Some kind of organized chaos.

I tell myself that poverty during youth is good for the soul...

2011-01-23T18:27:00.007-05:00

... Trouble is, I'm not sure that I even believe in a soul.

This week, I learned that I am too poor for Chase Bank.

I recently entered a branch near my school armed with two coupons, hopeful that I could use at least one of them, if not both. I know how banks work, I thought. They want more accounts, and if you bitch loud enough, they'll let you double up on the promotional offers.

That, at least, had been my experience from the other side of the tellers' counter during the 18 months I worked part-time as a bank teller in Connecticut.

There are a couple problems with this strategy. First, I do not really know how to bitch in order to get my way. Second, even if I did know how to bitch at a complete stranger, I apparently do not have enough money for Chase Bank to really give a shit whether I keep it with them or some other chump bank.

I sat down with a plump older woman who spoke with a vaguely Caribbean accent and who explained that Chase checking accounts currently charge a monthly service fee of $6, but they were soon phasing that out in favor of a checking account that would charge a $12 monthly service fee, unless you either had a direct deposit totaling $500 or more or maintained a balance of at least $1,500. In your checking account.

I really only wanted to open the account so that (a) I could use an ATM somewhere in the city without incurring a $2 - $3 fee and (b) I could possibly earn an extra $100.

No luck on either count.

I suppose I will have to stick with my original strategy of using Rite-Aid as my own personal ATM, the only trouble there being that I can only use so much mouthwash in one week.

Livin' on the edge

2011-01-15T20:42:00.003-05:00

One day during Dave's recent visit, he watched as, bare-fingered, I grabbed the ceramic grate off my hot stove top in an absent-minded daze. He fretted over the toaster's proximity to the sink. Concern spread across his face when he asked how I coaxed my toast out of the contraption and I replied, "With a fork."

"The way you live, my dear, is a death trap."

"Nuh-uh!" I protested. I then sliced my finger while washing a knife.

I will concede, he may have a point.

Death, taxes, and...

2011-01-12T11:13:00.005-05:00

Pundits of all political stripes will never cease to amaze me with their ability to use a mind-blowingly awful tragedy as an opportunity to defame their political opponents. Why did Jared Lee Loughner shoot all those people? Was it Glenn Beck who made him do it? Sarah Palin? Sean Hannity? Keith Olbermann? The Hamburglar?

In some instances, the perpetrator of crimes like this has a clearly delineated motive and a clear goal in mind. My amateur speculation tells me this was not the case with Loughner, that he was just an emotionally unstable individual who simply came unhinged.

In some ways, that scenario is even scarier than the terrorist who has a clear, political motive for his or her actions. You can't plan for this kind of tragedy, and you can't predict it. All you can predict is the typical reactionary bullshit from both sides of the aisle afterward. I say that only three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and Rush Limbaugh's eagerness to blame a tragedy of epic proportions on the Democrats. (Dems, don't think you get off scot-free, either!)

Ultimately, I think Jon Stewart had the best take on it.

On a more serious note, Mother Jones has done some very excellent reporting on Loughner, and I would encourage anyone interested in learning more to check out the following articles.

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords

Jared Lee Loughner's Currency Obsession

Explained: Jared Loughner's Grammar Obsession

Should Mental Health Be a Public Safety Issue?

Women's body issues: men's fault or women's?

2011-01-05T18:09:00.002-05:00

Ohhh... FanTASTic!! I can eat more now because a may-un gave me permission to!

Anyone who reads this article and buys this line of bull, listen up for a minute: It is not "other women" but society that gives women these body insecurities, and society's ideals of female beauty are very much modeled on those of a very specific ruling class of men.

Hey guys, you like your woman just the way she is and don't want her to feel like she has to be model skinny or live up to some stupid and unrealistic ideal? That's great! I commend you for thinking for yourself (kinda) and not just caving to society's ideals. (No sarcasm there. I really mean that.)

But!! That still doesn't mean that women's body issues are only the fault of other women.

And ladies, if you feel insecure about yourselves only because you think no man will ever find you attractive, take heart: There is assuredly some fella out there who wants to do you doggie style.

2010-09-10T00:19:00.000-04:00

I've become a germophobe since moving to New York, particularly while riding the subway.

As I grip the handrails, I swear I can feel microbes crawling around under my palms. Salmonella. Influenza. The common cold. I think about all the people who must have touched that rail before me and how clean or dirty their hands must have been.

I realize that most reasonable people will wash their hands after urinating, defecating, handling raw meat, masturbating, and doing lord knows what else, but at least a few people don't.

And that's really all it takes, isn't it? Just a few people.

Ick.

2010-08-30T23:46:00.000-04:00

This summer, television and radio personality Glenn Beck launched his own, unaccredited, college (?) - Beck University.

According to Inside Higher Ed, Professor Stoner is slated to teach a course on charity, but instead says he plans to focus mainly on Constitutional issues. Specifically...

"... he said in a brief interview that the lectures are all focused on general issues related to the Constitution and the development of American traditions. His first talk will be about federalism, his second on the separation of powers, and the third on individual rights."

So in other words, at Beck University, you can relearn your high school social studies curriculum. Or at least Political Science 101. I have to be honest: It worries me a little bit if this is new knowledge to Glenn Beck's baccalaureates.

Also, Professor Stoner is the only actual professor (one of three, actually) teaching at Beck University. Just a thought.

It's just the curse of being a girl

2010-08-27T16:39:00.001-04:00

I have to confess, I haven't posted nearly as much as I would like to because I've been busy. Dealing with job hunting, roommate issues, getting ready for school, and working a part-time temp job in the meantime, but I felt like writing now because of something that happened today.

I had my MFA orientation this morning, and it went splendidly. Afterwards, I had to head to the Post Office for a money order. As I exited near the corner of Nostrand Avenue and Avenue J, I heard kissy noises fired in my direction, followed by a "Hey, sexy!"

Slightly shaken, mostly angry, I turned to find the source of the offending noises, a squat little troll sitting in the passenger seat of a dark-colored, sedan-type car. He continued with the kissy noises as I looked at him for half a moment. Then, appropriately, I flipped him the bird and started walking towards the Metro station.

He was clearly Not Happy that I had rejected his generous "compliments" in such a flippant manner. The troll taunted me as I continued walking: "You can shove that up your ass, sunshine!" and the like. This is what we females are supposed to consider "just a compliment"?

Oh, and did I mention that he was actually following me in his car as this happened?

I have to admit: I was a little bit afraid because in that instant, I didn't know what this dude was going to do. I continued down Nostrand Avenue towards the train stop, trembling with rage, my mouth filling with saliva, ready to hock a loogey in this guy's direction if he came within spitting distance of me. Eventually, he got stuck at a red light and I escaped into a crowd. Relief.

I understand that catcalls are an unfortunate aspect of being female and living in a city, but still, it angers me that women must accept second-class status, particularly with regard to personal safety. We shouldn't have to shrug off some douchebag's backasswards idea of a compliment, we shouldn't have to carry pepper spray or look over our shoulders every few steps.

Perhaps my actions could have provoked this Neanderthal to violence. I'm lucky that didn't happen, but I don't regret my actions, either. If you can, I encourage every woman finding herself in a similar predicament to do the same thing I did. Respond. Let the offender know that you do not appreciate his harassment, that you are not some passive object existing only for his viewing pleasure. Flipping the bird is certainly not the most creative response to a catcaller, but catcallers, by their very nature, are uncreative beings.

If I have to give the self-described pickup artists credit for anything, it's for having at least a little more creativity than their wolf-whistling counterparts.

2010-08-07T19:11:00.001-04:00

The New York Times had an article the other day on electronic gadgetry etiquette.

I have my own code of etiquette that I try to follow when it comes to picking up phone calls and texting.

If you are hanging out one-on-one with somebody, it is rude to pick up a phone call and hold an extended conversation, unless it is an emergency. There are some situations where it might be acceptable to pick up the phone, for example, if you're meeting up with another friend and need to give them directions or tell them you're running late. Otherwise, you should give your real-life friend your time and attention. I was once driving to the mall with a friend who picked up a phone call and proceeded to have a 25-minute conversation with another friend. I found that extremely rude.
There are, however, some situations where it might be more acceptable to pick up the phone when you're with another person. An emergency is obviously one of those exceptions. A quick, important, non-emergency phone call is also acceptable. If you and your friend are going to meet up with somebody else, it's probably OK to call the person you're planning to meet up with, if say, you need to give them directions or tell them you're running late.
The family dinner table is never an appropriate place to text. It may be different with your friends, tough.

And finally...

It is never, ever, ever acceptable to text while driving. This one should be a no-brainer. Pull over. You may insist that you're good at it and that you can do it without crashing, but remember that there are other people on the road. Driving requires your full attention.

I'd vote for Ted Bundy, too!!

2010-07-21T09:23:00.000-04:00

Wandering the Internets on my way back to New York City the other day (Sidenote: Greyhound buses offer free wi-fi!), I stumbled upon a super-edgy fellow going by the name of Dick Masterson.

As I browsed his blog, Men Are Better Than Women, I found posts titled "Women Would Vote for Hitler" and "Every Women Is A Cheating Whore."

Because I'm a woman, I was naturally cheating even as I typed those very words. Or was I? After all, Masterson says, men have integrity and women don't, so men tell the truth while women lie. So I must be lying about cheating. Right?

Anyway, it's tempting to believe that Dickie boy was seriously burned by a woman at some point in his life. Or maybe burned by several women at multiple points in his life.

Or maybe he wasn't breastfed long enough as an infant.

Or maybe he's just mad that one of those lying, cheating whores won't cheat with him.

But most likely, he's just figured out that the quickest route to fame is to be a public asshole and to say outrageous things that he understands will upset the majority of the population.

Sure, it could be satire, but if it is, it's satire of the "Woman! Get back in the kitchen!" variety. That is to say, it doesn't make fun of existing power structures and really only serves to make privileged white guys like Masterson feel "edgy" for repeating tired old tropes that were passé by the 1960s.

And if he's serious? If he really, truly feels that way about women? Well, I honestly feel a little bit sorry for him. It must be pretty miserable to carry around that much angst and hatred for people different than yourself, be they women, handicapped people, racial minorities, or queer folks.

Or maybe I'm just too lazy to expend that kind of energy necessary to expel that much vitriol against other people. After all, I am a woman, so besides being whorish, I must be slothful, too.

p.s. He may be a bit of a dick, but at least Roissy's blog is somewhat entertaining.

p.p.s. Hitler was not "raised by a single mother." Hitler had a troubled relationship with his father and purportedly turned to German Nationalism as a way to rebel against his father, who died when Hitler was nearly 14 years old. Yeah, and male sheep are called rams (if they're intact) or wethers (if they're castrated). But since I hail from Stafford, I have an unfair advantage in knowing that.

Ugh. Twilight.

2010-07-05T14:26:00.000-04:00

The wonderfully intelligent Erin Alyssa has a post up about the recent vampire craze (see True Blood and Twilight for notable examples) and her own personal distaste for it. She compares the vampire craze to 19th-century Orientalism.

An excerpt...

