative consequences that are addressed in a negative manner (for instance "you got yourself [pregnant, raped, etc], because you're [stupid, a slut, drink too much, etc]") make it harder for anyone, let alone a teenage girl, to go back to a similar situation and make the right decision.

We need to begin by empowering our young women. Stop belittling them. Enough with the slut-shaming. Enough with promoting beauty over intellect; being pretty over being interesting, or making the two mutually exclusive. Build them up so they not only don't believe the negative bullshit pushed by peers, media, etc, but also so they can dismiss the bullshit of a guy who will (and does) say anything he has to in order to fuck her.

Teach women that they are valuable and that they can make good decisions and exercise good judgment. That way parents and siblings don't have to stage an intervention in order to keep a young girl from being raped by some bad boy who has become her only source of feeling valued.

______________________________

*I say victim because one of the things I overheard was the brother saying that this bad boy had bragged to the girl about having forced other girls to have sex with him.

My fat-shaming scale

2010-01-25T23:19:00.000-08:00

Last night at dinner the Schmoogie started telling me about how awesome our scale is because it "uses some electrical measurment to determine your body fat [percentage]", so this morning, I decided to take that little feature for a spin.

I set it to adult, female, 5'7", and weighed myself (192.5, if you're curious). Then came the 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 while it calculated my body fat.

42%

That would make me morbidly obese. For those of you who have met me, I am not morbidly obese (not even in a bride's maid dress). My doctor isn't concerned at all about my weight (which if I was morbidly obese, he would be), and I have none of the signs or symptoms of diseases brought on by obesity. (For the record, my cholesterol is too low, my blood pressure is perfect, and I can hold Downward Facing Dog for upwards of 5 mintes.)

According to the internet, bones take up about 15% of ones body weight. My giant breasts take up another 5-10%. And the last time I had my body fat measured, it was somewhere around 30% (this was about 4 years ago, and for the record, I haven't changed pant size). But according to my scale, I am 42% fat. Putting me at somewhere around 10% muscle by my just as accurate calculations.

So, later, the Schmoogie is curious, and tests himself. He inputs male, 6'2.5", and weighs himself. The all knowing electrical current tells him he is 16% fat. Furthering our little experiment, I change my gender in the scale, input the same height, weigh myself and it comes back with -- are you ready for this because it's shocking -- 30%. Now I'm thinking, if it was actually measuring the same body with the same measurments, the gender wouldn't matter. So, I want to know more. We switch the Schmoogie's gender in the scale and measure the same body, and even more shocking, the scale tells a woman who is 6'2.5" and weighs 181 lbs, that she is 34% fat. DOUBLE the Schmoogie's original measurment. That's a pretty freaking huge margin.

Then I get thinking: this machine was programmed not to determine weight and body fat percentage, but to make women feel ashamed of their bodies. A woman with the exact same measurments -- the same body! -- as a man who is pretty much at the "ideal" weight/fat measurments is, according to this machine's calculations obese.

But a woman who was 6'2.5", 181 lbs, with good muscle tone, isn't even obese according to the standard (bullshit) BMI scale.

It's obscene. I'm thinking about getting a different scale that isn't a sexist fucker.

And now for something completely different: A Blog About Something I Hate

2009-12-26T23:28:00.001-08:00

Hair.

That is, other people's hair. That is, the hair of other people lying around, in drains, on my coat, on the internets, in commercials, drawn into my favorite cartoon. I've never dry heaved at a commercial until Anthony Sullivan began hocking the Turbo Snake on late night tv. I've never come closer to turning off an episode of The Venture Brothers than when Dean picks up and plays with a hair clog from the shower.

In the past, if someone else's hair got on me, I would freak out and look away while making someone else remove it from me. Occasionally, this still happens, but years of working in retail where far more disgusting things (like cash) are handled on a daily basis kind of desensitized me to at least that. But I have a very strong visual/visceral connection, so when I see an image of hair falling to the floor while a guy sits in a barbers chair in an H&R Block commercial and asks if a hair cut is a "job hunting expense", I just about lose my shit. Yeah... it's a problem.

This all started probably when I was 9 or so, and my sister's long black hair was everywhere. Vacuuming wasn't yet part of my chores, but if I had known this would reduce the amount of hair that was, literally, everywhere, I would have taken up the habit a lot sooner. Needless to say, a big deal was made about the mess. Somehow, I internalized this and began avoiding hair. Then, of course, there were all of my friends who had long, frizzy hair in junior high and high school -- I, personally, cut my hair very short at 12 and later at 15, and since haven't ever had it longer than my chin; the shortness, combined with the color (RED!) helps me to not freak out over my own hair.

Of course, all of this is made even more idiosyncratic because I live with a dog and human who each have full heads and backs of hair. Pugs shed more than just about any creature this side of Alpha Centauri; the Schmoogie, thankfully, not so much. And I'm lucky enough that having to clean hair clogs out of drains is a thing of the past -- living with Kia, as bad as that was on its own, was made infinitely worse by the fact that she never bothered to clean anything, let alone hair from the shower drain... I once had to dig a giant, dishwater-blonde hair clog out with a chopstick while wearing nitrile gloves.

Don't mistake me, I don't mind hair that maintains some delusion of continued life -- I suppose you could say that my aversion to hair is similar to the aversion of others to corpses -- and I'm certainly no ~~germaphone~~ germaphobe, I just don't like looking at, touching, being touched by, or having to acknowledge the existence of discarded strands or clumps of hair. (Actually, I don't like being touched by living hair either -- if another girl in a club swings her hair around and touches me with it, I will throw down. You assault me with your uncontrollable hair, I will assault you with my fists. That's how irrational I am about this!)

So, I don't know, would people please stop putting little clumps of hair on the damn tv. It's really starting to get under my skin... ew. Now I'm gonna have nightmares about hair under my skin. Great. Thanks usually harmless colloquialism.

Who the hell are women trying to please?!

2009-12-23T22:43:00.000-08:00

Over at Street Carnage, there's a preview of a photo spread from next month's V Magazine where an industry standard sized model (size 0) and a plus sized model (size 12) go head to head in a pose-off. I think this is pretty cool, but at the end of the article we see this picture, plus a nice little post-script.

PS: I thought this picture was boring when I first saw it but I couldn’t stop thinking about it for weeks. The National Average one is irrelevant because midwestern fatsos skew the “figures” but how about the part where women’s ideal is not the male’s ideal? Who are they trying to please?

I'll tell you who: themselves.

Contrary to popular belief, women don't actually exist solely to please men. I know, it sounds crazy, but women see themselves differently than men, and this is going to sound even crazier: a lot of the time, the way a woman dresses, does her hair and/or makeup, and the general effort that she puts into her appearance isn't to please anyone but herself.

"WHAT?! You can't be serious!" shriek the menz and radfems alike. (The radfem admonishment is followed promptly by a call of naievete on my part, letting me know in that radfemsplanation tone that I am simply blinded by a society that seeks to keep me pretty in order to please men. I don't buy it.) I am 100% serious, and I'll give you one reason why: my hair is not naturally red. Most of the people I know wouldn't really care whether my hair was red or brown, and the attractive elements of my personality aren't impacted by the color of my hair. So who in god's name am I trying to please by having red hair? Myself.

There is an element of conditioning going on here too, though. There are a lot of women out there who think that they want to be a size 8 because the media tells them that the only way anyone would ever find them attractive is if their dress size is in the single digits.

Finally, the "national average one" isn't irrelevent. What this image does is show women who are a size 16 what they look like. The size 16 woman in this image isn't ugly or hugely obese. As a woman who is a size 14, I struggle with my body image, but I see this woman (and yes, I know she's been photoshopped), and I think, "oh, I guess I'm not so horribly fat afterall!" and my body image improves. Wow, you mean... wait, could this entire article not have been for the male gaze at all?! Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at. The "national average one" is, in fact, the most relevant image in the entire spread.

Attn all assholes with guns

2009-12-21T23:09:00.000-08:00

Stop killing/trying to kill cops. Seriously.

Two more police officers in Pierce Co. WA have been shot.

There is no Messiah until I see some freaking zombies

2009-11-20T01:34:00.001-08:00

For the edification of those who are not Talmudic scholars, here's the way I understand the Rabbinic view of life, death, and the after-life:

1. You are born; your life begins when you take your first breath; life begins at birth, not conception so I'm not a murderer by virtue of having continued to have periods after becoming sexually active.
2. You live.
3. You die.
4. When you die, your "soul" leaves your body to go to the great Bingo hall in the sky (or something -- basically your soul does whatever a soul does when not bound to a body), and your body goes into the ground. This is just temporary though. Dante said that the Jews slept in the vestibule of Hell until the Judgment. But Dante was probably an anti-Semite. I'm pretty sure that when Jews die they go play Canasta and MaJohng with other dead people.
5. Then the party is over cause the Messiah has arrived and is all judgmental and whatnot. My Rabbi said that the Messianic times are gonna be "pretty rough", so when he told me that your body and soul get reunited and won't necessarily look the way you looked when you were alive my mind went to one place, and one place only: zombies. It doesn't matter why this happens, (but you can read the Talmud to find out), but just contemplate it for a while. Think about all the things you know about the supposed "end of days" and the [second, if you're a Christian] coming of the Messiah. Dogs and cats sleeping together, crises of biblical proportions, yes? And ZOMBIES. If there's another way bodies and souls can get reunited and still preserve this view that the Messianic times are gonna be as bad as Rabbinic tradition says it will... I'd like to hear about it. Cause I'm really not interested in leaving my MaJohng game to go be a freaking zombie. Messiah or no Messiah.
6. Permanent afterlife - if you were good, you get the good stuff, if you were bad you get burned and turned into ashes that everyone walks on for eternity (which, for the truly evil, I can't imagine a better permanent afterlife than perpetually staining the soles of the righteous). Which is followed by
7. ???
and finally
8. Prophet.

All that being said, I should point out that there is no real consensus among Jews on ~~anything~~ the after life. Whether it exists. What happens. Whether there will be zombies at some point. This is just my take on a centuries-old idea that some Rabbis came up with while studying the Torah. It may or may not have any bearing on what actually happens.

Comment Policy

2009-11-17T11:43:00.000-08:00

It occurs to me that I need to make a post about comments.

First of all, please leave me your feedback. Pretty much all comments are published, (exceptions noted below), and I want to foster conversation. It's important that there be other opinions out there aside from mine.

That being said, I have a few guidelines for comments:

*If you compare anyone or anything to Hitler or the Nazis (unless we're having a discussion of Hitler or Nazis), your comment will not be published. As a Jewish person with distant relatives (and a boyfriend whose Polish great-grandad) were exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis, I find it distasteful and insulting to compare anyone, short of an actual mass-murdering fuckhead to someone who attempted to wipe not only my people, but several other peoples from the earth. It's not okay.

*Ad hominem attacks are generally discouraged, unless you do it in a very clever and funny manner that is completely relevant to the topic at hand.

*Flame baiting and flame wars will not be published. I don't tolerate that kind of shit when I have the option to avoid it.

That's pretty much it. So, keep it civil, but lively.

2009-11-16T20:49:00.000-08:00

You know what would be awesome? If Troy Garity, the guy playing the porn-star/patient on this week's episode of House had actually done porn. Now, maybe he has and it's just not listed (wouldn't be surprised if that's the case), but it would be nice. It would be really cool too. Porn actors are actors too. Especially since the writers just happened to use this as an excuse to make the case that monogamy=commitment. When it doesn't.

Abandoning Objectivism

2009-11-16T00:40:00.000-08:00

I read Atlas Shrugged in college with the intention of doing one of those ARI scholarships, but I never managed to write the essay. In fact, it took me 9 months to read the damn book, and I still haven't read all of the John Galt Manifesto. I used it as an example of a manifesto in a class I took Freshman year, but never read the whole thing.

Now, it's really late so I have to be honest here: I loved Atlas. It was so emo. So self-centered and self-important. So much like I was at the time, and the sex scenes were pretty hot too. I also enjoy the way Ayn Rand writes fiction, which is strange because I can't get past page 106 in Master and Margarita or even past the first paragraph of any Dostoevsky. (I can't even read modern fiction from Russia, despite how awesome the Nightwatch movies are.) Rand's style, while traditionally Russian (read: long and overly-detailed, with a slow-moving narrative) allowed the book to take on a life of its own for me. Francisco was played by Antonio Banderas; John Galt by Michael Shanks; Christian Bale was Hank Rearden; and I, at the ripe old age of 19, was Dagny having all that dirty, shame-embracing sex with those older, more successful, more powerful men who really, truly understood what Dagny did not: you have to destroy civilization to really save it.