I taught Orientalism twice as a teaching assistant, and it was one of my favorite social and artistic movements to discuss. Orientalism was a trend in the 19th century when cultural producers, particularly artists and writers, created an “imaginary orient,” if I can borrow from Linda Nochlin, a sort of screen onto which they could convey Western desires. Because the subject matter of these pieces of art and literature were of the Middle East, it was okay for the women to be nude, fine for the men to be violent, and more than okay for there to be lascivious sexual acts. This Western constructed view of the Orient as sexually free, lavish, and idle was detrimental to the Western world’s opinion of the inhabitants of the Middle East.
Though I do not worry about what will happen to people’s opinions of fictional vampires, I find parallels between Orientalism, and the exoticizing of the “other” (in this case, Eastern inhabitant) and the recent vampire phenomenon. The values that these vampire phenoms represent, even as constructs, are problematic, as they appear to be the opposite of what we claim we’d like for our own society.
Though there has been a push in recent years for equal rights between the sexes, and some people even think feminism is outdated and no longer necessary (which cannot be further from the truth) in vampire land (in this case, Twilightvampire land) Edward can emotionally abuse and borderline stalk his defenseless girlfriend and instead of this behavior being creepy and inappropriate… it’s considered romantic… because he’s a vampire. Does this make sense? No, and it’s even more disturbing when young girls quote passages of this garbage to defend and rationalize staying in their own abusive relationships. Good for you, Stephanie Meyer.

Personally, Twilight annoys me because I cut my teeth on Anne Rice novels as an adolescent, and her vampires certainly don't sparkle, but Erin makes some very excellent points. Go read!

Creepy man at the Halsey Street J last night...

2010-07-05T14:01:00.000-04:00

"So are we going to your apartment or mine?"

Me: "You're going back to your apartment, and I'm going back to mine. Separately."

Man: "What if I pay you?"

Me: "Especially not if you pay me!"

Country mouse, city mouse

2010-06-29T17:49:00.000-04:00

"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity."

It's been almost two years since a certain once-VP hopeful spoke those words during a speech. At the time, that rankled me - even though I was (and let's be honest, still am) "small town folk." But today, I want to return to those words to share with you an anecdote that contradicts this "Small town folk = good, city folk = bad" mentality.

Dave came down to Brooklyn on Friday for a Sondre Lerche concert in Greenpoint. We had to take the J train to Lorimer Street, walk a couple blocks to the G train, and take that to Greenpoint Avenue.

As we walked down the stairs to the platform for the G train, we noticed a sort of peculiar scene. There was a young man standing on our side of the platform. He looked to be about our age. The way he was dressed, he looked like he had just come from a run or a workout. On the opposite platform were a teenage girl and a little boy, probably about eight or nine years old. Dave and I guessed that they were brother and sister.

The boy was visibly distraught, his face scrunched up into painful contortions, tears flowing freely. His sister was trying to comfort him, to little avail. The man on our side of the platform waved to him, trying to cheer him up. "It's gonna be OK, man!" he said. But the boy continued to cry.

Without much prompting, the young man ran up the stairs and reappeared on the other side of the platform, alongside the girl and boy. He dropped to the ground and pressed his ear against the edge of the platform, listening. Then, he leapt down from the platform and grabbed a small action figure that was lying near the train tracks. Evidently, the boy had dropped it, the source of his anguish.

When the man leapt back up onto the platform and handed the toy back to the boy, his face lit up. The tears evaporated, and he smiled. The man walked back up the stairs and returned to our side of the platform. Dave and I chatted with him for a bit before we went our separate ways. He introduced himself as Aku (I probably spelled that wrong) and said he saw the whole scene unfold. He had never jumped down onto the tracks like that before, and he described how his heart was pounding as he did it.

None of this is to say that people in small towns suck, though some people sure like to strongly imply it for political reasons. Underlying it is the suggestion that, if we grow good people in our small towns, then what kind of people do we grow in our big cities? Or anything in between? The point is, it's stupid to put people into boxes like "Good" or "Bad" according to their origins and not their actions.

I miss Connecticut, but New York is OK.

Craziness in Connecticut

2010-06-18T13:18:00.000-04:00

First up, Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez was found guilty of bribery and first-degree larceny by extortion, among some other charges. Nice!

Everyone loves a story about underwear-clad criminals, right?

Some West Hartford-related creepiness...

And finally, a story about a Meriden nail salon owner who was ordered to stop doing tattoo removals. Why, you may ask? Because she didn't have a medical license!!! See, in order to laser into people's skin, you apparently need to have some kind of medical credentials. Crazy, right?

What really kills me, though, is this part:

In April, a woman went to Nailtique to have a tattoo removed from her left ring finger, she wrote in a complaint filed with the state health department. Afterward, her hand hurt and swelled. Three days later, she was admitted to the hospital overnight and given antibiotics and pain medication. The woman wrote that she had third-degree burns and had seen surgeons because she was unable to close her hand completely.
"I now have complaints regarding the quality of care and question whether or not this establishment is licensed to perform this procedure and whether or not they should be doing this in the Meriden mall," the woman wrote.

You thought that a tattoo removal offered for $100 in a nail salon in the mall was legitimate??? Yeah, the lady definitely shouldn't have been doing tattoo removals, but I also don't think it constitutes victim-blaming to suggest that perhaps this complainant was a bit of a dumbass herself.

Ahh... I love my home state...

Here's some interesting news

2010-05-28T09:17:00.000-04:00

Abortion rights groups have long opposed ultrasound laws, which are typically enacted by anti-abortion legislators in an effort to dissuade women from having abortions. Personally, I haven't opposed laws mandating women should have the option to view the ultrasound, but if she doesn't to look at it, then you can't physically force her to look at it.

But perhaps pro-choice groups can rest a little easier. The New York Times reports today that ultrasounds seldom actually have the effect of changing a woman's mind about abortion. The NYT interviewed women and staff at clinics in Alabama for the story.

Staff members interviewed at three of the seven abortion clinics in the state estimated that 30 percent to 70 percent of women chose to see ultrasound images. But they said it was uncommon for women to be dissuaded.
It had happened occasionally, they said, when a sonogram revealed a multiple pregnancy or when a woman was already deeply unsure about her choice...
“About half of women opt to view them,” said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. “And I’ve never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like.”

One woman even reported that she found it reassuring...

“It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,” said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. “It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.”

Interesting...

The Supreme Court is not a fucking beauty pageant.

2010-05-21T15:16:00.001-04:00

For as strongly as I support a woman's right to choose abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, a pregnancy gone wrong, or any number of other difficult life situations, there are indeed some pro-lifers who I really respect. It's a small number, but they're out there. (This is where I give a shout-out to the lovely Ms. Kelsey Hazzard, of Secular Pro-Life.)

There really are some pro-lifers out there who are genuinely interested in helping needy pregnant women. That is totally cool! Much as I may disagree with their views on whether or not abortion should be legal, I greatly respect that some people are actually willing to follow through on their rhetoric and help women who would rather not have abortions. (There are some very legitimate criticisms of some crisis pregnancy centers that I'll have to save for another time.)

Alas, Gingi Edmonds does not fall into the aforementioned category of pro-lifers I respect. I recently discovered the writings of Ms. Edmonds on Facebook. She is an avid anti-abortion activist and a self-proclaimed freelance photographer based out of California. (By the way, for a truly awesome freelance photographer, contact Jeremy White. He will not bother you about politics.) Edmonds also apparently holds very anti-gay views and as far as I can tell, has not an intelligent thought in her head. I'm not saying that to be mean, either! Just check out this post that I'm about to disembowel.

As those of us who follow politics instead of sports know, President Obama recently nominated Elena Kagan to fill Justice Stevens' spot on the Supreme Court. Kagan appears to be pro-choice, so abortion opponents are screaming about that, but not Gingi!

Apparently faced with a dearth of any original or constructive criticism of Kagan, Edmonds decided to exit onto the low road and attack Kagan for her lack of glamour and conventional feminine beauty.

Edmonds muses:

How can she be an aware and insightful interpreter of these complex and modern times if she's never heard of Crest Whitestrips?

What? Really? ... I mean... Seriously? Even if that was an attempt at satire, it was pretty bad satire, unless that's what passes for comedy among anti-abortion activists.

Let's read on, shall we?

All joking aside, I think the fact that she looks like a foot is extremely relevant. A person's cleanliness and tidiness (combed hair, brushed teeth, clean clothing) are a clear indicator of mental orderliness and tidiness. We don't have to view her un-Constitutional and pro-abortion record to get an indication that she is not fit to be in a position of leadership in this country.

To clarify, I don't like her simply because she's unattractive. I can accept that Elena Kagan is an ugly bull dike. But an ugly, pro-abort, socialist bull dike? Never.

Umm... There doesn't actually appear to be any evidence that Kagan lacks basic hygiene. Sure, she doesn't fit our ridiculous standards of conventional feminine beauty (Speaking of those who live in glass houses, neither does Edmonds), but she doesn't look dirty or unkempt. A quick Google image search reveals that Kagan actually looks rather well-groomed and tidy. And while we're judging a person's character based on superficial images found on Google, I think Kagan looks downright jolly.

Gingi, if you want to see some people who really don't give a shit about their appearance, I invite you to come to Enfield Superior Court any day between Monday and Friday. If you're lucky, you might see a DUI defendant wearing pajamas or an obviously unwashed domestic violence defendant wearing a t-shirt that reads "Fuck the police."

But maybe Edmonds is onto something. Maybe women who support abortion rights are uglier than women who oppose them. Just check out the heinous wench whose pic I posted above. :-P

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

2010-05-21T07:59:00.000-04:00

Are you aware of this? Everybody Draw Mohammed day was initiated in response to the death threats that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker received after airing an episode that purportedly showed the Muslim prophet Mohammed. The Muslim religion apparently forbids depictions of their prophet, and well, we all know how extremists get sometimes...

Well, Comedy Central censored the second part of the episode in question, which, in my humble opinion, is complete bullshit. I respect all people equally, regardless of faith, race, sexual orientation, or any other silly arbitrary qualities. (That is, of course, until they do something individually to piss me off, but let's not talk about Sarah Palin anymore). But I also think that hack job Comedy Central did on South Park amounts to nothing more than cowardly self-censorship.

Yes, some people used EDM Day as an excuse to be racist piles of shit, but there should be no prohibition on poking fun at religious differences among people and certainly no prohibition (self-imposed or otherwise) on simply depicting a religious figure. (And by the way, anybody who watched the South Park episode in question would know that they also depicted Buddha snorting cocaine, which is way more blasphemous than just showing a cartoon Mohammed.)

And I firmly believe that we must push those boundaries, push those envelopes. Nothing must be so sacred that we are willing to kill for it. I also believe in laughter. I think we should all be able to occasionally laugh at the differences amongst us. It keeps us human, keeps us humble. And if you can't laugh, you might cry; which would you rather do?

So with that, I'd like you to have a look at the little cartoon Mohammed guy in this post. I have little artistic ability, but my wonderfully talented boyfriend Dave has it in spades. He whipped up this little guy yesterday for Everybody Draw Mohammed day. Pretty obviously unoffensive, I'd say.

My $0.02 on the Blumenthal-Vietnam controversy

2010-05-21T07:31:00.000-04:00

As some of you may know, Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, was recently accused of lying about his military service after this NYTimes article. Essentially, they're saying he said he was in Vietnam when he wasn't. Blumenthal is running for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, and he's up against a clusterfuck of Republicans, including Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons, and Peter Schiff, who is... Well, who knows what the fuck Peter Schiff exactly is. The Tea Party endorsed him, even though he's not really a raving nut, but I probably still won't vote for him, although part of me strangely kind of wants to vote for him. (Of course, I'm moving to New York in about a month, so I may not vote in this thing anyway.)