Ah, what a load of bullshit. It's so funny how this person who was educated in a public system funded by the blood, sweat, and tears of everyone in the country (Rand moved to the United States when she was a kid, mind you, so the majority of her education took place here), emphasized this idea of "every man for himself". It's even funnier how, despite the fact that she claims each of the characters was self-taught in their given field, everyone who reads that book whether they admit it or not knows that the greatness of each of these great characters was won on the backs of poorer, dumber people.

Hank Rearden could never have built his Rearden Metal without people to work in and manage his factory. And someone was managing the money that his wife squandered.

Francisco's fortune was based on exploitation of the noble savages of Central America who, whether they actually count as people or not in Rand's world, built the empire that Francisco inherited rather than earning.

Even John Galt had some form of learning, had some form of acquired knowledge that allowed him to build his amazing motor. Without the contributions of previous scientists, Galt (Tesla) would never have done what he had cause he would have needed to waste his entire life developing 300,000 years worth of human technology. You don't go from fired-clay pots to a sonic lock in one lifetime. It's not possible.

And no matter how much she loved trains and civil engineering (which, on its face defies the entire point of the philosophy espoused in this 1069 page tome -- civil engineering in a "one for all and all for me" society? Preposterous! Figure it out for yourself!), Dagny Taggart couldn't survive without a man. Whether it was Daddy, her brother, Francisco, Hank, or John (hell, she probably banged Ragnar too, but that part got edited out so that Rand could keep the book under 1500 pages), Dagny was never "one for all and all for me" because of her inherent inability to function as an independent person because of that damned uterus. It all comes down to the line about how she knew that she didn't deserve John's affection. Dagny made herself less because she was always trying to live in a way that made a man want her. She fucked up her life, threw away her father's company, and shamed herself into intellectual submission. For what?

Chaos.

Rand doesn't go into what happens when all the lights go out in New York City. She doesn't manage to extrapolate that the completion of her "Objectivist" philosophy is absolute anarchy -- oh wait, actually she does, but it's totally a good thing cause that cuts out the rabble. The idea of a person being paid what they are worth is fine, but most people don't develop any monetary worth on their own. You're either born into wealth (like all of the protagonists in Atlas), or you gain it through schooling, the most effective form of which is through the public school system (and yes, I'll admit that I am over-looking the failings of public school, because that's not my frakking point here). Public school brings the most amount of knowledge to the greatest number of people, and those people will grow into their potential in ways that would be impossible if the only option was private schooling.

Libertarianism is fine for some things like drugs and sex, but the only way to maintain a truly free society is with a social safety net that includes public school and various social programs that keep people from having their potential actively denied them because they had the bad luck not to be born a Taggart. The bottom line is, there's no such thing as a "Self-Made Man". He doesn't exist. Each person in a society is only as free as the least among them. It may not be ideal for someone who likes to think of themselves as being completely independent, but it's true: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

More to the point here, Objectivism is silly because it pretends to be "objective" when it's really subjective. Promoting selfishness above all else is not objective, because acting solely in your own interest requires a subjective point of view. Utilitarianism is far more objective than "Objectivism", because the reality is (when things are viewed objectively) the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few; at least until we get skin color and external versus internal genitals involved. That's why we put people in jail. That's why we go to war with countries that are smaller than us and don't really have nuclear weapons. That's why the Cold War was a cold war, because if it became a hot war everyone on the planet would have died so that some guy in either Moscow or Washington could prove his dick was bigger.

By lacking significant forethought and objectivity, Ayn Rand made a mockery of her own philosophy of selfishness. No one saves the world by building little canals along their front lawn, and even if Dagny did get to live happily ever after in Galt's Gulch everyone there lacked the ability to be objective enough to see beyond their own needs and thus lacked the ability to affect significant change and save the world. They merely sat idly by, fiddling while Rome burned.

Good book though.

Introducing the Post-Modern Chef

2009-11-15T21:58:00.000-08:00

I've put up a food blog for recipes and such. Post-Modern Chef!

While I possess some impressive skills in the kitchen, all of my chef-training has been in the form of eating. I have a strong sense of taste and smell, and sense-memory, so it's easy for me to put different flavors together in my head before making those flavors into food.

Of course, in my domestic goddess duties, I pretty much can't make many traditional recipes. Most of what I'll post here will be free of gluten, wheat, spelt, eggs, dairy, cane sugar, cranberries, and/or garlic, because those are the dietary restrictions I'm presented with at home. That means that a lot of the recipes here will be helpful for those with these allergies, and some recipes can be modified for those who follow vegan dietary restrictions.

It should also be noted that because I cook by feel, most of the measurments are going to be approximate, and on the low side. Remember, you can always add more, but you can't take stuff out.

Anyway, bon apetit!

In defense of Carrie Prejean

2009-11-13T16:35:00.000-08:00

Renee at Womanist Musings is absolutely 100% right and 0% wrong. Shaming Carrie Prejean, beauty queen or not, right-wing-tool or not; for a solo sex tape is hypocritical on the part of the left who are criticizing her.

First of all, by making a video of herself masturbating, Carrie is promoting a health body image for young women in the sense that it's okay to touch your vagina, but is also helping (whether she knows it or not) promote safer sex for teens. Believe it or not, abstinence is only one of the ways to prevent, with 100% certainty, unplanned pregnancies. Mutual masturbation is another method. Especially if you're separated by a video screen.

Is Carrie Prejean a hypocrit on this subject herself? I don't know. The only thing I've heard her moralizing about is gay marriage. I've never heard her say anything about teen sex, or masturbation. Is she a bad person? No. Is she dumb? Maybe. But neither of those are even remotely relevant to this issue here.

We've all been teenagers at some point, and while some of us had better self-control, or different ideas about what was an appropriate exchange between a 17-year-old girl and the object of her affection, it's no one's place to condemn Ms. Prejean for this. It's bad enough that her mom was in the room when the video was shown as a means of getting her to back down. It's even worse that Carrie Prejean's 15 minute fame-timer seems to be stuck on 14:49. But do we, on the left, really need to sink so low as to continue to make this an issue? Not just an issue of shaming an allegedly dumb, allegedly biggoted beauty queen, but an issue of hypocricy.

I make it my mission to enrich the lives of women. Now, keeping her in the news may be enriching Carrie Prejean, but what kind of a message is it sending to young women? Think about that before you go moralizing about this whole incident. And if that doesn't work for you, imagine what you would feel like if something explicit you shared with a boyfriend or girlfriend at the age of 17 was suddenly all over the internet. We've all done something like this, so shut the hell up and get back to running around like your hair is on fire on other issues... like the economy. Carrie Prejean didn't do anything wrong.

Keep digging, Glennykins

2009-11-12T17:47:00.000-08:00

Glenn Beck says:

"...It's hard to know what anything is worthy anymore. You have to think like a
German-Jew in 1934 for or, um, maybe 1931."

I face-palm. That's just too offensive for words. Nevermind that he was trying to scare people into supporting his sponsors. Nevermind that he gets a paycheck for saying stuff like that.

This is too funny

2009-10-26T12:17:00.000-07:00

I got a comment this morning on an old post. Anonymous writes:

Obama really is a "fascist" and also a believer in one world communism. Also, "feminism" really is a form of Marxism. You can check my claim out for yourself. The proof is all over the internet.

See what I mean? Fucking hilarious. Especially since "proof" and "internet" are kind of mutually exclusive... not unlike fascism and communism.

Keep it up Freepers.

Sparklepony reward motivator

2009-10-05T20:12:00.001-07:00

I am working on a personal challenge this quarter (in addition to my Star Consultant goal), which involves booking 5 appointments each week of the quarter.

I will go to the Fluevog store and put these shoes on layaway. Each week I do my 5 by Friday, I will put $20 toward my shoes. This means that in 10 weeks I will have my shoes paid off. It just so happens, that there are approximately 10 weeks left in the quarter!

And nice new red shoes for the holiday season!!! I'll be putting a picture of these shoes on my MK board to help motivate me, and in the meantime I'm spreading the word because when you tell people your goals, they become more real and seem easier to reach.

My question for you is: is there a goal you need to set? A prize you want to reward yourself with? Go for it! Share your goal and get to work!

McPostModernism

2009-10-04T15:27:00.001-07:00

Looks like McDonald's will now be serving patrons at La Louvre. Some art lovers consider this a "sign of the apocalypse", but I disagree. I think McDonald's belongs at La Louvre. An installation piece that, more than anything else represents the culture of today. A "McCulture" if you will. In the tradition of Andy Warhol, McDonald's has taken something great and unique, mass-produced it and made it available to everyone with 99 cents in their pocket. Warhol did this and died a very rich man.

Allow me to break down my theory here.

Pop art was what some might call a "travesty". It elevated something as banal as a soup can to the level of the Mona Lisa and people ate it up. Warhol's cynical genius created a movement that is still going today. He used the skills that he had (marketing) to make people want his work and want him. There's nothing special or interesting about an 8 minute film of a man sleeping. There's nothing original or thought provoking about off-color reproductions of images of Marilyn Monroe. Unless you view it as a commentary on the comodification of our culture.

Now, if you believe as I do, that the purpose of art is to create something that shifts the view of your audience to be more sympathetic to your perspective by showing them exactly what you see, McDonald's is one of the greatest art franchises of the 20th century. McDonald's has created a real-life performance piece about the comodification of our culture. Not only that, in being so ubiquitous within our culture it has created a "McCulture", changing our slang. Kids meals are Happy Meals. Burgers are Big Macs. A teenager's very first job (often in food service, often at McDonald's) is a "mcjob". Giant houses that go up in a matter of weeks are "mcmansions". In a sense, McDonald's has continued the work of Andy Warhol, (and Marcel Duchamp before him), in making an art out of making chumps of everyone around them.

It's impressive and hilarious, but as I've already said, very little exemplifies contemporary culture more than McDonald's. As such, I believe it belongs at La Louvre. Centuries from now, art history students will look back at our culture and, just as we look back at the Renaissance and only see Michaelangelo and Titian; they will see Warhol and McDonald's. They won't know that we didn't think of McDonald's as art, much the same as people of the 17th and 18th centuries didn't really think of the contents of their cathedrals as art. That's not the point. Michaelangelo changed the way the world viewed itself. So did Warhol.

So has, arguably, McDonald's.

Apparently my opposition to Glenn Beck interferes with my objectivity

2009-09-27T11:37:00.010-07:00

Guess what, America: I am not objective.

Another big surprise: neither are you.

Blogs are not news outlets. Bloggers are not journalists, although sometimes we pretend to be, and bloggers have been known to break big stories. People don't read blogs for news -- at least they shouldn't, that's what newspapers are for -- they read them for commentary, with two purposes in mind:

To agree with it.

To find something wrong with it so you can disagree with it.

No one who reads a blog does so expecting objectivity. Well, maybe some people do, but they haven't been around the internet very long.

Let me tell you a little secret: I know that the frog was fake. I also know that Markfrog is a stuffed animal. Go figure, a stuffed frog would be upset about a fake frog being thrown in a pot of boiling water by an FM shock jock who pretends to cry on camera while trying to make an incoherent point which is only made to incite people. He's a clown, remember?

But apparently, my opposition to Beck makes me a bad reporter because it compromises my objectivity. But, aside from the observation of Yom Kippur, beginning tonight, Glenn Beck and I have something in common.

NEITHER OF US IS OBJECTIVE. Never have been, never claimed to be. Well, maybe he has, but that just makes him a fucking liar on top of everything else.

Glenn Beck is no longer invited to observe Yom Kippur with me

2009-09-25T21:56:00.000-07:00

I don't think that Markfrog would appreciate me sharing the holiest of the High Holy Days with a frog-murdering, point-blowing douchebag.

Frivolity with a side of Beefcake

2009-09-23T13:12:00.000-07:00

I podcast the Stephanie Miller show and listen to it during my 3 hour bus commute from home to my Yoga Teacher Training. On today's show, either Hal Sparks or Emmy-award-winng Jim Ward mentioned that President Obama has been overheard saying "Jesus, I wish they'd stop grabbing my ass."

This set me off in a bizzare direction wherein I began trying to figure out which biracial-man-to-whom-I-shouldn't-be-attracted is hotter: Barack Obama, our first not-wholly-white President or the half-human-half-alien who is old enough to have wooed my gran, David Bowie.

Each has his incredible points, and each has something about him that makes me blush. President Obama is, of course, the President and while power is sexy, elected officials aren't supposed to be hot. He's also intelligent, knows how to take and make a joke, and we've all seen those pictures of him on the beach. Hello!