So anyway, back to Blumenthal. I want to stress that I have no opinion on this, but I do want to share this little anecdote. I was covering the Memorial Day parade in Enfield last year, and there I happened to spy Mr. Blumenthal. I ambled over and started talking to him, so I could get a few quotes for my story. Mostly happy horseshit like, "This parade is great" and "We should honor our veterans."

He said something to the effect of "When I was in the Marines during Vietnam," and I off-handedly followed that up with, "Oh, did you go to Vietnam?" to which he replied that, no, he had not gone to Vietnam. He had simply served in the military while the Vietnam War was happening. I thought so little of that remark that I didn't even put it in my story. (I also thought it might sound kind of stupid to write, "Blumenthal, who served in the military during the Vietnam War but never went to war...")

So... There you have it: My Dick Blumenthal-Vietnam story. Make of it what you will. Or don't. Whatever.

Eating healthy has made me into a food snob, apparently.

2010-05-17T12:45:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant reports that today is the ground-breaking for Connecticut's first Sonic restaurant, to be located in Wallingford.

On the one hand, it's about damn time, since they've been airing their commercials for years in this state with the nearest Sonic being in New Jersey.

On the other hand, I have a really hard time getting excited about another shitty fast food establishment.

Nothing but incoherent rage

2010-05-14T11:20:00.000-04:00

Ugh. Talk about sexualizing little girls! I hate to be harsh (Oh, who am I kidding? I LOVE to be harsh!), but I think these girls' parents and dance teacher/s ought to be tarred and feathered. And then arrested for promoting child pornography. Or something. There is just no universe in which this is appropriate. Seriously.

"White privilege doesn't exist, so shut up about it already!"

2010-05-12T08:16:00.000-04:00

On the heels of SB 1070 (Sorry, guys - I'm not opening that can of worms here), AZ Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law a bill prohibiting classes "that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group."

Specifically, the bill targets the African-American, Mexican-American, and Native-American studies classes offered by the Tucson Unified School District.

From the link:

State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district's Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.

Public schools should not be encouraging students to resent a particular race, he said.

Yeah, because it's totally a class in school that teaches minority students to resent white people.

He went on to say, "It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it."

If you don't understand what is wrong with that statement, then I suggest you brush up on your American history, specifically, your antebellum American history.

Crazy people everywhere

2010-04-19T16:35:00.000-04:00

Check out this nut.

The FBI recently paid a visit to 27 year-old Erlyndon Joseph Lo at his Plano, TX, home. Why, you might ask? Why, for threatening a women's clinic. But it gets better. (Of course, it does!)

On Friday morning, Lo went to the Plano federal courthouse and filed a court document saying that at noon that day, he was planning to go to the Southwestern Women's Surgery Center in the 8600 block of Greenville Avenue in Dallas and "use deadly force to defend the innocent life of another human being," according to court documents.

You know, I almost wanted to play the vagina card and ask why you don't see any women pulling these types of crazy stunts... Until I remembered Shelly Shannon, who attempted to kill Dr. George Tiller in 1993.

For a double dose of crazy, check out Lo's own web site.

Abortion is WRONG in EVERY case, even when a woman is raped and she did not want to have a child, EVEN WHEN SHE WILL DIE IF SHE HAS THE CHILD, AND EVEN IF THE WOMAN WILL SURVIVE ONLY IF SHE KILLS THE BABY. That is the OBJECTIVE AND ABSOLUTE TRUTH. THAT IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER.

Now, you know somebody is an extremist when they say something like that, especially in caps-lock.

If you visit that page, be warned: It contains massive, barely coherent blocks of poorly written text. It is completely beyond me how this guy could have finished law school when he can barely write a comprehensible paragraph.

Oh, just imagine if he and Orly Taitz got together! The fun that could be had!

For those who love spicy food...

2010-04-11T19:01:00.000-04:00

Upon flipping through some old issues of Bust magazine, I realized something: Bust publishes recipes!! Of course, I cut them all out and pasted them into my rapidly growing cookbook. Dave and I recently made this really, really delicious jerk chicken, so I want to share it.

It's pretty easy. You make this marinade, throw the chicken in overnight, and then grill it or broil it. We chose to go with the former because it was a lovely weekend, and who doesn't want to fire up the grill when it's warm and sunny?

The marinade... Mix half a coffee cup of malt vinegar or balsamic vinegar (I chose the latter), a heaping handful of chopped onion, a regular handful of chopped garlic, a smidgen of dried thyme and dried oregano, and a giant plop of your favorite minced chiles. (Wash your hands after handling these! Or better yet, use gloves! Definitely don't rub your eyes right after!) Add a pinch each of ground cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg, a healthy dose of salt and pepper, two good shots of Worcestershire sauce, and a couple shots of vegetable oil or olive oil. Mix this all up, toss your chicken in there, and leave it overnight.

A few notes: I know those aren't precise measurements, and honestly, I was kind of confused as to what 'coffee cup,' 'handful,' 'plop,' and 'pinch' should have meant. I kinda just winged it. As for the chiles, I used seven habanero peppers and three serrano peppers. We love spicy food at the condo. I chopped them all up and mixed the habaneros with a little honey before I mixed it into the marinade. To be perfectly frank, I went home that night genuinely worried that that amount of habanero could make one of my friends ill, but I was quite relieved to find that that was definitely not the case. We also tried this marinade with fish. It was spicy, but also nice and mild. (However, I think we may have overcooked the fish a little.)

Anyway, the chicken turned out to be really tender and extremely spicy (but not spicy enough to make anybody sick). If you love spicy food, I would highly, highly recommend you try this recipe. :)

2010-04-11T17:59:00.000-04:00

In "The Cost of Sexual Freedom," Pegah Patra reminisces about romance in Iran, where women wait for the men to come calling, and marriage proposals, apparently, are a dime a dozen. She then laments contemporary courtship rituals in the United States, writing:

The last time I walked into a club with all my single girlfriends it occurred to me that I had just entered into a casting room and I was about to audition for some sort of sexy horror movie. Not only was every girl's breast implants barely covered by their tops but their short skirts made me want to take off my skinny jeans because I seemed too conservative and felt the pressure to fit in.

By stark contrast, she writes, in Iran, the courting couple's families get together before the couple walks into a room by themselves to decide whether they want to carry on the relationship. According to Patra, "although they both might feel aroused by the attraction they have for each other the man never loses his respect for the girl."

Patra goes on to mourn those 17% of men who remain unmarried today, compared with 6% in 1980 and then compares women to farm animals before concluding that this is the fault of feminism for making sex so easily available and pining for Gone With the Wind-style courtship. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" and all that bunk.

I don't even know where to begin... Well, first of all, if you're looking for your soulmate in a bar or club, you are probably going to be sorely disappointed. There's nothing wrong with bars (you know, aside from how frickin' expensive they all are), but the last time I checked, most folks I know go to bars to hang out, drink, and sometimes listen to a band or do some stupid shit. Plus, bars are full of pervs, creeps, and weirdos. Sure, you could find an excellent romantic partner in a pub. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you're counting on it, you're probably going to be disappointed. The only thing I'm really hoping for when I walk into a bar is a good selection of beers, preferably a nice IPA.

Obviously, I think that sexual freedom is a good thing, generally speaking. Yes, it has its pitfalls, but I think it's pretty nice to live in a country where we enjoy relatively easy access to contraceptives, where we don't stone women for having pre-marital sex, and where we don't execute people just because they happen to enjoy sex with folks of the same gender.

As for the pitfalls, well, Patra speaks of men who dump women if they don't put out by the third date. She also writes, "Even if a girl is sexually open and available there is no guarantee that the man won't disappear without any reason or explanation within a short period of time."

You want to know something really crazy? Women do that, too! Yes, Pegah! There exist in today's society women who actually enjoy no-strings-attached sex, women who might dump a guy if they find him boring in the sack, and women who do "put out" by the third date! (We won't tell her that some women eagerly and willingly have sex even on the first date.)

Now, personally, casual sex really isn't my "thing," but who am I to tell somebody else they're wrong for enjoying it? Stay safe, take the necessary precautions, and make sure it's all consensual. That's all I ever ask of anybody. (Oh, and please be adults, too.) Though some old-fashioned folks may lament our society's acceptance of pre-marital sex (like people never boinked before marriage in the 1950s), frankly, I think it's a good thing. It's optional, of course, but for many people, it's important for bonding in a relationship and for determining whether that relationship has long-term viability.

As to that 6% versus 17% statistic (of men aged 40 to 44 who have never been married), I say we cut the fellas a little slack. It's (somewhat) more socially acceptable for women to reject marriage, and I know I'm not the only feminist to advocate this. Marriage is a lot of work (or so I hear). It's for some people, but it's not for others. The truth is, some men very much desire marriage with a person they love, and some women very much fear marriage. Why pressure anybody into choosing a lifestyle they don't want?

I'm also interested in how our social acceptance of gay folks might have impacted that statistic. Consider a few things here: approximately 10% of the general population is estimated to be gay; it's more acceptable now to be "out of the closet" than it was in 1980; and many, many gay men in the past would marry a woman in the hope of convincing either themselves or their families that they were straight (OK, this still happens, unfortunately). Taken all together, it kind of makes sense that more men today would choose not to marry, many possibly for this very reason.

To be perfectly honest, I "get" a little bit of where Patra is coming from. Nobody should feel like they have to "compete" for the love of their life. Nobody should feel pressured into going further sexually than they really want to. And people should have the ultimate respect for their partners and partners' families. But Patra also makes the unfortunate assumption that romance and true love are merely a thing of the past when that simply isn't the case. For as long as there are cads and players, there will also be good guys who genuinely want a chance at love. It's easy to feel disillusioned, but remember that feeling sorry for yourself won't get you out into the world to meet new people and self-pity is hardly attractive in either sex.

Oh, and one more thing. Gone With the Wind? Please. Women were property in Civil War-era America, even the rich ones like Scarlett O'Hara.

What I've been up to these days...

2010-04-11T17:52:00.000-04:00

OK, OK... So I knew I was going to not keep at least one of my New Year's resolution, and I neglected this blog for approximately two months. What have I been doing during the time I should have been blogging? Oh, just the usual... Doing the reporter thing, cooking with Dave, reading, writing, hanging with my friends, getting into grad schools, and just generally living it up in (now) sunny CT.

Wait... Did I say grad school? Yes! Grad school!

This fall I will head off to Brooklyn College in Brooklyn, New York, of course. I was recently accepted into their MFA program in Television Production. Why TV production? Well, I love TV. Don't you?

Call me crazy, but I was sad to leave school, and I am beyond psyched to be going back. Of course, I'm stressed, as well, but that's to be expected. More developments will follow, naturally! And now, back to your regularly scheduled blogging...

A few brief thoughts on the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad

2010-02-08T18:41:00.000-05:00

I didn't really blog about the Tim and Pam Tebow/Focus on the Family commercial that was set to air during the Superbowl, but I guess I'm getting around to it now - after I've finally seen the damn thing. (I don't watch football. No, not even the Superbowl.) If you haven't seen the ad, you can view it here.

After all the controversy surrounding the ad, all the groups that were going to bat for FOTF and the Tebows, and all the groups that were demanding it not be aired, I have to say: I feel oddly let down. They never mention the word "abortion" even once, and to be honest, I expected more vitriol, more venom. Maybe even the word "babykiller."

Nope. "He's my miracle baby!" and "Hur hur! I'm a cool football player, and I'm tackling my maw!" They played it safe. Of course, you can head over to Focus on the Family's web site and read all sorts of extra nonsense if you want to, but my doctor says it isn't healthy to have such high blood pressure at such a young age, so I'm going to personally refrain from doing so.

On a personal note, I was never of the opinion that the ad should not be shown. Focus on the Family paid for the spot, and I do believe in free speech, even if it's lame and douchey free speech. My only qualm was with whether Pam Tebow would say she was counseled to have an abortion whie working as a missionary in the Philippines. Abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930, so it's highly unlikely a Filipino doctor would have counseled such a move.

This fish is delish!!

2010-01-31T14:54:00.000-05:00

Some of you may recall my New Year's resolution to learn to cook a few decent meals. I'm pleased to report that said resolution is coming along splendidly. Dave and I have been making ourselves a nice dinner about once a week, and since it's really kind of a team effort, I'm not finding it to be such a repulsive chore. Dave likes to handle the meat; he says it makes him feel "manly" or something like that. This works out just fine for me because I'm grossed out by the feel of uncooked meat and because I like to chop vegetables, perhaps a little too much.

Anyway, a few days ago, we made this really yummy fish recipe that I found on the Food Network's web site, and I wanted to share it with you guys. It was astoundingly easy, though I wonder if that may have been more because we weren't competing with six other people for use of the kitchen. In any case, here it is...

Chili-Rubbed Tilapia with Asparagus and Lemon

Ingredients

* 2 pounds asparagus, tough ends trimmed, cut into 1-inch pieces
* 2 tablespoons chili powder
* 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
* 1/2 teaspoon salt, divided
* 1 pound tilapia, Pacific sole or other firm white fish fillets (I think we used Atlantic cod instead.)
* 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
* 3 tablespoons lemon juice (I thought this was too much lemon juice, but that may have been because we only cooked a pound of asparagus and didn't adjust accordingly.)

Directions:

Bring 1 inch of water to a boil in a large saucepan. Put asparagus in a steamer basket, place in the pan, cover and steam until tender-crisp, about 4 minutes. Transfer to a large plate, spreading out to cool.

Combine chili powder, garlic powder and 1/4 teaspoon salt on a plate. Dredge fillets in the spice mixture to coat. Heat oil in a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add the fish and cook until just opaque in the center, gently turning halfway, 5 to 7 minutes total. Divide among 4 plates. Immediately add lemon juice, the remaining 1/4 teaspoon salt and asparagus to the pan and cook, stirring constantly, until the asparagus is coated and heated through, about 2 minutes. Serve the asparagus with the fish.

My reaction to the Scott Roeder guilty verdict

2010-01-30T12:44:00.000-05:00

As I sit here in front of my laptop, tap-tap-tapping away and defrosting after a subzero morning spent in the parking lot of Planned Parenthood, I have to feel especially grateful for yesterday's guilty verdict in the trial of Scott Roeder.

If you don't know already, Scott Roeder is the anti-abortion extremist who walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31, put a gun to Dr. George Tiller's head, and pulled the trigger, before threatening witnesses and then fleeing the scene. Roeder was fortunately apprehended only three hours after the shooting, and on Friday, a jury of his peers found him guilty of first-degree murder.

The jury made the right decision. There was some concern by pro-choice groups that Roeder might be convicted on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, but Judge Warren Wilbert rightly ruled that the jury could not consider that lesser charge in their deliberations. They deliberated for only 37 minutes, which shouldn't have been as surprising as it was to me. Still, I couldn't help but feel a huge wave of relief.

I firmly believe that if Roeder had been convicted on a lesser charge - or dog forbid, acquitted - not only would that have bolstered the convictions of those extremists who believe any measure of force is necessary to stop abortion, but he would have committed further acts of violence against abortion providers and clinic employees and volunteers. The possibility that he could face anything less than life in prison after openly admitting to murdering Tiller in his place of worship (something that even this "hardened atheist" thinks is a supremely dick move) frightened me. And it should have frightened you, too.

CNN's article on the story features some highlights of Roeder's testimony, and I'd recommend that you watch it. It's clear that he is a mentally unstable lunatic who truly believed that murder was justified to achieve his social and political ends. He is a threat to society, and thankfully, he will be removed from society now.

Now to be fair, most anti-abortion activists and organizations have condemned Roeder's actions, as well they should have. A few select voices refused to either condemn or condone what he did, and that's a bit unsettling, but I'll grant that most abortion opponents do want to work within the system to outlaw abortion. I still fundamentally disagree with them, but that's mildly respectable nonetheless. No abortion opponent should want this guy on their side, and I don't blame you few rational pro-lifers for disassociating yourselves with Roeder, though I have to wonder to what extent the inflammatory rhetoric used by many otherwise non-violent right-wingers could inspire similar actions in the future. It's something to be wary of, I believe.

Scott Roeder is not a martyr. He is a menace, and I'm glad to see that justice was dealt swiftly in this case. I can only hope now that he serves the rest of his life behind bars.

More chuch-state separation bullshit...

2010-01-21T08:00:00.000-05:00

I could only characterize this bit of news as bizarrely inappropriate. Essentially, the U.S. armed forces have been using combat rifle sights inscribed with references to Bible verses in, of all place, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The inscriptions are subtle and appear in raised lettering at the end of the stock number. Trijicon's rifle sights use tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, to create light and help shooters hit what they're aiming for.
Markings on the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight, one of the company's most advanced models, include "JN8:12," a reference to John 8:12: "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'"
The Trijicon Reflex sight is stamped with 2COR4:6, a reference to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

The company has apparently been doing this for the last 30 years. Obviously, I'm not complaining about what the company chooses to do, but there is something unsettling about our soldiers using guns inscribed with Biblical references in a military conflict in the Middle East. Here is one extremely good point against it...

Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, says the biblically inscribed sights could give the Taliban and other enemy forces a propaganda tool: that American troops are Christian crusaders invading Muslim countries.

It certainly doesn't help our case that we're trying to foment peace and democracy in the Middle East and not engage Muslims in a holy war. That's for sure.

Ultimately, it may not be the most egregious violation of the establishment clause and it may not be outright proselytizing, but it's still not good. As Weinstein points out in this article, there is no question how Americans would react if references to the Koran were inscribed on rifles used by our military. My assessment: They would flip their shit and demand that the references either be removed or that the military contract with a different company. Why should Christianity get preferential treatment?

Plus, as my friend Kristen Tsetsi pointed out (albeit, on my Facebook page), it's worth considering that not all American soldiers are Christians, and that also, we're not engaged in a holy war.

2010-01-18T19:31:00.000-05:00

Via Friendly Atheist...

April 18, 2010 is apparently "Pray4Trig" Day, in which participants pray for God to cure Trig Palin's Down Syndrome. I cannot make this shit up.

Atheists and others who hate God like to claim that He only “answers prayers” where divine intervention can’t be proven. They make websites about it, like Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? They say that God won’t answer the prayers of amputees because He isn’t real!

Okay...

With enough congregations joining up, I have no doubt there will be sufficient people with genuine faith in God (instead of lip service) to ensure that Trig Palin is healed of Down Syndrome.

Continue...

Also, it is known publicly that Trig Palin indeed has Down Syndrome. Science has no way to undo this condition, which is the result of an extra chromosome; but God can. When Trig Palin is found to be miraculously healed, everyone but the most hardened atheist will have to acknowledge God’s Majesty!

You don't say!!

I'm sorry, but this "hardened atheist" believes that folks with Down Syndrome can lead equally happy and fulfilling lives as people without handicaps. The only thing Trig Palin needs to be cured of is his mother.

History in the making.

2010-01-18T17:39:00.000-05:00

The Prop 8 trial, Week 1 in review.

I certainly don't want to speak too soon, but if the defense is really citing Carrie Prejean and "Will and Grace" against eminent researchers? Weak. Really, really weak.

I love punctuation!

2010-01-18T16:56:00.001-05:00

Some brilliant genius has finally come up with a punctuation mark to indicate sarcasm!

I'm not being sarcastic, either. This makes me genuinely excited.

Creationist lies, part one.

2010-01-10T13:49:00.000-05:00

I often hear creationists attempt to debunk evolution by saying something to the effect of, "If evolution were real, you would see proof of it. You would see a half-human-half-monkey if evolution were really happening!"

Ok, ignoring the fact that evolution takes place over millions of years and therefore happens very, very slowly, they're just plain wrong. Want some proof?

Killer whales are evolving into two different species, scientists now say.

Creationism: 0
Evolution: 1

New Year's resolution success!! Part 1!!

2010-01-08T13:00:00.000-05:00

As you may or may not recall, I made a New Year's resolution to learn to cook at least a few halfway decent meals. Well, my first experiment in this endeavor has been successful!

Wednesday night, Dave and I made this spicy chicken curry.

It could have used more chicken, maybe more jalapenos, and probably fewer potatoes. (Then again, maybe we just selected huge potatoes.) But overall, I was extremely pleased (and surprised) with the result. I know, I know... I probably shouldn't have been surprised that it was actually edible, let alone tasted good.

We're going to try to do this about once a week. Does anybody have a good recipe for salmon???

Not quite, Rush, not quite...

2010-01-02T16:05:00.000-05:00

When I heard the other day that conservative blowhard Rush Limbaugh was hospitalized in Hawaii with chest pains, the jokes came way too easily.

"He had a nasty fall after tripping over his own ego."

"He was on his own personal fact-finding mission to Hawaii, and when he finally saw Obama's birth certificate, he had a heart attack."

No, I didn't wish for his death. I did, however, wish for his doctor to be a gay, black woman who volunteers for Planned Parenthood and ACORN in her spare time. At the very least, I hoped that he might "see the light" and have some kind of revelation about being a decent person, but alas, that never happened.

When Rush was released, he issued this very predictable statement: "The treatment I received here wa$ the be$t that the world ha$ to offer. ... I don't think there'$ one thing wrong with the American health care $y$tem. It i$ working ju$t fine."

You missed the point, Rush. Yes, I agree: America does have some very fine doctors and hospitals and medical technologies ... if you can afford them! The problem with our health care is not necessarily quality of care, but rather access to care.

Apparently, tests showed nothing was wrong with his heart, except, as my friend Mr. Dan pointed out, being 100 sizes too small. Time to let that hate start sitting on your chest again, eh, Rush??

Goodbye, '09, goodbye

2009-12-31T15:01:00.000-05:00

This was a great year. Well, I think it was anyway. I accomplished quite a bit. I took the GRE and did quite well, I volunteered with some kick-ass folks at my favorite kick-ass non-profit, I started writing creatively, I applied to grad schools, I paid off my car loan, and on top of it all, I jumped out of an airplane.

This is the end of a decade, too. Everybody's talking about it, so I started thinking about where I was ten years ago and where I might be ten years from now. I feel like it would be completely pointless to say that I've grown a lot over the last decade. Ten years ago, I was 14, so if I hadn't grown up at least a little bit since then, then I would have some serious problems. When I read the diaries and journals I kept as a teenager, I'm embarrassed for myself. "Boys, boys, boys. Why don't boys like me? Boys, boys. Why am I not thin enough? Boys, boys. I don't want people to think I'm some kind of feminist. Boys, boys. What am I going to do with my life?"

(Interesting note here: A few weeks ago, I found one such journal I kept when I was 18. I flipped it open to a random page, and the first thing I landed on, I had written a really angsty entry that began with, "I don't think Dave likes me, and I don't think he ever will." Yes, that Dave.)