Meanwhile, David Bowie is 62, which means that even by the "half-your-age-plus-7" rule I'm too young for my crush to be okay. But as he ages, Bowie just keeps getting more and more attractive - which is only confirmation that he's not wholly human. Plus, that voice! Generations of women, now have swooned for Bowie, but I am honestly stumped here.

Do I go with the 60-year-old double malt whisky, or the 40-year-old special reserve rum?

What do you think?

Glenn Beck invites followers to partake in Yom Kippur fast

2009-09-22T22:12:00.000-07:00

This is interesting:

Those of you who have read my blog at all might be able to tell that when I first heard about this I was enraged. Furious. Who does Glenn Beck think he is trying to politicize the highest of the High Holy Days?! The most important holiday in Judaism?! You know, something like this:

But then I got to thinking about it... what is Yom Kippur really about? It's not about excluding people, it's not about giving Glenn Beck another 30 seconds on his 15-minutes-of-fame clock, it's about atonement.

Everyone does things ~~that they aren't necessarily proud of~~ of which they are not necessarily proud; everyone has something inside their heart for which they seek atonement. Even non-Jewish people like Glenn Beck. We Hebrews aren't alone in our need and desire to look within and see what we did in the last year that was fucked up, what needs work; how we can do things better next time. So, with that in mind, and the fact that he will be in the Seattle area this weekend, I would like to invite Glenn Beck to my house to break the fast on Monday. I don't want to talk about the "state of the Republic" or politics at all. If he is really interested in sharing in the experience of Yom Kippur, I invite him to do just that. Come with me on Monday to services at my temple, join me for the breaking of the fast.

After all, it's not like he doesn't politicize important Christian holidays, so why should I be upset when he does to Jews what he does to his fellow Christians? And since I have always been invited into the hearts and homes of other Jews when celebrating the High Holy Days, it would be terrible of me not to extend that very courtesy to someone else.

So, Mr. Beck, Mr. Beck's people. Drop me an email and we'll talk. The only thing I ask is that you don't cry on me.

Get 'em while they're young?

2009-09-16T00:28:00.000-07:00

Interesting thing happened to me today. I was sexually harassed by a couple of 15-year-old boys while walking my dog. As they were walking up behind me, they started doing the 15-year-old equivalent of cat-calling, which I ignored because it was impotent and unoffensive. However, it was clear that they were trying to get my attention the way male humans attempt to do when they see an attractive female human.

Anyway, my dog stopped to do some dog thing and the boys passed me. As they walked by one of them said of my tits "I bet they're fake anyway." I laughed. "Oh please," I said, "you're like half my age." Then I thought to myself, I wish they were fake. There would be so much less upkeep and I wouldn't have to worry about them sagging down to my knees when I'm old. (It later occurred to me that by the time that starts to happen there will be a Mary Kay product that prevents such things from happening.)

The whole experience got me thinking though, why are accusations of fake-tit-ness considered an insult? I mean, who gives a shit? This isn't my real hair color, (and at the moment it's pretty obvious), but no one would try to insult me by saying "I'll bet that's not your real hair color" (they might point out rudely that my roots are showing, but I already know that thankyouvermuch), especially as retaliation for ignoring his advances. Yet somehow I'm supposed to be insulted by someone who isn't even old enough to drive thinking that my tits are fake? I don't get it.

The implication, of course, is that only slutty bad girls would have fake boobs. And of course, it's not okay to be a slutty bad girl (whatever that means anyway), so it's okay for 15-year-olds to try to hit on you if you look like a slutty bad girl. Had they been a couple of years older, had I not had my dog, they might have been more aggressive (in which case I would have had to take off my Mary Kay pins and defend my honor by busting some skulls and calling the cops).

It's fabulous, really, this thought process that goes on in the minds of some men and boys. You're obviously a slut in a good way so I'm gonna hit on you, but if you ignore me you're a slut in a bad way so I'm gonna tell you what I really think about you. These guys don't understand that we already know what they think of us the moment they start harassing us in the street. We know the second a douche-y little wanna-be gangbanger (and we're talking white kids from the suburbs, so he's more of a wannabe-Shadey than anything else -- which is also amusing for a kid from Lynnwood) starts trying to pick us up in that douche-y little wanna-be way: he thinks that because I'm wearing a skirt, or because I have big tits (that fwiw, are 100% my own fat grown in that part of my body because that's what my genes demanded), I'm a piece of meat.

The funniest thing, though, is that this kid wasn't more than 15. I can see a 25-year-old thinking that he might have a chance so why not say "hey hott stuff" or something inappropriate like that, but 15? Really? First of all, illegal. Second of all, I wouldn't even want to touch him because boys that age have a hair-trigger ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkthatyoudo. Third, I'm gonna have to be at least 55 before being half my age will be an acceptable criterion for a guy to whose sexual advances I respond. Finally, where the hell did a 15-year-old work up the chutzpah to hit on a fully-grown woman? Video games? Rap music? Or is it just one more example of the asshattery going on in the world this week? The quadfecta of douche-y diatribes is completed by this little pip-squeak? Well, at least he accomplished something.

Godwin's Law

2009-09-14T23:40:00.001-07:00

Dear Internet,

You and I have had some problems in the past. Remember that time you hosed up my computer because of that one bug in IE7? Or that time in college when I put up those scandalous photos? Or that other time in college when I put up those other scandalous photos? We've been through a lot, but mostly we've gotten through it for two reasons: feminist blogging, and old episodes of the Muppet show sliced into 9-ish minute segments posted on YouTube.

Lately, though, there's been some things going on that I just have to call you to the floor for. There's been a lot of talk of Nazis lately, and I'm not talking about the actual Nazis who killed 6,000,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Polish people, 3,000,000 Russians, 1,000,000 Gypsies (or Romani), 250,000 mentally and physically disabled people, 15,000 homosexuals, 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as lots of German dissidents, socialists, and other people who aren't counted on the handy little chart on the Holocaust Wiki page). No, those Nazis aren't be discussed so much these days, it's more like asshats like this guy, comparing sex workers to Nazis. Or any number of bed-wetting, Glen-Beck-watching Freeper Morons who keep painting Hitler mustaches on pictures of President Barack Hussein Obama. (Just click the link and hit CTRL+F and type in "nazi" and you'll be able to navigate the handily documented Freeper quotes.)

Now, Internet, we both love each other, and if you want to talk about sex workers being horrible people who prop up the patriarchy by engaging in teh secks with teh menz for teh $$$, fine. Let's have a discussion. You can start with how inherently bad money is because it, too, props up the patriarchy since capitalism is essentially one great big game of "who's got the biggest wang!". You may feel free to continue to tell me how engaging in sex for money objectifies all women by proxy because when one woman does something, all women do it -- which, I assume, is where the myth that "all women are bisexual" came from. But the second that you start saying things like "Nazis used to give certain Jews jobs and power over other Jews in the concentration camps, therefore any woman who engages in sex work is just like one of those Jews that betrayed the others to find favor with the Nazis"; your're doing less for the conversation and more for the perception that you are, in fact, an accessory one might wear on one's hind-end.

And if you want to talk about President Obama's policies, feel free. You can say whatever you want about how certain policies of the administration. Hell, if you want, you can say that he's just as bad as George W. Bush for continuing the war in Afghanistan, and not putting pressure on congress to repeal at least some of the more egregious aspects of the Patriot Act. But the next time you utter a string of words that include "Obama" and "Nazi" without the words "calling President a" and "makes no sense"; you are again doing less for the conversation and more for the perception that your sole purpose, Internet, truly is the browsing of porn.

Internet, Godwin's Law is now in effect. Quite simply, "that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact". I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else, and I understand where the desire to demonize one's intellectual opponents comes from -- especially on emotional issues. It's easy, when discussing these topics (sex work, health care, Governor Sanford's continuing governorship), to allow your emotions to run away with you; humans are not logical creatures, we are inherently emotional creatures, so the first place we go is emotion. We seek to get others to our way of thinking by appealing to their emotions. Appealing to their love of their granny, appealing to their hatred of brown people; appealing to their deep-seated instinct to call women who enjoy sex "dirty, dirty whores".

I'm not saying that you can't continue to love your gran, hate the Mexicans in the kitchen of every restaurant you've ever been to, and stroke your mighty internet-cock while insinuating that women who like sex deserve whatever poor treatment they get IRL. I'm not saying that at all. All I'm saying is to edit out the bit about them being Nazis before you post your comment. Barack Obama isn't a Nazi (by the way, fun fact, the Nazis killed people of color too). Sex workers aren't Nazis. The only people who can rightfully be called Nazis are Nazis and neo-Nazis. That's it.

I mean, if you're watching skinhead porn, that's one thing, but Oz has been off the air for 10 years, so it's time you got over it. K?

Love,

Rachel

2009-08-30T14:35:00.001-07:00

Apparently Canada is bankrupt (according to a questioner).

2009-08-30T14:08:00.001-07:00

Inslee: congress members will use public option.

2009-08-30T14:07:00.001-07:00

Questioner: if you oppose a public option, give up your medicare, public schools, and all other gov programs" (and someone behind me keeps screaming "NO WAY!"

2009-08-30T14:04:00.003-07:00

ans... It has the ability to reduce costs... Not a government takeover... Funded by premiums by ppl who choose public option."

2009-08-30T14:04:00.001-07:00

Inslee: public option is fundamental to healthcare reform. "I have seen what happens when people don't have choice... Those ppl are prisoners to their pl

2009-08-30T13:57:00.001-07:00

Reform: bans "pre-existing conditions", prevents insurers from charging women more; creates public option; insurance premiums cannot be more than 12% of income

2009-08-30T13:51:00.003-07:00

lly what we do in the state of washington"

2009-08-30T13:51:00.001-07:00

Proposed paying for it: savings on waste, fraud and abuse: 56%; repeal Bush tax cuts: 12%; "there are very substantial savings to be had if we do nationa

2009-08-30T13:47:00.001-07:00

Rep Inslee is pro-reform. Says we can't afford to do nothing.

2009-08-30T13:26:00.003-07:00

Liveblogging today from Jay Inslee's healthcare town hall. Have cameraman in case I'm able to ask my question, in the meantime I'll keep updating via the

2009-08-30T13:26:00.001-07:00

crackberry.

Yeah, it's a little warm

2009-07-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

"Don't melt," my best friend warned me on Sunday. Sunday, which was about 10 degrees cooler and, when the humidity was under 50% still.

Yesterday was pretty warm, I will say that. The temperature gage in the car said it was 103 at one point (but I'm pretty sure it didn't really get above 95 ambient temp). So, I wore light clothing, cotton undies, and sunscreen. I, for one, was fine with the heat (still am, we're in Day 2 of the Extreme Heat Advisory), but I've noticed a few people aren't.

But that's just how things are in this area. If it's raining, some not-insignificant portion of the population is whining about the rain. If it's cold, some portion is whining about the cold, and the anchors on the news are asking the weather man when it's gonna warm up. If it's overcast and 65 degrees, some portion is whining about there not being enough sun. If it's sunny and warm, some segment is whining about how it's too hot or too bright or too... humid. Because in Seattle, most people can't tell the difference between humidity and sweating.

I've figured out why this is: Seattle is full of people who always need something to complain about, and the weather is a perfect topic because you can't do a damn thing about it except either enjoy it or whine about it. (Personally, I'm more interested in complaining about the complainers than this gorgeous weather!) So, it's the same people who keep saying "it's too hot" or "it's too cold" or "I hate the rain", wah wah wah. The SAME PEOPLE! All the do is whine. And you know, I can't handle it, Seattle! Grow up! If you don't like the fact that we have seasons here, move somewhere that doesn't like California or the Yukon Territories!

Anyway, this so-called Heat Wave (and as much as people on the East Coast or in the Midwest or especially the South will tell us that we're whiny pussies for thinking that four days of 90+ degree heat and 50%+ humidity, it is unusual for the area), is actually quite pleasant for us sun worshippers who really only live here because this is where our families settled down. Of course, once it's over, we're gonna whine, wondering where the sun has gone.

2009-07-20T20:15:00.000-07:00

Remember this?

Why do poor people get to have things?

2009-07-15T23:19:00.001-07:00

I encounter this argument constantly when discussing social issues. Some right wing asshole will whine about how a woman using food stamps to buy her groceries is clacking away on her Blackberry with her recently manicured nails. "I can't afford that $400 phone, so how can someone on state assistance afford it? Shouldn't they be putting that money into their grocery bill?"