I guess that's pretty typical for a teenage girl, though. I'm proud of the person I've become, and I think 14-year-old Laura would be pretty impressed, too. In high school, I didn't have the faintest idea that I would be a reporter or even remotely interested in a media career. In high school, I thought I was going to be a veterinarian or a cop or a lawyer. Then I got a D in biology, and later decided that I really didn't want to wear a Kevlar vest to work or take the LSAT. Things change, or as some say, shit happens.

Already, I have some pretty lofty expectations for 2010. By the way, what are we calling it? "Two-thousand-ten" or "Twenty-ten"? I think I'm going to go with "Twenty-ten," personally.

New Year's resolutions are kinda cheesy, and I don't keep most of them anyway, but I've still made a list. I'd like to hear yours, too, but not if they're stupid or cliche ones, like "I want to lose weight" (unless you're like my good friend Matt Engelhardt and can write a witty-as-hell blog about it) or "I want to finally chase those rabid squirrels out of my attic crawlspace" (face it: those squirrels are never going anywhere).

My 2010 New Year's resolutions:

1. I will get better at chess.
2. I will learn to play poker.
3. I will set aside one night each week for myself, to read, write, and just veg out. In other words, I will make relaxation a priority.
4. I will not obsessively check my work email and voice mail from outside the office.
5. I will blog at least once a week.
6. I will not let my credit card balance exceed 20% of my limit (except, obviously, in case of emergencies).
7. I will save at least 10% of each paycheck. (Not really a very good resolution. I already do this, but let's just say I'll keep on doing it.)
8. I will write more fiction.
9. I will learn to cook at least one meal that doesn't suck. (NOTE: I am definitely not turning into some little domestic pet. It's just dawning on me that I may need to prepare my own food someday in the not-too-distant future. Besides, I'm not cooking for any children or menfolk, except maybe Dave... and only if he's nice to me.)
10. I will keep about 1/3 of these resolutions.

One final note: Happy New Year, everyone! Have fun and be safe!

Oh, NOW...

2009-12-15T08:43:00.000-05:00

I really think the National Organization for Women should can it with this crap. It only reinforces the idea that feminism is just for upper-class white ladies. You know, I 'get' that a Bo-tax would disproportionately target middle-aged women, but at the same time, Botox is a luxury, not a necessity. And it's only become so popular because of our society's fucked-up ideals about female beauty and aging. By opposing the so-called Bo-tax, NOW is kind of saying it's OK for women to be judged on their physical appearance.

In my opinion, the real effort needs to be in expanding basic gynecological health services and prenatal care to all women (and for that matter, expanding basic healthcare to include EVERY American). Botox is a luxury, but a routine pap smear is a necessity that many women go without because they don't have health coverage.

Furthermore, NOW and other feminists need to push body acceptance. People age, and even in youth, we often don't live up to the unrealistic ideals of female beauty put forth by the media and advertisers. A woman's worth goes far beyond her physical appearance, and real feminists everywhere need to emphasize that. We may never be able to change these whacked ideals, but we can do our best to not be held slaves to these ideals, and to me, that means not giving a damn about the Bo-tax.

And one more thing... If you really want to avoid wrinkles in old age, you would do much better to stay out of the sun and slather on the SPF when you go outside. Protect yourself against skin cancer, too!

On feminism and stay-at-home motherhood.

2009-12-12T15:55:00.000-05:00

The subject of feminism's compatibility with stay-at-home motherhood has always raised hackles among feminists. While some feminists would argue that stay-at-home motherhood is A-OK, others would say that you can't be both a feminist and a stay-at-home mother. (You don't really see so much of this conflict regarding the subject of stay-at-home fathers, however, and I think this is primarily because there are so many more women who forgo work outside the home than men who do so.)

My own opinions on the matter have been evolving for as long as I've considered myself a feminist (since about the age of 17). What I'm about to argue now is something I don't think I would have agreed with even a full year ago, but here goes...

Yes, I think you can be a feminist and a stay-at-home mother.

There are some caveats to this argument, however. To begin with, stay-at-home motherhood is not an inherently feminist lifestyle by itself, or at least, I don't consider it to be. This particular choice is status quo. Stay-at-home motherhood really doesn't do anything to advance gender equality in society, but that doesn't mean stay-at-home moms are altogether incapable of advancing gender equality in other ways.

A woman who chooses this lifestyle, I think, should also acknowledge the great deal of privilege that typically accompanies stay-at-home motherhood. There is a glaring class dichotomy within the subject of homemaking. For years and years, some women (specifically, upper-class white women) were told that this was their only option, that this was the only acceptable lifestyle they could choose. For other women (anybody in the poor or working class), this was not an option at all. For many Americans today, it still isn't an option. How many families do you know that can support themselves entirely on one income?

But having said that, I think a stay-at-home mom can be a feminist. Anyone who argues to the contrary should remember there are plenty of other ways to promote gender equality that don't necessarily have to involve working outside the home. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist when she's raising her children to hold strong beliefs in gender equality, when she teaches her daughters that their worth is not based in their physical appearance or their ability to snag a man and when she teaches her sons that men and women are equal and that they should respect each other and pursue happy, healthy relationships with all people.

A feminist stay-at-home mom would ideally also emphasize to her children that her decision to be a homemaker is a matter of choice , that this lifestyle may be either unideal or unattainable for other women, and that her own choice is no more or less valid than the working mom who relies upon daycare providers to help juggle work and family.

Volunteer opportunities are also great. I think a stay-at-home mom who wants to advance feminist goals/gender equality should consider the various volunteer opportunities available to her. She can volunteer with battered women's shelters, Planned Parenthood, her local chapter of NOW, or any of a great number of other feminist organizations. Why not get the kids involved, too? After all, it's never too early to encourage the volunteer spirit.

Anybody who knows me well, or hell, has had a five-minute conversation with me, knows that I would likely never be caught dead as a stay-at-home mom. I don't really know if I want kids yet, but I do know that if I have them, I'll be a working mom. That will be my choice. Feminism isn't "all about choice," but choice is a major aspect of feminism. In the past, feminism was necessary to ensure women could have a choice about what to do with their lives. Hell, what am I talking about? "In the past"? It's still necessary! Though women have vastly more choices now than we did 100 or 50 years ago, we've still got a lot of work to do.

From my point of view, the feminist movement, however stratified and varied, should value every individual person's contribution to the advancement of gender equality, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant that contribution may be. We can afford to do no less than this.

However, I am still not convinced about the merits of pole-dancing as a feminist choice. :-P

Are you good without god?

2009-12-08T16:54:00.000-05:00

My buddies in the Connecticut Valley Atheists recently erected this year's display on the Vernon town green. For those of you not in the know (or not living in North Central Connecticut), the CVA first began doing this in 2007. For years, the town had been displaying a creche on the town green around this time of the year. While the CVA really wanted no displays at all (either for or against religion) on town property ('cause it violates the establishment clause and all that fun stuff), the town decided to allow other groups to put displays up, as well, so that's when the atheist display went up.

There was quite an uproar about it, too. A lot of people felt the atheists were wrong to put up their display or felt they were attacking religion or religious folks. We had angry letters to the editor pouring in, angry comments left on local news web sites, you know the deal. I remember one letter writer criticizing atheism as a "philosophy of despair." (Despair? Hardly! I'm quite happy with my life, thank you very much!) I don't believe their display was ever vandalized, though.

Now, I know a lot of people tend to be of the opinion that "it's OK to not believe in God, but geez, why do you have to go and broadcast it all over the place??" Some people don't "get" why atheists put up displays and billboards and posters and things like that, or they view it as proselytizing, or as an attack on people of faith. I've often heard this opinion coming from other non-religious folks, the "don't rock the boat" types.

But in a society where we're constantly bombarded with religious images and viewpoints, where our political and military leaders consistently invoke God in speeches, where one president even said atheists should not be considered American citizens, it is so important to put an opposing point of view out there. Essentially (and this is just the way I see it), it's about making sure that your voice gets heard, too, amid the din of shouting and arguing. Honestly, why not have that viewpoint out there?

For me, this happened at a pretty pivotal point in my life. I was agnostic for years. Maybe about a year or so prior to CVA's first display, I had come to terms with the fact that I was an atheist. I was carving out this very crucial part of my identity, and seeing that display there on the Vernon town green reminded me that I wasn't alone and reaffirmed that it was absolutely OK to be upfront about my atheism.

"It's not the fall that hurts, it's when you hit the ground"

2009-12-08T16:39:00.000-05:00

I usually post these things to both Facebook and Blogger, but for some reason, I didn't post this here yet. It's dated October 17, 2009. Seriously, the most exhilarating experience of my life. I highly recommend it. (Photo by Roger P. Major of the Connecticut Parachutists, Inc.)

From my Facebook post:

I had the most amazing experience of my life today. Although I've never really considered myself a thrill seeker, adrenaline junkie, or even much of a risk taker, today, I jumped out of an airplane 10,500 feet off the ground.

OK, so it was a tandem jump. So I really didn't need to remember to pull the cord, or, well, anything. And statistically speaking, a tandem jump is much safer than even crossing the street.

"Yeah, but you don't need to sign a waiver to cross the street," more than one pessimist responded. I didn't care. I still felt like I had to do it. My father did it. My mother did it. Technically, I already did it, as my mother was pregnant with me at least one time she jumped.

It was amazing. Have I said that already? Let me tell you about it.

We went through a few basics before we even got in the plane. Jim, my tandem instructor, told me that when we approached the door, I was to lean back, rest my head on his shoulder, hold onto my harness, and tuck my legs underneath the plane. Then, we would jump, he'd do a quick safety check (in the air!!) and tap me on the shoulder to let me know I could release my harness and put my hands out in the air.

But it all happened so quickly, I didn't even think about it. I'm not gonna lie: The first few seconds after we jumped out of the plane were the most terrifying of my life. Free fall. My body was traveling at about 120 mph. The best way to approximate this feeling is to stick your hand out the car window while you're driving on the highway. That's about a fraction of what you feel during this free fall.

I also experienced the strongest, most intense "HolyshitOhmygodIjustjumpe

doutofaplaneImgonnadie!!!" sensation I've ever had in my life. I even felt like I couldn't breathe. Jim explained later that this is a product of your body's "fight or flight" reaction. Your blood rushes to all your internal organs and you can have difficulty breathing. I gulped in air because I knew I wasn't underwater and theoretically could still breathe. Consequently, I look kind of like a goldfish in some of the pictures Roger the videographer snapped while we were in the air.

The free fall didn't last very long, though. Or it might have. I'm not really sure. I had pretty much no sense of time while I was doing this. Or space, or distance, or speed.

Once Jim deployed the parachute, I felt like everything just stopped. It was cold, and I was still about 5,000 feet off the ground, but it was actually quite peaceful and relaxing. We had a beautiful view of the New England scenery, and everything was just... quiet. Peaceful. Relaxing.

Jim did a few more safety checks and loosened my harness. (As much as loosening your harness mid-air sounds like a bad idea, Jim explained that it actually makes it easier for the jumper to breathe, and it makes landing easier.)

He steered the parachute over the field where we were to land and instructed me to stick my feet out straight in front of me. I slid to a stop, mostly on my ass. It's OK because I was wearing a jumpsuit.

Once I landed, I couldn't stop giggling. Actually, I've been breaking out into giggle fits all day whenever I think about it, especially those first few seconds out of the plane. I immediately felt like I had to run everywhere. I had so much excess energy to burn off. Or maybe it was the adrenaline. I don't know.

The bottom line is that it was an incredible, exhilarating, life-affirming experience, and if you're thinking even just a little bit about going on a tandem jump, then you should absolutely do it. I highly, highly recommend it.

The end. :)

A brief note on feminism, MRAs, stay-at-home dads, and the military

2009-12-07T17:26:00.000-05:00

I know I linked to these already, but if you didn't already see them, here are two very good articles that pretty much encapsulate my problems with what are commonly known as men's rights activists.

I live in Connecticut, and I tend to surround myself with fairly liberal-minded people (at least, liberal-minded in relation to gender roles), so I don't usually get a negative reaction from someone when I identify myself as a feminist. But when I do receive a somewhat negative reaction, it tends to run along the lines of either "Feminists look down on stay-at-home dads. Would you marry a Mr. Mom?" or "Yeah, but women don't have to be drafted, so that's discrimination in favor of women. Shouldn't you support drafting women?"

Let me break it down for you, one at a time.

To the issue of stay-at-home dads. Would I marry a "Mr. Mom"? Um, why wouldn't I? I'll admit that right now I'm kind of on the fence about having kids. I think that's perfectly fine, given that I'm only 24 years old and nowhere near settled in life. But if I did want to have kids? Yes, I would absolutely want to have them with a man who's eager to take a more active role in parenting his children. Yes, I would absolutely be willing to be the "breadwinner," if we decided together that that's how we wanted to raise said hypothetical kids. I've had jobs since I was 15 years old. I'm used to paying my own way, and I don't expect to ever stop.

Along the same lines, I sometimes run into the expectation that as a feminist, I must be a hypocrite when it comes to splitting the check. I must still expect my boyfriend to buy me lots of shit and pay for me all the time. This assumption couldn't be further from the truth, and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

Now to the issue of the draft... For reasons unrelated to feminism, I believe that an all-volunteer military is really the best way to go, but if we did have to implement the draft? Yes, women should absolutely be drafted alongside men. Women have had a chance to prove themselves as capable and competent soldiers, and we have every reason to expect that women can serve their country through military service.

People also seem to have this idea in their heads where they automatically equate military service to fighting on the front lines, when that is not always the case. A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of what military service can entails, and while I won't profess to be an expert on the subject, at the very least, I realize that a person can serve in the military without ever seeing battle or having to kill someone.

This is all I wanted to touch on, for now anyway. :)

"It's 'Merry Christmas,' mothertrucker!"

2009-12-01T08:33:00.000-05:00

With the onset of the last month of the year comes the onset of "The War on Christmas" season. Or did that begin on Black Friday? Or earlier? I don't keep track of these things, but it seems like Christmas shopping season starts earlier every year, so I must be about two weeks behind in reporting on the beginning of this year's "War on Christmas" season.

Whatever. The "War on Christmas" is bullshit anyway. Is there any quicker way to suck the fun out of something than by making that something into a political football? I don't think so.

Quite frankly, I think the people baw-ing every time a cashier wishes them "Happy Holidays" are hypocrites. "Holiday" is too generic, they complain."You're taking CHRIST out of Christmas!" they bleat.

Actually, if you want to get technical about it, there's very little "Christ" in Christmas already, at least the way we celebrate it here in America. Dust up on some history. Many of the symbols we associate with Christmas actually derive from non-Christian pagan traditions predating the birth of Jesus Christ. For example, mistletoe, yule logs, holly wreaths, even the beloved Christmas tree are all non-Christian in origin. Early Christians incorporated many pagan symbols into their own holiday to make Christianity more palatable to pagans (and thus, win over more converts). There's a word for this practice, too: syncretism. And if you want to get really technical about it, astronomers actually believe the birth of Christ happened a lot closer to the summer than to Dec. 25.

So a "good Christian" who wants to "keep Christ in Christmas" should probably be celebrating the birth of their savior in June - and shouldn't get a Christmas tree.

And if you want to throw another monkey wrench into the equation here, the word "holiday" literally means "holy day," so Fox News aficionados should be happy when retailers acknowledge their upcoming winter gift-giving day as holy.

We should all realize by this point that the "War on Christmas" is kind of an imaginary phenomenon that conservative commentators use to stir up white, middle-class Christian rage around this time of the year. It's convenient. The American Family Association needs something to be mad about, and lord knows you can't be angry about gays in the military and women in the workforce year-round. You've got to mix it up a little! It also helps their case that Christians in America are oppressed. (Hint: You're using the wrong suffix.)

If you want proof the AFA is just a bunch of whiny little ninnies with nothing better to spend their time on, click here to read their latest press release condemning Gap's holiday ad campaign. Remember they initially got their panties in a twist because (they claimed) Gap left the word "Christmas" out of this year's ad campaign, when the clothing retailer, in fact, included it in a very in-your-face kind of way. The bottom line is the same anyway: "Happy Holidays! Rah, rah, rah! Buy our shit!"

As for me personally, well, this time of the year gets very stressful, and I do tend to turn into a bit of a Grinch. I'm just trying not to stress out too much and to just kick back and enjoy spending time with my friends and family. Gift giving can be fun if you don't go overboard, and everyone loves an excuse to eat, drink, and be merry. Plus, if Richard Dawkins can do Christmas, then I think I can feel pretty OK about doing Christmas as an atheist.

If you take the politics out of it, then it's kind of a neat cultural phenomenon. It's interesting to see the way we've combined various religious and cultural practices over several centuries to create this one big amalgamation of food, shopping, pine trees, and peppermint. And boy, do I love peppermint mocha lattes!

One more thing before I go, though: I will not hesitate to tease and heckle these "Merry Christmas" warriors. If you force pamphlets into my hands or chide me that "Jesus is the reason for the season," then I will probably get in your face and tell you I celebrate solstice or Festivus or that I worship the sun god or a can of Spam or something equally ridiculous. Just because it's fun to make them sputter.

Happy Holidays, friends! :)

"War on Christmas" season has officially begun!

2009-11-27T10:46:00.000-05:00

The L.A. Times has an excellent piece on the American Family Association's recent call for Christians to boycott Gap. Their offense? Failing to mention the word "Christmas" in their holiday advertising. Except that they actually do mention Christmas, so maybe the real offense is mentioning Christmas in the same breath as Hannukah, Kwanzaa, and solstice.

But as Dan Neil points out, their injunction against Gap may not matter at all anyway.

If you look at the history of the organization's boycotts -- often involving punitive actions against companies that support gay rights -- you'll see that they have no commercial impact. Actually, these boycotts seem to be good for business: In the decade of the AFA's boycott against Disney, which ended in 2006, the world's largest entertainment conglomerate's revenue roughly doubled to $34 billion. Likewise for Ford, which just posted a billion-dollar profit in the third quarter of 2009.

Personally, I don't particularly care whether someone wants to wish me a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or a Happy Kwanzaa. Whatever. Do what you want, but don't bleat on about how a cashier wishing you "Happy Holidays" is "taking the Christ out of Christmas," especially if you're indulging in the consumerist pseudo-holiday madness that is known as Black Friday. After all, nothing says "Happy Birthday, Jesus!" like two soccer moms assailing each other with their shopping carts to get the last $40 mechanical hamster.

On another note, I did go out this morning, on Black Friday. Not because I wanted to, but because I was assigned the duty of interviewing shoppers for our annual Black Friday shopping story. The chore was not as horrible as I imagined it to be, although I parked at the mall and hoofed it to Wal-Mart and Best Buy. My soaking wet shoes and socks are now parked on top of my desk in the newsroom. I just hope I don't forget to bring them home with me.

I am terrible at updating this blog on a regular basis. Please forgive me, Internets.

Coming out swinging on a Monday morning

2009-10-26T18:46:00.000-04:00

OK, so it's not really morning anymore, but I started writing this earlier today, so cut me some slack.

I've wanted to make an abortion post for a while now, but haven't quite found the energy. Arguing about this subject, especially, can take quite a bit out of you, but there are two items in the news I've wanted to address lately.

CNN recently reported a dramatic drop in support for abortion rights, but I'm not terribly concerned about it. Why? First of all, I want to know: how many people participated in this poll? And what was the demographic makeup of the respondents? Also, where did they get this sample? Furthermore, I would like to know exactly how they worded these questions because the wording of a question can make a big difference in the answer you get.

I would also like to point out that people who simply identify as "pro-life" aren't necessarily likely to support all-out criminalization of abortion. I've encountered plenty of people who will say something along the lines of, "Well, I'm pro-life for myself, but I don't think it should be illegal." The number of people who actually support banning abortion under all circumstances is still pretty low. If I remember correctly, it's about 23 percent.

In my opinion, that "pro-life for myself, but it should still be legal" viewpoint is A-OK. It may not be consistent with the "pro-life" ethic, but I don't concern myself too much with that. I don't care what opinions people hold or what decisions they make for themselves. What's important to me is that abortion remain legal, under most circumstances, because the alternative is kind of scary.

And speaking of the alternative, MSNBC recently reported that almost half the abortions performed worldwide are unsafe, and furthermore, that most of those unsafe abortions are occurring in countries with the least access to contraceptives and abortion services.

File this under "Why I'm pro-choice."

A quick one today

2009-10-14T09:15:00.000-04:00

Jill Stanek is bleating more nonsense about birth control again. Color me shocked.

The source she cites, the DailyFail, is dubious at best, so take it with a grain, no, scratch that, a bucket of salt. The article she discusses essentially says a recent study shows the birth control pill may have an effect on the type of man a woman finds attractive. The article then goes on to assert the popularity of stars like Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Will Smith, is likely proof of this.

From the source:

On days when women are not fertile, their tastes swing towards more feminine, boyish faces and more caring personalities, researchers have shown.

However, if women are taking the Pill they no longer have fertile days.

That means they no longer experience the hormonal changes that make them more attracted to masculine men and those with dissimilar genetic make-up.

Stanek characterizes men with caring personalities as "wimps" and "quiche eaters." Call me crazy, but I don't want some big, hulking Neanderthal to throw me over his shoulder and bring me back to his cave for a dinner of woolly mammoth steak. I'm a 21st century woman. I want a guy with a caring personality. I want a guy who has a good sense of humor and can hold an intelligent conversation. Why is it a bad thing to be attracted to men with caring personalities? Wouldn't those men be better fathers in the long run anyway? Also, what does quiche have to do with this? I didn't know food was supposed to be masculine or feminine.

Lesson learned, ladies: If you take the pill, not only will you be able to have as much sex as you want while simultaneously preventing unintended pregnancies, you'll also fall for nicer guys.

Have sex, get pregnant, get expelled

2009-10-08T07:55:00.000-04:00

This had me seeing red. Essentially, a private Christian school in Arkansas is being sued by a student's mother because they expelled the girl for getting pregnant.

This is what the student's mother is alleging in the lawsuit:

Upon hearing rumors that the student was pregnant, the principal summoned her to his office and badgered her to 'fess up. When she wouldn't tell the principal, he called in a teacher, and when the student confided in the teacher, the teacher then turned around and told the principal. The student was expelled and then taken to a so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Center"* where the center's staff interviewed the girl, administered a pregnancy test, and then disseminated the information to school employees.

All without calling her parents.

This entire scenario is flat-out wrong, but before I get into why, let's look at some of the points that might count in the school's favor.

I've been going back and forth with a conservative friend about this story for a few days now. He contends that it is a Christian school, that the student knew the rules when she enrolled, and that she broke them anyway. He further argues, "What's the point of having rules if you aren't going to enforce them?" and worries that failure to enforce this policy will encourage more teen pregnancies in the school system.