Or -- and this one is my favorite, I encountered it while I was in college full time, working two jobs, and receiving food stamps so that I could pay my rent and feed myself -- "do you have a cell phone? internet? cable? Surely you could use the money for that on food instead of using my tax money".

People who have never been poor don't understand one basic aspect of being fucking poor: you get really good at getting shit for free. Using my own example, I had a cell phone and internet access, yes, my parents paid for my phone, and I was using free dial-up from a service that offered dial-up to people for free without any sort of registration. I made plenty of sacrifices (this was in 2006 people! I was still using dial-up until 2007!), and actually wasn't spending money on these things.

And of course, the woman with the newly manicured nails and "expensive" cell phone (this example I heard on a radio show once), probably got the phone for free when she signed up for the cell phone plan, and there are other ways to pay for a manicure than with money. Maybe she had a girlfriend who worked in a nail salon and offered her a trade. Maybe she worked in a nail salon making minimum wage and one of the perks of her job (a perk that didn't do anything to feed her children) was free manicures.

People who have never been poor make a lot of assumptions about people who are poor. A lot of them. Chief among those is that poor people aren't allowed to have nice things. Ever. It doesn't matter where it came from (a gift from a parent or relative? free gift with purchase? it's actually one of the shittiest phones offered by the company she signed up with?), poor people aren't allowed to have nice things. They should sell those things and use that money to feed themselves. Except that there aren't a whole hell of a lot of things that you can do without phone or internet access (or a car if you live in a 'burbs), but still you hear the whining "why are poor people allowed to have things?"

It's actually really annoying to have someone who has no clue about your circumstances try to lecture you on what your priorities should be. My income is pretty minimal right now, but I have to have a phone so that I can keep in contact with my customers. I have to have internet access so that I can maintain my business. It's not right to make assumptions about someone circumstances when the only real qualification you have to lecture someone on priorities is having a little bit more disposable income.

A commentary about car commercials

2009-06-28T20:57:00.000-07:00

Kia, the South Korean car company, has a new commercial out. I don't know if you've seen it, but the basic gist is that the company has been around for 15 years. C'mon, what do people anthropomorphise more than their cars?

I would say that there's some kind of cultural divide going on here, but I'm pretty sure that's a load of crap because we all know that an American ad agency came up with that commercial. Which makes me wonder if American ad companies really know anything about Americans. Seriously, what were you like when you were 15? I know what I was like, and I do not trust a car company that is willing to boast about being 15.

At 15, you're way past the cute phase. Not only that, you're not far enough past puberty that your body has evened itself out. Acne, hair's still uneven, you're all awkward. Yeah, those are all qualities I want in a car. The upholstry's in places it's never really been before, the car's got acne; sure it's got a GPS unit, but all it ever says is "you're not the boss of me!" Your car hasn't acted this way since it was three, and the worst part about it is the thing's not even old enough to drive!

Awesome. A car that's not old enough to drive. Do you really want to advertise that?

RIP MJ

2009-06-25T18:43:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson, the undisputed King of Pop, died today. I was doing a color facial, when I got a text message from a friend. Later, when I was outside BS-ing with my client (and very good friend) when her fiance came outside and told us it was confirmed, he was dead. When I got home, I played "Thriller" on the big stereo.

Because I can't post the video, which is undoubtedly the best music video ever, it's in the link. But here's a group of prisoners in the Philipines practicing the Thriller dance.

Now, I know, not everyone loved MJ like I do, (and some are downright creepy in their devotion, I just love his music), but today is a sad day in music as we know it.

Jon&Kate plus divorce lawyers

2009-06-22T20:06:00.000-07:00

It seems like everywhere I look lately, whatever source isn't covering the shitstorm in Iran (it's like a sandstorm, but with bullets and protesters screaming, in Farsi, "Death to the Dictator"), is babbling on and on about Jon and Kate Gosselin of that terribly-horribly-awful really bad show, "Jon & Kate plus 8" (which has evolved into "Jon & Kate plus 8+, Jon's mistress, Kate's temper, and divorce lawyers) -- j'accuse Yahoo! News.

What I don't understand about this whole thing, is why these people have subjected and exploited their children to be on the teevee, knowing full well how the lives of multitudes of child actors have turned out (only "Blossom" has had a productive life). But what really baffles me is why people care so much about Jon and Kate Gosselin.

For those who are better at avoiding entertainment news than I am, Jon had an affair, Kate got her picture on the cover of some rag spanking one of her dozens of children and that child "screaming in pain" (according to the Entertainment Tonight clip that was played on The Soup this week), and they're going to allow their messy divorce to be fodder for their stupid tv show.

First of all, this isn't interesting, *coughYahoocough*, everybody's family is fucked up. I've been through tons of dramatic family bullshit, but I don't think it should be on the teevee to entertain people whose lives are temporarily not that fucked up. Secondly, they're not providing a service, they aren't providing an example. And instead of delivering even the entertainment value of a day time talk show or soap opera, all that's really going on for the audience is plain old fashioned schadenfreude, the most amusing and ironic part of which is that they show is owned and aired by the ABC/Disney "Family" channel.

I don't know how exploiting your children and the pain of your partner for your own personal celebrity and gain equates to family values in a post-9/11 world, but I do know that despite whatever drama goes on in my family at least I have the character not to allow the falling out to go down on live television. There's a possibility that all of this is just a publicity stunt, or that those children are just actors, and Kate is really a washed up soap actress teevee who got plastic surgery after her last remaining Daytime Emmy disintegrated from exposure to sunlight; that Jon is just a reject from American Idol who managed to get a really good agent... but still. What the fuck, America?

2009-06-22T00:33:00.000-07:00

2009-06-22T00:32:00.001-07:00

Haven't posted in a while...

2009-06-17T20:58:00.001-07:00

To my loyal readers: I apologize.

I haven't had a lot of time to blog cause I've been working the MK business and enjoying the sun. OMG. Sun. In SEATTLE of all places! (And in completely unrelated news, started my Yoga Teacher Training.)

But, in case you've been living under a rock (or don't use the Twitters), here's the Tweet-Stream for the demonstrations and whatnot going on in Iran. All I can really say is: INTENSE. There's a lot of random chatter, but the images and videos are ...just read it. #IranElection

I'll try to generate some content in the next couple of days in regards to domestic issues (I'm gonna leave the Iranalysis to the experts).

For now, I must escape into Mythbusters.

I have never had an abortion

2009-06-01T23:26:00.000-07:00

I just want to be upfront about it. Never having been through that does not make me better or smarter or more catious than those women who have been through it. It doesn't make me more righteous in the eyes of some deity who may or may not give a fuck about the contents of my uterus. I have never had an abortion, not even a pregnancy scare. I've been lucky. I got a good education, and I had a mom who was open about the whole birth control thing.

However, I have made the choice. If I ever did become pregnant I would have an abortion. There are a number of factors, and I assure you that it's not a decision I made lightly, but it is my choice to make and no one else's. Similarly, I do not have the right to make that decision for any other woman.

Why, exactly, did I just tell you that? Why would I post something so private on the internet like that? Especially this topic?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we can't stay silent on this topic. The women I know who have had abortions didn't come to those conclusions lightly, and they shouldn't be shamed for undergoing a legal proceedure that made it possible for them to be the women they are now. They are, and were, in the words of Dr. George Tiller, "emotionally, mentally, morally, spiritually and physically competent to struggle with complex health issues", and shouldn't be treated as though they are or were anything other than that.

I went to the vigil for Dr. Tiller in Seattle tonight. The sun shown on all of us there: women and men, of all ages, creeds, and colors. Some children were enjoying the opportunity to walk barefoot in the wading pool at Cal Anderson Park. All of these people are pro-choice, anti-violence, and believe that women have the right to make up their own minds about what goes on in their bodies and it's not a question of whether abortion is moral or not, it's a question of who we value more, who contributes more: the woman with the uterus, or the zygot/fetus that inhabits it. Do we value women who are not only able to create and sustain human life, but also contribute to society as entrepreneurs, comedians, scientists, educators, and yeah, moms? Or do we value a glob of cells that can do nothing and be nothing without the woman inside whose uterus that glob of cells becomes human?

As a society, we need to decide which is more important. For me, women are more important. And I'm pretty sure you feel the same way, whatever your moral givings or misgivings are in regards to abortion. Most people in this country think that abortion should be legal at least some of the time. Those who don't are often times liars and full of shit, because they'll also back the forced sterilization of women of color, or forced abortions for the women who are essentially slaves in the Marianas Islands (*coughcoughTomDelaycough*). Those who don't believe that women are more important than globs of cells will kill doctors. That's not pro-life.

Most people frame this as two-sided issue, but as it is with many complex issues (such as healthcare), there are far more than two sides. The main groups in this are pro-choice individuals (callously called "pro-abortion" by some), pro-life individuals, and the anti-choice wing-nuts with whom pro-lifers are often confused. Being pro-life does not mean that you are a wing-nut who will kill a doctor for your ideology; it doesn't mean that you picket doctor's offices and health centers and try to intimidate women into not having their abortions.

Being pro-life, actually, is pretty similar to being pro-choice. Most pro-life people that I know seek to protect the life of the mother and the future-child. They believe in preventing unwanted pregnancies just like pro-choicers do, but think that adoption is a better solution. The pro-life people that I know do, however, think that there are some circumstances where abortion is at least an understandable action to take (although, they may not like the idea).

The thing here is that people who are pro-life have a lot more in common with people who are pro-choice than those who are anti-choice. Pro-choice people value life. Anti-choice people don't. The assassination of Dr. Tiller should be evidence enough of that. In fact, you can be pro-life and pro-choice. It's really easy, you just say "I believe that whatever a woman does with her uterus and its contents are her business", and if you want to add "I personally would not have an abortion", that's completely up to you, but it's time that we came to a real consensus in this country and decided that, in reality, a woman contributes a whole lot more to society when her right to bodily autonomy are recognized and encouraged.

As I've said before, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. I'm pretty sure most people reading this are enlightened enough to realize, however, that their experience isn't universal and that whatever they feel is the morality or immorality of abortion, the truly moral thing to do is to respect women's rights and not let anyone else choose for them either abortion or carrying a pregnancy to term.

Now say it with me, I know you can do it: whatever a woman does with the contents of her uterus is her business.

If you're pro-life too, add that last bit.

And, oh yeah, sometimes women who have abortions would rather have kept their pregnancies, but those pregnancies went awry. So don't judge a woman who has had an abortion.

Today in FUCKING OBVIOUS

2009-05-21T12:10:00.000-07:00

Poor people have to pay more for basic necessities.

While I'm glad that someone is finally writing about this most obvious fact of poor life, it's so fucking obvious I'm kinda pissed at the class privilege that comes out in this article. Groceries cost more in poorer areas of town; not having a washing machine means you have to pay to do your laundry -- if you live in an apartment building that has a washer/dryer on site, not only do you have to pay the electricity to run the machine, you also have to pay for use of the machine; transportation costs more and EVERYTHING takes longer to do. Time is money people! And most middle class people don't realize these facts of poverty.

Just read the article.

New art at RachelSetzer.com

2009-05-20T22:37:00.000-07:00

Check it out.

Oh boy! Class privilege survey!

2009-05-17T21:40:00.000-07:00

Stolen from Daisy.

How many privilege-steps would you have to make?

Step into Social Class (this is an updated version)
A Social Class Awareness Experience
Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka
Indiana State University
© 2007

(NOTE: it is taken for granted that you are in college or did attend, since this test was first given to college students.)

Introduction:

An activity designed to help the participants gain awareness of the vast range of social class that exists within themselves and others. This has been updated based on the wide range of feedback we received as this was becoming a popular experience.

Equipment:

A big room with space to move for all participants
Chairs to sit for discussion

Rules:

Pay attention to how you feel. Angry, sad, happy, winner, loser . . .
No talking – we will talk about this a lot when it is over
Line up here and take a step forward of about 1 (one) foot or one foot length for every fact that applies to you.

For blogs, bold the following facts that apply to you:

Part I, when you were in college:

Father went to college
Father finished college
Mother went to college [She dropped out before I was born and finished via correspondence courses when I was in high school.]
Mother finished college
Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor. (no blood relatives, but do have in-laws) [Well, was a lawyer...step relative...]
Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Had more than 500 books in your childhood home
Were read children's books by a parent
Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18 [Voice, junior high]

Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively [I don't know how to answer this... yes and no]
Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs [I wish]
Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs [I wish]
Went to a private high school
Went to summer camp
Had a private tutor
If you have been to Europe
Family vacations involved staying at hotels [But they were few and far between]
Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18
Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
There was original art in your house when you were a child [It was my art.]