As a staunchly pro-choice feminist, I'll admit to having wrung my hands about the matter of teen pregnancy. I've often asked myself, Where is the line between supporting the young women who want to have their babies and carry on with life, and blatantly encouraging this behavior? I can't help but wonder if such hand-wringing is totally unfounded and paranoid, though. And even if I have the slightest inkling that measures meant to help teen moms finish school (day care centers in public high schools, for example) might unwittingly encourage more teen pregnancies, I have to imagine that whatever scant encouragement that offers is greatly outweighed by the benefits of helping teenage moms finish up high school. Isn't it more important to worry about the young women whose chances at education are already diminished than to worry whether helping those girls sets a bad example for others?

So the hand-wringing is unnecessary, I admit it. Now back to the matter at hand... Let me say this: The policy of expelling pregnant students because having them around encourages "sexual immorality" is outdated, sexist, and just plain stupid.

It's outdated because it relies on the old-fashioned notion that punishing teens for getting pregnant will actually discourage them from having sex. It's that same line of thinking that says we shouldn't have a vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer because women and girls should be punished for having pre-marital sex with a disease.

It's sexist because this policy disproportionately affects the girls and young women involved. Male students are seldom ever punished for their sexual indiscretions, and again, that invokes antiquated ideas about female sexuality and what the consequences for that should be. (Which, in my mind, raises the question, "Why does sexuality have to have consequences?")

And finally, it's stupid because it brazenly discourages teen moms from completing their high school educations. Although the situation of teen mothers has improved dramatically over the last few decades, the fact still remains that only about a third of teen mothers receive their high school diploma, and teen moms are even less likely to go onto higher education. (Only about 1.5% of teen moms earn a college degree by age 30.) Furthermore, about 80 percent of teen moms wind up on welfare. And this doesn't bode well for their babies, either. The sons of teen moms are approximately 13% more likely to end up in jail, and their daughters are 22% more likely to end up teen mothers themselves.**

You know what can greatly improve a teen mom's prospects for a long, healthy, successful life? An education!! That's a no-brainer! And as a slight aside, it's real education about sex, sexuality, STIs, and contraceptives, that will be the real solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. Education, not keeping them in the dark with this abstinence-only nonsense.

I have to add another point, too, about the sheer hypocrisy of Christian schools whose policy is to expel pregnant students. I did a little bit of digging and found the school in question is affiliated with Trinity Baptist Church in Texarkana, Ark. I searched their website, but the closest thing I could find to a statement on abortion was this: "Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord." They could theoretically be pro-choice, but I don't think it's likely that a school with such a conservative policy on teen sex would simultaneously hold a liberal point of view on abortion.

Having said that, I wonder if those school officials, if they identify themselves as pro-life, recognize that this policy quite likely has the effect of encouraging pregnant students to seek abortions or to hide their pregnancies for as long as they can, thereby delaying very necessary prenatal care. Why exhort young women to "choose life" when you aren't going to support them in that choice??

I am pro-choice, and while I would not encourage the choice to have a child at such a young age, I think these young women should be supported nonetheless. They've made their choice, so don't throw them out on their asses.

*For those of you not in the know, Crisis Pregnancy Centers are essentially fake or quasi- medical clinics often run by pro-life organizations with the intent of discouraging abortions. While some CPCs are upfront about their bias, others may masquerade under the more generic moniker of "women's clinic." Often, CPCs will brand themselves as "abortion alternatives" and after luring in confused young women with a free pregnancy test, will foist misleading, anti-choice propaganda on them. Having said that, I'm willing to give a few of them the benefit of the doubt, but that's another discussion for another day.

**Numbers taken from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Good on Illinois!

2009-10-07T09:22:00.000-04:00

While I'm sure many of my pro-life friends would disagree, I'm inclined to think this was a very good decision. I certainly can't blame the Illinois DMV for wanting to keep abortion politics off of license plates. Besides, if you feel that strongly about the issue, then you're free to cover your car in bumper stickers.*

*I think bumper stickers are obnoxious, by the way. All bumper stickers - not just the ones I happen to disagree with. When I see a car's ass end covered in bumper stickers, I feel the urge to pull up closer to the car and read them all. And they're usually not worth reading. Additionally, I like to keep politics off my vehicle of choice.

Well, this is certainly interesting...

2009-10-07T09:06:00.000-04:00

What have I been saying all along, fellas? It pays to date smart women, apparently!

Glenn Beck as a comic character

2009-09-27T16:25:00.001-04:00

As of late, I've taken an interest in comedy writing - partly to "broaden my horizons," so to speak, and partly to improve my overall abilities as a writer. Dave was kind enough to loan me an excellent book for just such a purpose, John Vorhaus' The Comic Toolbox: How To Be Funny Even If You're Not. I just finished up Chapter 4, Comic Characters, and I think Fox News pundit/scaremonger Glenn Beck almost perfectly fits Vorhaus' rubric for creating a solid comic character.

First, a comic character must have comic perspective. Vorhaus writes, "The comic perspective is the character's unique way of looking at his world, which differs in a clear and substantial way from the 'normal' world view." Can there be any doubt that Glenn Beck possesses a strong comic perspective, that his perspective on the world is indeed warped?

In this case, Glenn Beck's comic perspective is his peculiar brand of off-the-wall paranoid quasi-libertarian-conservatism, and everything he sees or reads in the news gets filtered through this perspective. If Glenn Beck simply opposed President Obama’s policies or opinions, there would be nothing remarkable or comic about him. To give an example, Beck doesn’t oppose health care reform because he’s concerned about government spending. He actually thinks Obama wants to expand health care as a means of reparations. You know, for slavery. That’s an example of how Beck filters what’s happening out in the real world through his own unique comic perspective.

Vorhaus' second requirement for a good comic character is exaggeration. "The tool of exaggeration, then, simply takes a comic perspective and pushes and stretches and accelerates it until it's sufficiently far from our perspective that it starts to be funny," he explains.

Nobody does exaggeration like Glenn Beck. Beck isn't just conservative. The man lives in crazy, upside-down conserva-world. Up is down! Black is white! Left is right! Need an example? When Obama criticized that Cambridge police officer regarding the whole Henry Louis Gates fiasco (which is really another discussion by itself), well, he wasn’t just perhaps speaking a bit rashly. No, by Beck’s reasoning, Obama said that stuff because he’s a racist! He’s racist against white people! And he hates white culture! No, never mind that Obama is half-white himself and was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. And never mind that when asked by Katie Couric to define what he even meant by “white culture” (Could you have meant this, Glenn?), Beck hemmed and hawed and refused to even answer the question, but still defended his original point. No. The president is just racist. ‘Nuff said.

Third, a comic character must also have flaws. Oh, boy, does Mr. Beck have flaws. He’s paranoid, and he’s easily given to crazy delusions. Nowhere did he better illustrate this than in the episode when he went off on a rant about the "socialist art" in Rockefeller Square. (Also, the Rockefellers were progressives? Again, see the aforementioned criteria, and you'll better understand how this fits into my argument.)

Finally, Vorhaus writes, a comic character must have humanity. "We used flaws to drive a wedge between the character and the audience so that the audience could laugh. Now we use humanity to build a bridge between the character and the audience so the audience can care," Vorhaus says.

Sure, Glenn Beck has humanity. He obviously cares about his country very much. He's patriotic. And on top of that, he's sensitive. And emotional. We know that, however crazy and delusional he is, at least, he cares. And we know that he cares because why else would he throw an emotional fit on national television? Surely, he wouldn't humiliate himself on TV for fame, right? ... Right?

Taken altogether, we can see that Glenn Beck is a real, live, flesh-and-blood example of the perfect comic character. He possesses comic perspective, exaggeration, flaws, and humanity. Just like Michael Scott on The Office, or Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock. But the thing is, Glenn Beck isn’t a fictional character, and whether or not he actually believes half the crazy shit that comes out of his mouth, he at least appears to take himself very seriously. And so do his millions of viewers, although I like to believe that at least some of those viewers either take his bullshit with a grain of salt or they’re just high. Or they’re making a drinking game out of his TV show. (My liver hurts just thinking about that!)

Already this year, we’ve seen at least two incidents of right-wing domestic terrorism, in the actions of Scott Roeder and James von Brunn. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if similar motivations were behind the recent killing of census worker Bill Sparkman, although to be fair, the investigation is still in full swing. I can’t say with any certainty whether any of those people followed Glenn Beck, or Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other “They’re out to get us!” right-wing scaremongers. But I can say, with some degree of certainty, that things are changing in this country, and that’s resulting in a lot of anger, fear, and hatred, coming from, well, white guys who are viewing themselves as increasingly disenfranchised victims of the federal government.

As talking heads, Beck and his colleagues have some degree of control over the tenor of our political discourse. They should accept that and maybe think about toning down some of their more outlandish rhetoric. (Beck, remember, once joked on air about poisoning the Speaker of the House.) For years, conservatives have railed against Hollywood and television’s invidious influence on society. Sorry guys, but it’s too late to backtrack and tell us all that your own words have no impact on any unhinged listener’s violent actions.

And while I’ll concede that liberal talking heads say plenty of stupid things on their own (Janeane Garofalo, just shut up!), you’ll find very few, if any, actually advocating violence. (I personally can’t think of any myself, but I’m sure they’re out there.) On the other hand, it’s hard to think of a conservative talking head who hasn’t done so.

Dissent is great. Debate is fantastic. But we’re human beings, so we should be able to keep it civil, especially during a time of great difficulty for our country. Going on the radio or television and spewing your crazy conspiracy theories, telling your millions of viewers the government wants to pull the plug on grandma when you know damn well that isn’t true, is just irresponsible. Whether or not they mean it seriously, Glenn Beck and his associates often do us one worse when they actually advocate violence and chaos.

And there’s nothing funny about that.

Fair and balanced...

2009-09-22T18:37:00.000-04:00

Like a seesaw with an elephant on one side and an Olsen twin on the other.

Why am I not the least bit surprised by this?

Yeah, OK, reporters are human, too. We can't help but have our own opinions about some things, but you don't let that get into your work. In other words, take off your "teabagger hat" when you put on your "reporter hat."

Just as an aside, do you think the Republicans have figured out what "teabagging" actually means yet?

Today the FBI emailed me!

2009-09-22T18:00:00.000-04:00

I got an email today from somebody claiming to be from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division. Copied and pasted below...

Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
Seattle, Washington.

ATTN: BENEFICIARY

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigation with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you legally won the sum of $800,000..00 USD from a Lottery Company outside the United States of America. During our investigation we discovered that your e-mail won the money from an Online Balloting System and we have authorized this winning to be paid to you via a Certified Cashier's Check.

Normally, it will take up to 10 business days for an International Check to be cashed by your local bank. We have successfully notified this company on your behalf that funds are to be drawn from a registered bank within the United States Of America so as to enable you cash the check instantly without any delay, henceforth the stated amount of $800,000.00 USD has been deposited with Bank Of America.

We have completed this investigation and you are hereby approved to receive the winning prize as we have verified the entire transaction to be Safe and 100% risk free, due to the fact that the funds have been deposited at Bank Of America you will be required to settle the following bills directly to the Lottery Agent in-charge of this transaction whom is located in Lagos, Nigeria. According to our discoveries, you were required to pay for the following -

(1) Deposit Fee's ( Fee's paid by the company for the deposit into an American Bank which is - Bank Of America )

(2) Cashier's Check Conversion Fee ( Fee for converting the Wire Transfer payment into a Certified Cashier's Check )

The total amount for everything is $300.00 (Three Hundred-US Dollars). We have tried our possible best to indicate that this $300.00 should be deducted from your winning prize but we found out that the funds have already been deposited at Bank Of America and cannot be accessed by anyone apart from you the winner, therefore you will be required to pay the required fee's to the Agent in-charge of this transaction via Western Union Money Transfer Or Money Gram.

In order to proceed with this transaction, you will be required to contact the agent in-charge ( SAMUEL OLIVER ) via e-mail. Kindly look below to find appropriate contact information:

CONTACT AGENT NAME: SAMUEL OLIVER

E-MAIL ADDRESS: samuelovl@aol.com

You will be required to e-mail him with the following information:

FULL NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY:

STATE:

ZIP CODE:

DIRECT CONTACT NUMBER:

You will also be required to request Western Union details on how to send the required $300.00 in order to immediately ship your prize of $800,000.00 USD via Certified Cashier's Check drawn from Bank Of America, also include the following transaction code in order for him to immediately identify this transaction : EA2948-910.

This letter will serve as proof that the Federal Bureau Of Investigation is authorizing you to pay the required $300.00 ONLY to Mr. SAMUEL OLIVER via information in which he shall send to you, if you do not receive your winning prize of $800,000.00 we shall be held responsible for the loss and this shall invite a penalty of $3,000 which will be made PAYABLE ONLY to you (The Winner).

Please find below an authorized signature which has been signed by the FBI Director- Robert Mueller, also below is the FBI NSB (National Security

FBI Director
Robert Mueller.

Authorized Signature

NSB SEAL ABOVE

NOTE: In order to ensure your check gets delivered to you ASAP, you are advised to immediately contact Mr. Samuel Oliver via contact information provided above and make the required payment of $300.00 to information in which he shall provide to you.

I almost kinda can't believe people fall for this stuff, except that I've seen it. When I worked at the bank, I remember one older fellow who had to close and reopen his accounts several times because he kept falling for those Australian lottery email scams. It was actually pretty sad.

Breaking down misogynist manure

2009-09-19T18:15:00.000-04:00

Originally posted to Facebook on August 7, 2009:

I've been thinking a bit lately about what being a feminist means to me. A friend, perhaps unwittingly, drew my attention to this steaming load of horseshit, so I felt that maybe another note was in order.

Point the first: Kanazawa makes some fundamentally incorrect assumptions about feminism. The point of feminism is not to erase differences between men and women, or to deny that those differences exist. Rather, feminists work to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. As Stacey put it: "Since YOUR basic assumption about feminism is wrong, you're wrong."

Plenty of feminists, myself included, enjoy getting dressed up now and again, putting on heels and a dress and maybe a little bit of lipstick. In fact, many feminists love, date, marry, fuck, and settle down with, men. The point of feminism isn't to hate men or to make Western society androgynous. Certainly, feminists believe that androgynous people should not be treated as freaks or forced to conform to specific gender roles they aren't comfortable with. The same goes for gay, bi, transgender, transsexual, or any other type of queer folks out there. And feminists do generally believe gender roles are largely socially constructed. (Until the early 20th century, little boys were often dressed in pink and little girls in blue. In some tribal societies, the men don face paint and fancy costumes to impress the women.)

So since Kanazawa starts off with some wholly inaccurate assumptions about feminism, it's hard to keep taking his piece seriously. Still, it's worth reading for this one little turd alone:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

In other words, "Well, sure, menfolk control the money, politics, and prestige, and everything... But it's you women who have the real power because you guys have tits!!"

Or something like that. Anyway, this "pretty girls have all the power!" crap might even be more annoying than the disenfranchised-upper-midd

le-class-white-Christian-man garbage we've been witnessing so much of since Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

In the first place, it's not true. If women really did exercise that much sway over men, don't you think we would have had more than ~~two~~ sorry, three female Supreme Court Justices by now? Don't you think women would hold at least half the seats in the Senate and the House? If women really held that much power over men solely by virtue of sex appeal, don't you think we would have had at least one female president? So basically, it's bullshit.

Secondly, even if it were true (which it isn't), telling women to be satisfied with less-than-equal status because they have control over men's penises almost seems a little bit like telling black people to quit whining about prejudice because they dominate professional basketball. Why on earth would anybody think that sexual attractiveness or "sexual power" of some sort is any substitute for real political, social, and economic equality? Is that the message we want to send young girls? "Don't worry about going to college, getting a job, getting ahead or anything like that. All you need to do is find a powerful man and use sex to manipulate him."

Seriously?? That's degrading to both sexes. And furthermore, this proves my point about why feminism is still very, very necessary. It's sexist to suggest that women assert power by sexually manipulating men, and it's sexist to assume that men are incapable of using their brains when faced with a pretty girl.

And thirdly, what about less than "reasonably (read: conventionally) attractive" women? What do they get in this imaginary, made-up world where women don't have rights but don't need them because pretty women can exercise sway over guys' dicks?

Furthermore, Kanazawa''s point about "happiness" entirely misses the mark. The point of feminism isn't to make women happy. The point of feminism, as I stated before, is to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. What you do with those opportunities are your business. Your own happiness is your responsibility alone, and Kanazawa never actually cites any studies to prove that women today are less happy, and even if he did, anybody educated past the 10th grade should be able to understand that correlation does not mean causation. (If people - not women, but people - truly are less happy than they used to be, we might want to ask about things like employment, education, debt, the economy, our increasingly sedentary lifestyles, etc., before dumping the blame on feminism - a movement which, innocuously enough, asserts that women have inherent equal worth to men and should therefore be treated that way.)

In concluding, Kanazawa writes, "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny."

Don't worry. I fixed it for him: "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to ~~deny~~ prove."

Damn straight, I'm a feminist! And guess what? I'm happy, too!

Some thoughts on religion, godlessness, and life in general

2009-09-19T18:12:00.000-04:00

Originally posted to Facebook on July 18, 2009:

It occurred to me the other day that the first time I publicly admitted I was an atheist, I was about 16 years old. I was walking down the street in front of the post office in downtown Stafford when an older man accosted me, shoving pamphlets for his church at me. I put my hands up in a defensive posture.

"Oh, uh. No, thanks. I'm an atheist," I told him.

As I walked past him down the street, he shouted after me, "Jesus is real! He died for your sins!"

I just said, "OK," and continued walking.

Around that time, I was attending confirmation classes, and my teachers kept reiterating that confirmation "is a very important sacrament that's not to be taken lightly" and that it "means you're an adult in the eyes of the church." Before that point, I was, for all intents and purposes, an agnostic. I didn't think much about the existence of any deity, I didn't pray, I hated attending church, and I was already beginning to disagree with many of the Catholic church's positions regarding gender roles, sexuality, etc.

When my teachers said, "You have to take this seriously and make sure you really want to do this," I took that message to heart and told my dad that maybe I shouldn't be going through with all of this because maybe I was an atheist.

He told me, "Just do it. You'll regret it later if you don't."

I didn't really know what he meant by that at the time. In retrospect, maybe he was referring to my someday getting married in a church. Does anyone who has ever held more than a five-minute conversation with me actually think that is ever going to happen? (The church part, not the marriage part. I'll probably get married someday. Probably not before I turn 30.)

So I begrudgingly dragged my feet through with the whole thing, disagreeing with the church almost every step of the way, and feeling like an utter phony for participating in this ceremony that held absolutely no relevance to my own life.

I was an "adult in the eyes of the church" now? Fine. I was going to make the adult decision to stop going to church. I figured, Why subject myself to something that made me so miserable? (If only I had given up dieting and self-loathing with such ease!)

From there, I kind of bounced between atheism and agnosticism for a while. Atheism seemed too "extreme" to me at some points in my life, but a few years ago, I decided to just be honest with myself about it. And it's really not so extreme.

I do try to give religion a fair shake. I really, really do. But it's hard. I can't help but see organized religion as a largely invidious force that stunts real progress in society. Mind you, I said "organized religion" and not "religious folks." I have friends who pray and attend worship services and do some really good things for their community, and I applaud them for that.

I'll repeat that: I applaud them, the individuals, and not the church, for doing good deeds. I also know plenty of people who aren't religious at all and who give back to their communities. For example, the Connecticut Valley Atheists do quite a bit of good stuff, like raise money for cancer research and help out at battered women shelters.

With or without religion, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. That's just human nature. I try not to get into the argument of "Does religion cause more good or harm in the world?" because I don't believe good and harm are quantifiable things that can be measured and calculated. (To be truthful, I lean towards the latter, but like I said, I try to give religion a fair shake, so I won't get into that discussion here.)

What I want is a fair shake from religious folks. And to be honest, most of the religious people I know really don't try to push their beliefs on me, and I thank them for that. Unfortunately, I know a fair number of people who think I should practice what they preach.

But what I probably hate most is the assumption that I must be miserable and that my life must be empty and meaningless because I don't believe in any kind of god. Nothing could be further from the truth! I've never looked back or wondered whether my life would be more meaningful if I had religion. I already know it wouldn't be.

I have an interesting and unique family, whom I love very much. I have fantastic friends who I'd bend over backwards for. I have a wonderful boyfriend, and we love and respect each other so much. I work a job that's never the same every day; it's often frustrating and stressful, but it's also rewarding and fulfilling.

So what, then, do I need religion for?

I can already see enough beauty and wonder and goodness in the world, without believing that it was created by any kind of divine power. True, I'm a little bit rudderless at the moment and don't know exactly what I want out of life, but hey, I'm 23. That's to be expected.

I call bullshit on anybody who claims to know the meaning of life or who claims to find that meaning in a book that's essentially older than dirt. And I find it especially interesting that human beings who have difficulty discerning the intentions of our Constitution's drafters would claim to know with near-absolute certainty the intentions of men who penned the Bible - a book that is, in my opinion, certainly much less relevant to our society than the Constitution.

But now I'm just being critical.

You pretty much have to be a terrible person to say this kind of thing.

2009-09-19T18:09:00.000-04:00

I originally posted this to my Facebook account on May 16, 2009:

What follows is a quick little blog post that contains some fairly harsh, but also fairly appropriate, language in response to a horrible thing I heard this morning. In other words, you've been warned.

OK, I was on Welcome Crew duty this morning. I expect the usual barbs from the pro-forced-birthers hanging out on the sidewalk with their bloody fetus posters.

"Your mom chose life!" (Yes, she chose to have me. She is pro-choice, and I wouldn't have it any other way.)

"You're just like Hitler/Stalin/a child molester/a prostitute!" (Right. I'm just like all of those people. Logic: Use some.)

"I'll pray for you!!" (Um, no thanks. Please don't.)

But that's all standard fare. If they're not yelling at women or trying to force pamphlets and rosaries through car windows, then they're standing there and praying quietly. Whatever. I expect it. Really, I'm just there to be a friendly face to the patients coming in.

Today, shortly after getting out of my car, I heard something that really infuriated me. Now, just think to yourself: What might be the most dickish and insensitive thing you can say in a Connecticut college town right about now?

Try: "That Wesleyan girl got what was coming to her!"

... Yeah.

(In case you weren't aware, Johanna Justin-Jinich, the Wesleyan student who was stalked and gunned down a while working at her job in a bookstore recently, was a women's rights activist who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I assume this is what that asshat was referring to.)

OK, I don't particularly care what your views on abortion are. That is a horrible thing to say. Period. We generally ignore the protesters - the same treatment you'd give a petulant little child. I didn't say anything to this dude, but if I could have?

"Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty hammer!"