Had a phone in your room before you turned 18 [I even had a cell phone a month or so before I turned 18]
You and your family lived in a single family residence [Eventually]

Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home
You had your own room as a child [Most of the time.]
Participated in an SAT/ACT prep course
Had your own TV in your room in High School
Owned a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
Went on a cruise with your family
Went on more than one cruise with your family
Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up [Pacific Science Center REPRESENT!]
You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family [I did know, however, that there was a time when a lot of our food came from a food bank.]

...

Discussion:
What were the feelings that you had during this experience? Were you angry? -- Honestly, no. I was shocked at some things because I wondered if anyone actually got to go on multiple cruises, and own an IRA or mutual fund as a child. I suppose if I had done this with other people I'd gone to college with I might have reacted differently.

Part II, in childhood:

If your body does not bear long-term signs of malnutrition.
If you had orthodontia.
If you saw a doctor for anything other than emergencies or school-mandated shots. [Frankly, I consider not being able to walk an emergency, but chiropractic is a luxury... as is having a mother who has some clue about medicine]
If you heated your home with clean-burning fuels or had properly vented heating.
If you grew up in a house without vermin.
If you had running water.
If you had a basement or foundation under your house.
If you had an indoor toilet.
If your parents and immediate family were outside the criminal justice system.
If you yourself remained outside the criminal justice system.
If your parents had a new car.
If you never went barefoot so that you could ’save your shoes for school.’
If your parents never argued in front of you about having enough money for food to last out the month. [Aaand another step back because I only had the one parent who cried silently in her room because she was scared about not having enough money for food to last out the month.]
If you ate hunted and fished meat because it was a recreational activity rather than as the major way to stock a freezer.
If your laundry was done at home in a washer rather than in a lavandaria. (Laundromat.)
If your hair was cut by a professional barber or hair stylist instead of your parent.

31 privilege points! Go mom!

Daisy wonders why the test doesn't seem to care about family relationships. I have to say that I was kind of insulted that the test assumed that my parents were together in order to argue in front of me about money. Now, not all of the bolded points were true for me throughout my entire childhood, (there were fleas in one of the houses I grew up in; for most of my childhood we lived in multiple family residences and moved around a lot for various reasons), looking at this I have to recognize that I was very lucky as a child, and have been since.

The other thing is that my mom had the opportunity to be extremely resourceful. Yes, we technically went to museums because my mom made sure that we were members of the Pacific Science Center, and going there was a real treat; we were also involved in Girl Scouts (which I was told, as a kid, was also a privilege) so we were able to go on educational outings for a reasonable price with my troop (but I usually missed out on school field trips because we didn't have the money, but I only learned that that was the reason years and years later when I started being able to connect the dots), and because my mom was troop leader, I'm certain that she often organized events that were more affordable in consideration of our circumstances as well as those of other girls' whose families were in similar straits.

So, I don't know... privileged, yes. Lucky, yes. But there wasn't a second that I took it for granted. I even remember looking at the prices of things before I told my mom that I wanted it. Now, I recognize how lucky I was because I didn't really know what was going on most of the time.

Anyway, them's my thoughts... feel free to share your own.

I'm not sure what this means

2009-05-07T20:19:00.000-07:00

Should I feel old, cool, or some other emotion when a line from an Offspring song is used as the subtitle of a story on the Rachel Maddow Show?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A break from random blogging for some content

2009-05-05T14:25:00.000-07:00

I can't tell you why the only content I've been posting today are images and little snippets that only really amuse me; I can't tell you because I don't know. I'm having a slow day... and not slow as in the day isn't going by very fast... just mentally deficient and sleepy so I'm baking a loaf of bread and sitting around the house because it's been a while since I've done either of these things.

Another thing I haven't done in a while is put in my two cents about some things that I've been hearing a lot about on the televisions and internets (aside from swine flu, which the CDC has now confirmed 9 cases in Washington state with another 36 "probable" cases -- I'm still not worried, frankly and my advice remains: wash your damn hands).

So, I'll start with Justice Souter's impending retirement. President Obama has to appoint a woman to replace Souter. That's pretty much all I have to say. I've been working too hard lately to pay much attention to judicial nominations, but I'm sure that you are bright enough to have your own comments on Souter below.

Next: Asher Roth. I was over at my non-maternal twin's house last week and heard the song "I love college". Now, as far as hip-hop and rap go, I don't know Akon from Wy-Clef (although, I totally dig the studio versions of Kanye's "Heartless"), but I know a douchebag when he brags about getting a drunk 19-year-old naked (and as memory serves, when I was 19 that was no big feat... hell, it still isn't). Racialicious has an even more in-depth take on this guy than him simply being a douche: he's presenting his white upper-middle-class privilege rapper style as an alternative to blackness. There's a quote of Roth where he goes so far as to say:

“Culturally, Em[inem] was almost a black guy. My background is more stereotypically white.”

Make of that what you will (white=not poor, not picked on, privileged), but personally, I'm pretty fucking offended. I don't know what this guy thinks he's trying to say, but the majority of poeple living in poverty are white (because the majority of the population is white, dur), so when he says "stereotypically white", I really don't know what he's trying to say except that he thinks he's better than people whose backgrounds aren't "stereotypically white", whatever that means.

Finally, last week, Iowa Congressman Steve King wasted some valuable tax-payer time ranting about various kinds of -philias as a reason why Congress shouldn't pass the new Federal Hate Crimes bill (named for Matthew Shepard). Well, take a look...

Now, King wants to exempt pedophiles from being dubbed a "protected class" under new hate crimes legislation because, as we all know, pedophile is a sexual orientation. (And he can't follow the rational thought on the other side.) I also don't think it dignifies a congressman to call someone's sexual organs "plumbing" on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Feel free to throw in your two cents on any of this in the comments...

Dear World...

2009-05-05T14:20:00.001-07:00

Dane Cook is not funny. Please stop giving him comedy specials, lead roles in movies, and any recognition whatsoever because he is not funny and hasn't been since 2001.

Thank you.

And now for something completely different

2009-05-05T11:13:00.001-07:00

Monday Doggy Blogging

2009-05-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

Stew, and his dad, are both natural skeptics (although, it's hard for a pug to be skeptical), so everything I say is met with this expression.

Oh no! Swine flu in Washington! Everybody PANIC!!!

2009-05-01T15:34:00.000-07:00

Oh wait, not really. 14 suspected cases.

May I remind you that as of July 2008, the population of Washington State was 6,549,224. If we round up to 7,000,000, 1 in every half million people in the State of Washington may have been infected thusfar. That is, if those cases of swine flu really are swine flu. According to the CDCs' website on this thing, there haven't been any confirmed cases of swine flu in the state of Washington yet.

Moreover, there have been 141 confirmed cases in the country, with 1 death. That is a less than 1% mortality rate, and this thing isn't exactly spreading like wildfire. It's been going on for a week and we've had fewer than 150 confirmed cases. In a week. That's not very much, if you're at all familiar with air-borne pathogens.

Okay, so, let's do some math here.

We'll say the population of the US is holding steady at 300,000,000 (three hundred million), and we'll say that there really have been 150 cases. That means 1 person in every two million people in this country has caught the swine flu.

Now, two million is 2,000 thousands. So what do these numbers mean? I'll use some local examples.

Safeco Field, where the Mariners play, holds somewhere around 50,000 people. So, if you cram four people into every single seat in Safeco Field, ONE PERSON in the entire four-times-over-capacity staduim will be infected with this swine flu.
In the city of Seattle, (population just under 600,000) less than one third of a person would be infected.

So, yeah, as the numbers currently stand, one in every two million people in the whole country has swine flu. And, I know, with more people infected, the rate of infection will go up, of course. But let's just say that the virus capable of causing a pandemic is a teeny-tiny-teeny-little underacheiver when it only infects 141* people in 5 days. I'm pretty sure Wilt Chamberlain spread faster than that.

That's not to say you shouldn't take precautions. You should ALWAYS wash your hands with hot water and soap, and if you're immune-compromised you should do it more often. Keep the rest of your body clean, including your fingernails, and if you bite your fingernails (like my Schmoogie does) FUCKING STOP IT! It's gross, and you're going to get sick.

Take your vitamins, get enough sleep, cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze, eat a balanced diet, and all of those other things your mom got on your ass about when you were a kid. Moms are the CDC's infantry, you know. Also, don't lick or kiss your classmates or coworkers (especially if they are sick), and again, wash your damn hands. (Most people don't seem to realize that our hands touch everything, and that everything everywhere is covered in germs. I repeat: YOUR HANDS ARE COVERED IN GERMS.)

So, enough with the panic, alright? The Seattle Erotic Arts Festival is this weekend. Go enjoy some penis art instead of freaking out about a virus that is affecting 1 in every 2,000,000 people in this country.

__________________________________
*Yes, I realize I am flaunting my American privilege by with this statement. There have been 331 cases in 11 countries, according to The Who... I mean, the WHO. Now, I don't have a calculator big enough to figure out how many billions of people that is per case (bearing in mind that there are 6 billion plus people on this damn planet, and over 200 countries). So, when we look at the global outlook on this stupid thing, we find that the panic is even less founded than previously thought. Just wash your goddamn hands, okay?

Monday Friday Doggy Blogging

2009-05-01T14:23:00.000-07:00

Glamor pug! Digital image (natch), photoshopped for the Ye Olde Pugge on a Chaire look (in the photography world, we call that sepia toning). This'll be going in my "what I did over the weekend" file. But it's just so adorable (a-DOOR-AH-bluh) I had to post it today... plus I didn't post any Stewart on Monday cause I was really busy being away from my computer.

Laura Ingram: ingesting hormones is bad for you

2009-04-29T11:58:00.000-07:00

Listen to Jessica Valenti on *shudder* Ingram's show here. Note to Jessica: you go girl.

Near the end, Ingram goes on a brief diatribe about how taking birth control pills is bad for women because they're ingesting hormones everyday (but of course, because pregnancy is "the natural course of the human body" the havoc played on a woman's hormones is not bad for her -- which I guess is why ...nevermind, another subject for another day). Taking pharmaceuticals that synthesize hormones is bad for you.

I have two kinds of hormones I take daily. Birth control is one of them. The other is a naturopathically prepared synthesized thyroid hormone. One of these pills will prevent me from having to deal with the side effects of a condition that could leave me paralyzed. The other keeps me from losing my focus, getting migraines, keeps my energy level from dropping, and helps treat certain depression symptoms. Now, if you're a doctor, you're gonna know which one is which, but if you're Laura Ingram, I'm guessing you don't know which is which.

But that's not my point. My point in taking birth control is that I don't want to have children, and while it also helps to prevent a condition that could leave me paralyzed (because I have a hole in my spine and having something growing in my body right on top of the place where that hole is could have severe ramifications for my health), I don't really have to justify it. I don't want kids. I just happen to have medical reasons for that as well, and taking those hormones, while it may have an effect on my body at some point in my life is actually less dangerous to my overall health (and I suspect this is the case for a lot of women) than a pregnancy would be.

Now, the second part. The second hormone pill, Levothyroxine...

Our bodies make hormones naturally. During our entire lives, depending on stress level, diet, exercise level, and natural bodily chemistry, our hormones fluctuate. A woman has a cycle of hormone fluctuations and this is what causes various things to occur in our bodies that lead fertility and the much maligned and feared period. Hormones regulate everything in our bodies from the reproductive cycles (for each gender), to level of aggressiveness, even cravings for specific foods. Everything in the body is regulated by hormones. My body doesn't make enough thyroid hormone (which regulates, among other things, metabolism), and as a consequence makes too much thyroid stimulating hormone, called TSH, and that leads to a whole bunch of shit going on in my body including some of the symptoms listed above. So, every day I take a pill with a synthetic hormone called Levothyroxine in it which helps my body to regulate my T3 and T4, and make sure that I'm not producing too much TSH. I have a condition called hypothyroidism, and while it is mild (thank GOD!), not taking that synthetic hormone actually would do more damage to my body than taking a synthetic hormone.

So, once again, Laura Ingram doesn't have a fucking clue what she's talking about. Now, she might say "that's not what I meant!", because, well it isn't. Telling people that taking birth control pills could give you cancer (which I'm pretty sure there's no data to back up) is just another way of taking reproductive options away from women -- especially young women. There are some forms of birth control that are bad for you, (depending on your individual chemistry, your age, whether you smoke, blah blah blah), but a blanket statement like "taking synthetic hormones is bad for you" is not only demonstrably false (see above), but advice like that can actually hurt people. But of course, Laura Ingram is not a medical doctor (again, thank GOD!), so no one would take her advice seriously, would they?

I freaking hope not. I, for one, will be continuing to take my birth control to prevent pregnancy and to manage symptoms of what I think might be endometriosis; and I will also continue to take my thyroid pills every day. Because I know that not taking these synthetic hormones (which my body produces, but not in great enough amounts to do what I need the medicine to do) every day will in fact harm my body and quality of life more than whatever side effects may or may not be associated with taking synthetic hormones every day.

At least Secretary Clinton isn't disappointing me

2009-04-27T17:05:00.000-07:00

Friday Feminist Fuck You[r delicate sensibilities]

2009-04-24T16:47:00.000-07:00

I belong to an internet community of really smart people with big egos, and in that internet community, we discuss all kinds of topics including female health issues. Recently the thread has been active. We've been talking about pap smears and other procedures that prevent cervical cancer, as well as menstruation and endometriosis. So one of the guys on the board comes into the thread and posts a "vomit" emoticon.

This is offensive for two reasons: first, the thread is called "female health issues", but because this man feels a sense of entitlement (not only to all areas of the board, but that everyone is entitled to his opinion) he feels it's not only necessary but acceptable for him to express his displeasure at our discussing our sexual organs as they exist in circumstances that aren't sexy. If you're a woman, you're probably not surprised by this. In fact, you're probably used to it, but that doesn't make it any less offensive.

Secondly, the discussion of the penis occurs throughout our culture (and message board) and is very rarely restricted to one thread on a message board. If the guys on the board wanted to talk about prostate health, it'd go into the general health thread. But not only are the women expected to keep discussion of our anatomy restricted to a single thread, we can't even be respected in that single thread and it becomes necessary for random penis-possessor to barge in on our conversation with a vomit emoticon. (And frankly, there was nothing even remotely graphic in that particular discussion. Certainly nothing vomit-worthy.)

Men pull this kind of shit all the time. The mere mention of a period, (any period, even the grammatical kind) is likely to cause a man to cringe. Posting "Woman issues. Ow." as my status on Facebook got me a "TMI!!!" and admonishment to step away from the crackberry from my boyfriend. Now, he's got more inside information than the average person who keeps up with my Facebook, but still. Yes, everyone knows what I meant by "woman issues", but it's certainly not too much information to post that I'm in pain. Which I am. And it pisses me off. (I won't even go into how "woman issues" only means one thing but "man issues" can mean anthing from health problems related to the male sexual organs to dating drama and daddy issues.)

So, to all those who are offended by my anatomy performing some other function than pleasing you, fuck you and your delicate sensibilities. I bleed. Get over it. And no, I'm not over-reacting cause of hormones. You're being an asshole.

Wow.

2009-04-23T15:02:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Couple of things: poor Jessica. I know 3 against 1 is the model for conservatives versus liberals on cable, but holy shit, that was hideous. I'm surprised she was able to restrain herself from screaming over the other three women (actually not that surprised, Jessica's teevee persona is pretty even-keel), since they kept talking over her. I mean, how fucking rude is that?

Second, I don't get why the other gal couldn't even look at, let alone directly address Jessica. She was using the John McCain debate technique... I'm surprised no one was called "That One".

Finally, that shit at the end about "what girls do with their bodies have consequences for the rest of their lives"... that's why we should teach about contraception. Duh. And, uh, doesn't what anyone, regardless of gender, do with their bodies have a consequence? Or am I wrong in thinking that boys have to face up to consequences too?

Discuss.

Monday Doggy Blogging

2009-04-20T18:42:00.001-07:00

Sometimes Stewie is a very wistful dog. Earlier today, as momma was watchin' her stories, all he wanted was to go for a walk. And I snapped this picture with my Crackberry, without him even knowing.

We did go for a walk. He enjoyed it very much. Especially the part where we stopped at the doggy store and he got three cookies and some water.

Now he's asleep, and I'm watching Rachel Maddow and drinking a beer.

Welcome summer. Please, stay a while.

Play nice or get out

2009-04-18T15:34:00.000-07:00

Lots of drama, (via).

Okay, let's start at the beginning with some vocab: "cis" or "cisgender", (if I am understanding it correctly by way of context as well as this post on Feministe), means that your genetic gender and the way your mind perceives itself gender-wise match up; cisgender people are people who are not transgender or otherwise gender-queer. For a lot of people (including those who are offended by the term), being cis means you are "normal", and I think that perception is what's causing a lot of the drama in Feminist Bloglandia.

For some reason, some people just don't understand that pluralism applies to everybody. If we get to live in a pluralistic society and have whatever sexuality we feel is normal or natural, that means everyone else does. And it doesn't stop at sexuality or religion or racial issues, it extends to gender. The funny thing is that feminism started as a gender issue, yet radical feminists are the last people to get on the gender-plurality bandwagon, and stop being assholes to people whose gender doesn't fit in with the binary gender our culture has forced upon us because our biology (mostly) limits us to one or the other.

The issue is that some feminists think that trans women aren't women. They get offended at the idea of a woman who was born male using the women's restroom. They think that the woman who was born male really is still male, and so will act like a man, and of course the transwoman, who identifies as a woman, who dresses as a woman, who experiences society as a woman -- who sometimes experiences society on even worse terms that ciswomen because she gets the sexist end of the stick from men and the cissexist end of the stick from some women -- is a woman. Period.

We've got all of this shit floating around about what makes a "real" man, what makes a "real" woman; but the large and small of the whole thing is that if you identify as a man, you are a man and if you identify as a woman you are a woman; if you identify as something other than a man or a woman, you are something other than that. And believe it or not people, there are those out there who identify as neither male nor female, or as both; those people exist and they need to be acknowledged as part of society and as part of feminism. Feminism isn't just for women who were born female, who were born white, who were born middle class. Feminism is for the betterment of all women everywhere, and that happens to have a pretty cool side effect (in theory) of making the life better for everyone else who do not identify as women.

The real issue here is prejudice... and well, outright hate in some cases. We can't do this. As feminists we can't do this. Those of us who are not transgender/genderqueer need to educate ourselves rather than expecting people who are transgender/genderqueer to do it, thereby othering them (either purposefully or subconsciously). After we get educated, we need to reach out to trans and genderqueer people and tell them we are sorry for excluding them from feminism and from society. These women (and men) are women and men. They experience society differently from cis-people, but part of that is because we make them. That's not fair.

And I'll tell you something about forcing someone to experience society differently because you think they deserve it: it's not okay. Men have done it to women because "god" made them bigger and stronger. White people have done it to non-whites because "god" advanced their technology faster so they could colonize the rest of the world. Straight people have done it to gay people because someone's god somewhere said that being gay was "an abomination". And now cis feminists are doing the same fucking thing to trans and genderqueer feminists (as well as poor, nonwhite, etc feminists) because god has made it so their brains and biological gender are the same? Come on. We feminists rail against sexism in all of its forms... but when we start acting like assholes because the people we're being sexist against were born male -- this is okay?

Newsflash: it's not. Sexism is wrong. Racism is wrong. Homophobia is wrong. Transphobia is wrong. Cissexism is wrong. We can't play this game, feminism. We can't cut people out like this. It's only going to make our job as feminists harder and our world uglier for all women.

People don't get to be treated well because they were lucky enough to be born "normal"; you treat people well because it's the right thing to do.

It's too easy, but so hard not to

2009-04-17T00:13:00.000-07:00

Have you seen this? It's this shit from Esquire (a magazine directed at upper-middle class, misogynist/homophobic businessmen -- you know, the kind who wears a three piece suit to a bar on a Saturday; have you met this guy? who the fuck does he think he is, anyway?) definitively defining the definition of manliness and manhood with uh... definition. Anyway, it's a puff piece about absolutely nothing.

"A man carries cash. A man looks out for those around him -- woman, friend, stranger. A man can cook eggs. A man can always find something good to watch on television."

A man doesn't give change to homeless people. A man makes sure that those around him are aware of how he is truly the fist of Chuck Norris. A man can't keep himself from changing the channel on the teevee, and/or is just dumb enough than any drivel even This Old House will placate him ("hey, I like This Old House", no you don't, no one likes that show). A man can write short little sentences describing nothing and then ramble on about how cool he is for 250 words.

"Know-how survives him"? What does that even mean?

"A man can speak to dogs." But a woman can get them to respond.

"A man listens, and that's how he argues. He crafts opinions. He can pound the table, take the floor. It's not that he must. It's that he can."

This is where it starts to get ugly. A. Man has the ability to make other people feel insecure. It's not that he must, it's that he can. A. Man is an asshole.

"A man can look you up and down and figure some things out. Before you say a word, he makes you. From your suitcase, from your watch, from your posture. A man infers."

A. Man is capable of deductive reasoning! Congratulations on figuring that one out Esquire! Good lord, it's like reading an essay by a 3rd grader.

"A man can tell you he was wrong. That he did wrong. That he planned to. He can tell you when he is lost. He can apologize, even if sometimes it's just to put an end to the bickering."

But again, let's not confuse "can" with "will". And remember ladies, it's usually your fault in the first place.

"A man loves the human body, the revelation of nakedness. He loves the sight of the pale bosom, the physics of the human skeleton, the alternating current of the flesh. He is thrilled by the wrist and the sight of a bare shoulder. He likes the crease of a bent knee."

Wow, A. Man is starting to sound less like James Bond and more like Richard from Ally McBeal. And what the hell is different about the physics of the human skeleton than the physics of the rest of the goddamn universe? Is "kinesthesiology" to big a word for A. Man?

This one's my favorite:

"Maybe he never has, and maybe he never will, but a man figures he can knock
someone, somewhere, on his bottom."

(Emphasis mine) This is why.

"He understands the basic mechanics of the planet. Or he can close one eye, look up at the sun, and tell you what time of day it is. Or where north is. He can tell you where you might find something to eat or where the fish run..."

Which is why he is never lost; no, he can't; no, he can't; the grocery store and the river, respectively.

"A miter saw, incidentally, is the kind that sits on a table, has a circular blade, and is used for cutting at precise angles. Very satisfying saw."

This bit I just found odd. First, because I have a degree in sculpture that has enabled me on at least one subject and that is the subject of power tools, and I'm pretty sure I didn't sprout a penis my sophomore year of college. Second, because miter saws are expensive and redundant for two reasons: the regular old table saw (for lengths of wood), and the chop saw (now there is a fucking satisfying saw) both of which are versetile enough to enable the more practical, useful and easier to manage 90 degree angled cuts as well as the fancy I-learned-to-make-this-on-This-Old-House "precise" angled cuts that most people don't use because a miter joint is less stable than a butt joint and harder to work with. Don't believe me? Look around your house. How many miter joints do you see? They aren't even used in door frames anymore cause they're so fucking ridiculous.

"Or he stands watch. He interrupts trouble. This is the state policeman. This is the poet. Men, both of them."

Well, except for the ones that are... you know... not.

And, the coupe de gras:

"A man watches. Sometimes he goes and sits at an auction knowing he won't spend a dime, witnessing the temptation and the maneuvering of others. Sometimes he stands on the street corner watching stuff. This is not about quietude so much as collection. It is not about meditation so much as considering. A man refracts his vision and gains acuity. This serves him in every way. No one taught him this -- to be quiet, to cipher, to watch. In this way, in these moments, the man is like a zoo animal: both captive and free. You cannot take your eyes off a man when he is like that. You shouldn't. Who knows what he is thinking, who he is, or what he will do next."

(Emphasis mine) A. Man will make idle threats just to keep everyone else in line. And that, my friends, is what the patriarcy is for.

Really? That offended you?

2009-04-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

A New Low, Even for Burger King

I have to admit, I'm not a fan of the Burger King ad campaigns... the Whopper Jr. and his friend the flaming chicken thing, the exceedingly creepy King... whoever does the ad-storming for Burger King are clearly a bunch of morons who eat too much fast food. At least, until we get the parody of "Baby Got Back" that merges the cultural stalwart with Spongebob Squarepants. This is actually a sign of improvement.

"Yes, because nothing sells fast food to children better than provocatively-dressed women shaking their asses to a remix of Sir-Mix-a-lot's "Baby Got Back.""

says Feministing blogger Richaro. And while I could get us all bogged down in the correction of music industry lingo (it's not a remix, the mix is exactly the same, right down to Sir Mix doing the new lyrics), I prefer to address the sarcasm that is essentially the only commentary on the commercial.

Guess what. Kids don't have money. They aren't trying to sell to children, they're selling to parents, and while the presence of Spongebob and his square pants (in their various forms) is made to catch the attention of the children so they squeal until mom and dad pay attention.

The other thing is, no asses are being shaken. People don't actually have square butts, that's a piece of foam in those short-shorts and the only thing which is being shaken (you'll notice no titties jiggle, even in the full version), moreover, it's not the dancers who are being exploited but Spongebob himself who, as a cartoon character actually has no agency to violate or exploit.

Speaking of the full version, when you watch it, you can see that it is truly a parody of "Baby Got Back", the video for which, humorous as it was, did exploit women. The only thongs in this video are on Spongebob.

This is one of those instances where we feminists need to have a sense of humor.

Don't mind if I do...

2009-04-10T17:03:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Beck,
If it didn't contribute to the suffering of humanity (by virtue of you being human and all - at least I assume that you are), I would. But because it would cause suffering, I won't set you on fire. Lucky for you, most people out there think the way I do on this one... but there might be some who don't, so don't go around asking to be punched in the face.

Friday Feminist Fuck You: The word is "vagina"

2009-04-10T12:55:00.000-07:00

The word is VAGINA. Say it with me male comedians VA-GIN-A. Not *whistling noise*. You are perfectly capable of saying the word "penis" on cable television, I know this cause you just said it. So, unless you're afraid of them, the word is VAGINA. And if you're afraid of a little VAGINA you need to be in therapy not a comedy club in New York City, especially since you are straight-identified.

RIGHT THERE! You just said "penis" again! And now you're talking about sketching someone's balls, yet instead of saying "vagina" you whistle? What the fuck? You're on Comedy Central, douche nozzle, not fucking Sesame Street.

The worst part is, this guy isn't even funny. I'm just wasting time until the Daily Show is on. I'll be Jon Stewart can say the word "vagina" out loud rather than whistling. That's cause Jon is a real comedian. You know, the kind who is funny.

Oh and the joke about punching Jeff Dunham in the face (cause really, how many ventriloquists are there anymore?) was not funny for two reasons: 1) you are not funny, 2) Jeff Dunham is funny. Even if some of his puppets are assholes.

Wrasslemania! YAH!

2009-04-06T12:21:00.001-07:00

Considering that masculinity in our culture is generally defined as being "not gay", how is a bunch of oiled up guys running around in speedos supposed to be manly?

Or is it that manliness in our culture is really such a non sequitur that if you put on enough of a show to make yourself seem macho, you are by default manly regardless of how oiled up and mostly naked you are?

Which also prompts a question: that "ultimate fighting" stuff usually has two guys, within mere seconds of the fight beginning, wrapped around each other with one guy's face in the other guys ass or crotch. However, because they're beating the crap out of each other, it's not really "gay" it's "macho". So, does that mean that gay men who are into rough/violent (consensual) sexual activity are not really gay because they're beating each other up?

Am I just missing something here?

I am so blessed

2009-04-03T15:08:00.000-07:00

I was talking to my BFF-since-junior-high today and at one point she said, "You're doing really well with this Mary Kay thing, and I'm really proud of you."

There is a reason this woman is my BFF. Her saying that and giving me that encouragement really touched my heart. And I realized, I am so blessed to have the wonderful and supportive friends and family. So, I want to thank those people for all they do for me. You are the key to my success.

My capitalist dream isn't based in capitalism

2009-04-02T00:35:00.001-07:00

Mary Kay Ash started Mary Kay Cosmetics with one thing in mind: the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

This socialistical* mantra is the basis for the most successful cosmetics companies, (and the number 3 brand overall) in the country. This free market, capitalistic, every-man-for-himself country. That a company like Mary Kay Cosmetics was even able to get off the ground amazed a lot of people; that it controls a full 10% of the market today speaks very highly of this socialistical ideal.

What's funny about this ideal though is that it levels out the playing field. Everyone starts at the same place with the same thing: a starter kit and many resources from the company (including what to say, how to say it, and lots of other education about the products) that help consultants to book classes, sell product, and share the opportunity with others. Now, the playing field isn't completely level from the start because everyone has different gifts -- some are good at talking and turning on the charm, some have more money for inventory, some have more motivation -- but because we all treat each other the way we would like to be treated, everyone is as successful as they want to be.

So weird that people whose careers are based in such utterly liberalistic*, socialistical nonsense could actually be successful. My god, it's like capitalism with manner! And we all know there's no room for manners in capitalism! It's every-man-for-himself! Only I am entitled to that profit!

Only I am entitled to that profit... that's what most companies are based on. Strangely, people who think like this also decry what they like to call "entitlement programs" like Social Security and Food Stamps which help people who have retired, or hey, haven't managed to yet pull themselves up by their bootstraps (usually because they don't even have feet let alone shoes!); yet they continually scream about how corporations are entitled to make profit. When you think about it, that's what this whole Wall Street bailout garbage is. People didn't do the work necessary, they did the wrong things; they put their own needs first and they didn't abide by the Golden Rule so that by the end of it for every dollar in capital they "owned" there was $30 in debt. Now, if one of these executives at one of these Wall Street firms had known Mary Kay Ash and thought "well, I sure as hell wouldn't want someone dicking around with my money like this, maybe I shouldn't do it to someone else" or "gee, I wouldn't want some lender to trick me into getting a loan that I couldn't afford on my salary even if I worked 100 hour weeks, maybe I shouldn't do that to someone else" instead of chanting this mantra about being entitled to profit and huge golden parachutes given for driving a company into the ground; we wouldn't be in this situation.

If more companies were run according to how Mary Kay Ash set things down when she started Mary Kay Cosmetics, our economy would be doing a lot better. As it is, Mary Kay Cosmetics (and the huge independent sales force) have proved over and over again that cosmetics and skin care are recession-proof, but the basis of this company makes it even stronger. We strive to make people feel special, and it's that "Go-Give" (as opposed to "Go Get") spirit that sets us apart. Yes the products are fantastic, but when your consultant will drive to your house and hand deliver your product, with a thank-you note, and then sit down with you and help you make a wish-list for an up-coming vacation -- are you really ever going to use another brand again? Unlikely.

But, you know what I love most about being a Mary Kay consultant? I can go as far as I want as fast as I want, and the only thing determining my success is me. I can live the capitalist American dream as a consultant (and someday a director) and there's no one to stop me; there's no one to tell me that someone else has to get that car before I can have a turn with it. There's no one to tell me that someone else has to go on that trip before I can take it. There's no one to tell me that someone has to die or retire before I can move up -- all because the structure of this very successful capitalist venture is not based in capitalism. It's based in community. Greed doesn't propel me up the Ladder of Success, leadership does. Greed isn't going to put me in a pink cadilac, leadership will.

In order to be rich, you have to enrich the lives of others. That's another mantra we have in this business -- this capitalist venture that isn't even remotely based on capitalism. In the rest of America, if you want to be rich you have to fight. I don't have to fight, all I have to do is make people feel good about themselves -- and you know what, all of those people who say "making people feel good about themselves doesn't pay the bills" don't know what they're talking about. I haven't seen a cent of my unemployment insurance, but I've still been paying my bills. While making other people feel special and valued.

Even still, people look for a catch. For some reason, certain people want to believe that the Go-Give Spirit is just all talk and no action. It's not possible for everyone to abide by the Golden Rule, they think, and that may be true, but we do it. People in Mary Kay do it because the people who initially exposed us to the company and the culture treated us the way they would want to be treated themselves, everyone who joins pays that forward. If you don't, you won't be very successful at this business. It would be nice if people couldn't be successful in business at all if they didn't live by the Golden Rule, this thing that seems to be so against the rules of capitalism.

Now, maybe Mary Kay, Inc. is a fluke. Within a pluralistic society all things are possible, right? But think about it for a second, if we painted the world pink and everyone treated others the way they wanted to be treated and instead of retaliating when someone was less than nice, saying "well, maybe that person isn't having a very good day" or "maybe that person isn't feeling well"; wouldn't we all be just a little bit happier?

Don't you think we could all be a little richer (financially speaking) too? I do.

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

*"socialistical" is not a word, neither is "liberalistic"; for our purposes here today, however, these are the embodiment of everything feared by conservatives and right wing free-market asshole-lunatics who decry fairness in the market place and think that companies based on the Golden Rule can't work.

Monday doggie blogging

2009-03-30T11:42:00.000-07:00

Stewie loves yoga. When I get out my mat, he'll sit on it while I do my asana. This past week, he decided that he was going to nest on the chair where our yoga mats were resting (you can probably guess which mat belongs to me, and which one is the Schmoogie's).

I got a crackberry

2009-03-29T18:11:00.000-07:00

With an unlimited data plan (because that made the phone FREE). Those of us in the Mary Kay business can get free phones and various discounts (like 12% off your bill, for example) by using T-Mobile, so I finally went out and got a grown-up phone (that is, a phone that, when I call someone shows my name rather than my mother's) and a plan.

This means I have more bills. This means I have to work more. No problem. I just need to meet more people.

Monday doggy blogging

2009-03-23T17:59:00.000-07:00

Stewie and Opus, his BFF.

Stewie did something very silly today. Since I had two classes this weekend, I had to go to the bank this morning (afternoon), so I started the dishwasher, put on my shoes, coat, scarf and hat (Springtime my ass), and headed out for the bus that would take me to my branch. Stewie was very upset that I was leaving without him, staring at me as though I was the worst person who ever lived.

When I returned he was sitting by the window next to our front door, as though he had gone there to watch me leave and anticipate my return with bated pug-breath. I opened the door and he went crazy (as dogs are want to do when mom or dad comes home)... at which point I noticed that the dishwasher was still running. I had been gone less than an hour, and he was acting like I had left him alone for a week. (Also, he's taken to screaming when I get home from a class... Schmoogie's had this dog for 8 years, and Stewie never screams for him. It's kind of sad.)

So, those are the adventures of Stewart. He is currently sleeping.

2009-03-20T19:30:00.001-07:00

And now, a story about a horse.

"The New McCarthyism" is a lot funnier than the old one

2009-03-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

I apologize for posting audio of Limbaugh, but this is too funny not to.

Check it out. He says:

"Then these people will be called up to testify before Chairman Frank's committee. And they will be asked questions like 'have you attended any pro-capitalist meetings during the course of your tenure at AIG?' 'How many of your friends are free-market capitalists? and what are their names? and where can we find them? and if you fail to answer you will be cited as being in contempt of congress.'"

Fucking hilarious right? I mean, who in their right mind would actually ask these questions? What's more, Rush, and those carrying his water, are simultaneously accusing Congressman Frank of being a McCarthyist as well as a communist. Not very apt students of history. Of course, these guys really love to pile on Barney Frank... I think it's partially because of the whole gay thing. Which I think is a weird thing for a bunch of supposedly totally het guys to do. Whatever.

Media Matters points out another gem of Limbaugh's.

LIMBAUGH: I'm very serious. You have a company -- let's take AIG out of this 'cause they're so emotionally charged. Let's say that the company being bailed out is the XYZ Widget Company.
CALLER: Right.
LIMBAUGH: We've determined that we need to bail out XYZ Widget. XYZ Widget has people who work there.
CALLER: Mm-hmm.
LIMBAUGH: We're going to bail XYZ Widget out because we need XYZ Widget to continue operating as an ongoing business.
CALLER: OK.
LIMBAUGH: We need them to manufacture widgets and sell widgets and so forth. So why in the world -- or how do you get to the point where you're going to bail out the company, but you don't want the employees to get paid?

There's a whole lot more of this at the link, but I picked this bit out for one reason: AIG doesn't make anything. Widgets or otherwise. All AIG did (and currently does) is move money around. The don't make anything. Now, let's substitute "XYZ Widget" for "General Motors". Can anyone who listens to Rush tell me whether he was in favor of making sure the employees of GM got paid? Or was he more interested in seeing the the "Big Three" go bankrupt so that the autoworkers union would fail?

Rush Limbaugh is more interested in seeing paychecks for executives and imaginary workers than he is in seeing paychecks for real workers. You know, like the people who listen to his show.

My god. No wonder he took 2,000 oxycontins a week. It would take that amount of narcotics to make any of these arguments even slightly cohesive.

Someone had some time on his hands...

2009-03-18T22:40:00.000-07:00

Schmoogie and I did some math.

Since 1972, Samuel L. Jackson has been in 127 movies, or 3.4 per year.

William H. Macy has been in 115 movies since 1978. 3.7 movies per year.

Which means that William H. Macy is actually harder working than Samuel L. Jackson, and maintains my claim that Macy, rather than Jackson, has been in every movie ever made.

Check that -- Christopher Lee has been in 264 movies since 1948 (9 of which were Dracula movies -- and 6 of which are coming out in the next two years; we've begun to think that he really is Dracula), which is 4.3 movies per year. Making him the king, even though many of his roles have been kinda gimmicky.

(Edited to add...)

A propos of something

2009-03-16T19:45:00.000-07:00

Behold my next goal.

It will be mine. Oh yes. It will be mine.

(Image from MaryKayInTouch.com)

Why I don't care about Bristol Palin and her baby-daddy

2009-03-16T15:13:00.000-07:00

A message board on which I post has seen a flurry of nonsense about the Bristol and Levi break up. A friend of mine commented that she thought it was ironic, and a hand-full of people jumped on her for being judgmental of conservatives or some shit.

There are a number of reasons why I have not blogged about the media dust-up over Brisvi (see what I did there?) breaking up, chief among them being that I really don't give a flying moose. Sarah Palin is funny. She cracks me up (although, I really wish she would get some new material), and as a political figure who refuses to go away already, she's fair game. Her family, however, is of no interest to me not matter how fervently each member was paraded around the campaign trail when Gov. Palin was John McCain's running mate.

Yes, I see the irony. Ha ha, saw that one coming. My friend has a valid point: it is pretty ironic that they made such a huge point out of "Sarah Palin's knocked up daughter is engaged after all", and now that they've split the message is entirely lost, it's true. But Bristol Palin never should have been dragged onto the trail in the first place. Didn't those kids have to be at school? How much did we learn about John McCain's family? He was, after all, the top of the ticket for the Republican party -- if they wanted to push family values, they should have mentioned something about how John and Cindy adopted a baby girl from South East Asia when Cindy was there on a humanitarian mission. If they wanted to push het marriage as a value, they could have made a big deal about how John McCain has several children who are married with their own children.

But no. Bristol Palin, whose pregnancy was made public by the McCain campaign was the center of this idea -- this family values nonsense. And it's wrong. She was provided an extreme disservice by her mother who no doubt authorized this information becoming public. And I think I know why:

Sarah Palin was mortified when she found out Bristol was pregnant; to the point that Sarah wanted to kick Bristol out of the house (allegedly), but then she was tapped as VP for the Republican ticket. Well, can't kick the kid out, that would look bad; instead, embarrass her, air her dirty laundry on the national stage and make everyone in the country who neither knows her nor her circumstances snicker about how irresponsible she is. Sarah Palin made the information about her pregnant, unwed teenage daughter public in order to punish her.

The thing is though, their family business is none of our business. I don't care what it says about the "party of family values". Keeping your family business to yourself is a family value, and keeping your nose out of other people's vagina's is another. It's not important what the Republican party thinks about pregnant teenagers who aren't married and who decide that they aren't going to marry (for whatever reason, it's their business, remember). It's not even important that the daughter of the VP candidate for the Republican party has an unwed pregnant teen. Yes, it's ironic. Yes, it gives even more truth to the "keep your focus on your own damn family" saying that we have on the left.

However, Sarah Palin was wrong to punish her daughter by forcing her pregnancy into the public spot-light and everyone who keeps re-enforcing that punishment by continuing to talk about Bristol and Levi and their child is a bastard (myself included, I suppose). It's not our business, and I'd like to see the subject dropped entirely. The girl is 18 (I think), a new mom, a high school drop out blah blah blah. I know too much about her, and I really don't want to hear any more. What's next? Whether her mom made her wear a training bra stuffed with tissue before her breasts developed? Whether she pees in the shower?

No. No more. Enough with the goddamn over-share for the purpose of cheap political points. Bristol Palin is not a politician or public figure. So leave her the fuck alone already. That goes for you too, Governor Palin.

Edit: hehe, "unwed married teen" doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Fixed. Thanks JE.

Monday doggy blogging

2009-03-16T14:41:00.000-07:00

Jessica at Feministing has been falling behind on her Monday Monty Blogging, so I'm gonna help out by posting pics of my dog, Stewie. So, don't send nasty emails to Jessica, just come here for cute pics of a cute doggie.

Edited to add: Stewie is currently having a running dream.

Whitehouse Council on Women and Girls

2009-03-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

I don't think many people realize how huge this is. Here's President Obama's speech before signing the executive order. I told you he was a feminist.

Is an apple a vegetable? (My appologies to Anderson Cooper)

2009-03-12T13:08:00.000-07:00

No. It's not. This question is kind of like asking "Is pornography adultery?" If you have no clue about botany or nutrition, sure you could make the argument that the tree-growing fructose-containing apple is, in fact a vegetable. Similarly, if you have no clue about relationships, sex, or performance art you could make the argument that someone who is alone with their computer watching people ze never has met and never will meet while engaging in the sexual act one performs upon one's self is actually committing adultery.

I hate this question. I hate this idea that masturbation and/or watching porn is "cheating". How is this cheating? Doesn't adultery have to involve another person, not just a picture of another person? What's more, if you think about someone else while having sex with your partner is that adultery? Well, if watching porn is, then thinking about someone else while you're having sex with your primary partner most certainly is as well!

However, it doesn't matter how fervently you argue that apples are vegetables and that watching porn or masturbating is the same as cheating; it's just not fucking true. It's not. I don't care how many degrees in botany or nutrition you have, apples aren't vegetables, and porn isn't adultery.

Here's why: infidelity involves another person. Whether it's an emotional affair or a physical one, someone else is involved. So, unless you've got Multiple Personality Disorder, masturbation regardless of what you watch while doing it, does not involve another person and is therefore not infidelity.

But people hate porn. Some people hate porn (some people hate apples too), and will do whatever the fuck they can to give it an even worse name than it already have. There's a whole lot of bullshit that people use to reason this view, but it basically boils down to an idea that masturbation is "wrong" (why?), and watching other people fuck is "wrong".

And yet, suppose that someone likes to watch CNN while masturbating -- does that mean that watching CNN constitutes adultery? No. It means that they really like to be informed about what's going on in the world. But none of these anti-porn assholes would even make that argument, they would just say that that person is "sick" and that it's "wrong" to beat or rub off while watching Anderson Cooper. I highly doubt that. Have you seen Anderson Cooper?

But the bottom line is, for these people, that masturbation is wrong, porn is wrong, and anything and everything even remotely associated with either of these things is wrong. Morally wrong, and a danger to your relationship because if your partner finds out that you've been masturbating while watching Anderson Cooper, ze is going to think one of twho things:

OMG! Ur so sikkkkk!!!
Hey, can I play?

And sex for recreation is also wrong.

Oh god, can you tell us when it's going to stop?

2009-03-09T14:20:00.001-07:00

Yes. It's snowing again. For the moment it has ceased, but, and maybe it's just me and the weather hasn't noticed this yet -- it's fucking MARCH. The Spring Equinox is less than two weeks away and this part of the country rarely sees snow once in January let alone having it fall in fucking March! I'm so sick of this, I could plotz.

Who knows, I just might. (At which point I will get back to you and detail what is exactly involved in a "plotz", because even though I've used that word most of my life, even I don't entirely know what it's supposed to mean.

In the meantime, I think I know why Uncle Walt chose now to start his regrowth. He knew it was going to keep snowing. Today he went out into the yard and sat under that weird bush-tree thing for about three hours. He says this area of the world isn't the best for his colors since it's not the greatest camoflage, but it still works out pretty well. (He's more used to the blues and greens of arctic ice, rather than the brown of dirt and tree limbs.)

Point of order, re comments

2009-03-09T14:11:00.001-07:00

I pretty much publish all comments, whether they agree with me or disagree with me. The only thing I ask of commenters is that you NOT USE ALL CAPS TO TRY TO MAKE YOUR POINT BY DOING THE EQUIVALENT OF YELLING. It's really, really annoying.

So, keep it civil, use proper capitalization, and, if it's not too much to ask, correct spelling and punctuation would be greatly appreciated too. (Although, correct spelling can't be universally enforced since I'm really not that good at it myself.)

Any and all comments which violate civility will be deleted. This includes threats, ad hominem attacks, comments written in ALL CAPS, divulging private information about someone other than yourself, and anything else I deem to be exceptionally rude (although, I will try not to have too thin of a skin on this one).

I want comments and discussion, but there are some things I just won't put up with. The internet equivalent of screaming is one of them.

And now for something completely different: a cardboard drawing of the Kool-Aid man

2009-03-09T12:50:00.000-07:00

Ooooh yeah.

Update on the 9-year-old from Brazil

2009-03-08T11:04:00.000-07:00

Apparently, her rapist will not be excommunicated like those who helped to save her life. Apparently, abortionis worse than rape in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Well, considering that the Catholic Church has historically used rape as a weapon to help their soldiers get closer to G*D (Crusades anyone?) this doesn't surprise me in the least.

If I had any respect left for the institution itself, I would spit. But I don't. Sorry, but I gotta back Heart up on this one and add my own power to her curse. This is completely disgusting. There will be no rest for the patriarchs, or any of those who uphold this hideous idea that abortion "the taking of an innocent life" (what about original sin?) is worse, so much worse as to (in the eyes of this organization) deny someone salvation, than is the rape of a 9-year-old girl and the destruction of her life.

People, wake up. This is how most religions view women. The violation of our bodies is does not even affect the leaders in the least, but if we try to take our bodies back we deserve hellfire and damnation.

I wonder what Jesus of Nazareth would have to say about this bullshit that's being done in his name?

Attention Seattle: the Croc is back!!!

2009-03-06T18:07:00.000-08:00

Why did no one on the Slog mention this? Did they think that the ad would speak for itself?

The Crocodile, the Crocodile, the Croc, is reopening.

For those of you who are especially nerdy in your love for the Seattle music scene (like I am), let me say that again.

The Croc, 2200 2nd Ave Seattle 98121, that, when it closed abruptly "in December, 2007, broke many a heart and" made some "folks [feel] a piece of Seattle had died," is being reopened "[a]fter months of renovations and reconstruction", according to its website.

I fear we're never going to get answers as to why the Croc's manager called all the bartenders one Saturday night in December of 2007 and told them not to come in to work the next day; but at least there will be some return to normalcy in the Seattle music scene... even if there aren't that many acts worth hearing these days. (Although, it appears from the Croc's concert calendar, Special Guest is going to be playing a lot of shows in the next couple of months. Ha ha.)

A couple hints to the Croc's booking staff: Bad Dream Good Breakfast, Toy Box Trio, Cherry Poppin Daddies, and (longshot here...) Spiraling.

Uncle Walt shedding!

2009-03-06T13:01:00.000-08:00

You may not know this, but dragons occasionally shed all of their outter scales and regrow a new hide. Usually they are hibernating on great hoards. Naturally, this makes them more vulnerable to attacks by adventurers, and more than a few dragons have been defeated during thier periodic shedding. This explains why this shedding is of an unknown incriment of time.

Mymuch-beloved dragon incarnation of my great-grandad, Walt Abplanalp, has begun his once-a-incriment-of-time shedding and has turned gesso-white all over his body.

I'm not sure how long it's going to take for him to grow all his scales back, but I'll be sure to post pictures of his new hide.

Preach it sista

2009-03-05T15:25:00.000-08:00

Brazlian bishop excommunicating mother girl who had an abortion... at 9-years-old.

WitchUponAStar says everything I would say, so go read.

And now for something completely different: a satelite named after a comedian

2009-03-04T23:40:00.001-08:00

NASA has plans to launch a new addition to the International Space Station, which will be delivered this December. But first, it wants OUR help to name what they're currently calling "Node 3".

On last night's Colbert Report, Stephen told us the top suggested name was "XENU", but urged the Colbert Nation to do everything within its power to get that node named after Colbert. Why not?

Today, the top suggested name is Colbert, but it's hard to tell how much of the vote the suggested names have, because the percentage tabulation only counts the names that NASA came up with itself -- those Firefly-watching NERDS! Something must be done. Go to the website, click the button for other suggestions and type in "COLBERT". We'll show NASA why Firefly only lasted one season, while Stephen recently did his 500th show!

Aside: Seriously though, I don't get Firefly. I'm the only one of my friends who doesn't own the box set of its single season and has never seen the movie. I don't get it. I don't want it explained to me. I don't want to watch it. It's just like football, okay. I have no interest and the next person who tries to get me to be interested in it is going to have things thrown at them (soft things that won't do any damage, but things nonetheless).

Yay! Another reason to hate the iPhone!

2009-03-02T20:56:00.001-08:00

Fat shaming aps!!! Yay!!!

Look, I know, I know, some people need to diet and counting calories helps them, but most of the people who do count calories really don't need to.

And I just hate that contraption so goddamn much!