Dulcissime

I am getting very, very tired of hearing members of the military (and their families) say "we lay down our lives so you can have free speech" in order to silence criticism of individuals or aspects of war.

Yes. And it I respect that. But on the OTOH, you don't only do it for speech that you, personally endorse. It's free speech. That includes criticism. That includes things you don't agree with. A person choosing to become part of the military and fight for many things (including freedom) does not mean that their service automatically gives them a magical trump card with which to shut dissenting opinions down.

ALSO OMFG PLEASE LEARN THAT FREE SPEECH MEANS THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T CENSOR YOU, NOT THAT SOMEONE CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU! IT IS NOT A HARD CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND.

Absolutely, military members might have insights into things that civilians might not. Absolutely, they have every right to say, "this is my experience, and it is valid."

But no, if your response to someone criticizing the Islamophobic messages in a war movie or criticizing the bad-to-horrific behavior of individual soldiers is to say, "well, what have YOU done? They put their lives on the line for you!", then I invite you to take a critical thinking course. Because what you are saying belies intellectual laziness, and you deserve better than that. We all do.

Also? HOO BOY do I wish for a social media standard where people respond to the things I am actually saying, and not all of the whackadoo things that they assume A Liberal (tm - as defined by Fox News) might think. I am not your preconceived notion. I am a person with a name and complex feelings on things. I recognize that nuance exists. If you're going to engage that way, we need to not engage at all.

What is happening in Texas at this very moment is nothing short of tyranny. I have never been one to use such harsh language, because it means something VERY specific, very dire, and very important. But if Texas allows a vote to pass after midnight after breaking their own rules at least twice to do so, it's tyranny. No other way to put it.

Also things to note: white male senators on both sides of the aisle were given free reign to speak uninterrupted. Black and female senators were constantly, petulantly interrupted.

The senate President was utterly incapable of stringing together four words at a time without passing them through his female handler.

Remarks on sonograms and Roe V Wade were deemed not germane to the conversation about abortion and treated as strikes, while the senate President ignored the senate's own rules to say that there must be THREE strikes on the topic of germane-ness in order to table a filibuster. The other strike that counted was Sen Davis adjusting a BACK BRACE. Because fuck you, that's why.

This is what privilege is, in its rawest form. If you lose, fair and square, you get to change the rules, cheat, lie, obfuscate, and take votes after midnight and claim they happened at 11:59. Even when there is documented, photographic proof that this happened. Because white penis, basically.

Because white penis means you know what's best for womens' bodies, even if you can't figure out how the governing body that you belong to works. It means that a lone woman standing up for 13 hours can't eat, move from her desk, lean on her desk, sit, or take a restroom break because of RULES, but white dudes can disregard the rules of the proceedings as they see fit. Even when you win, fair and square, you lose.

This is what it is to not have power. You watch a bunch of assholes trample your right to bodily autonomy, and then you get to watch the biggest asshole present demand order, as though you were supposed to silently watch and accept your spot under his bootheel. You watch it dawn on him as he is shouted over that it sucks not to have your voice heard. You realize it won't change a damn thing about the way he treats others. Good god, Dewhurst has earned himself a plum spot in the hall of fame of cowardly assweasels for that one.

Did the networks cover it? No. They rehashed the Zimmerman trial. They talked about the Kardashian baby. I heard something about an immobilized cruise ship. CNN covered blueberry fucking muffins, I shit you not. No one but a local outlet or two thought to cover this epic filibuster begun by senator Wendy Davis, and aided valiantly by her colleagues senators West, Watson & Zaffirini, with the most MARVELOUS assist from senator Leticia Van De Putte-- who, by the by, came from her father's funeral to lay some smack down on these shenanigans. "Did the President hear me or did the President hear me and refuse to recognize me?" she asked after being passed over for another white dude. "At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” Because of course, when talking about the female body, we need to hear from more old white dudes.

The networks did not cover thousands of protesters who interrupted the chamber for over a half hour with their cries to be heard, their screams of support-- "WENDY! WENDY! WENDY!" They are still screaming, hours later. I have never seen anything like it.

Twitter and FB were on fire. 170k people were glued to the livestream I watched alone, independently, and in the middle of the goddamn night. We understood we were watching history. We watched our elected officials break their own government's rules. (Which, side note, is why we should maybe have people stop swearing on Bibles and start swearing on the Constitution. Because PRIORITIES when you're responsible for making and upholding laws.)

And the major news outlets were mute. They silenced Texans by ignoring them altogether. I mean, it's not like it was important or anything. It's only something that will impact thousands of women. Whatever.

But hey. I now know that a blueberry muffin averages 350 calories. Because that's what my addled little female brain needs to know.

This is patriarchy. This is oppression. This is a national embarrassment. This is a travesty of justice. This is tyranny.


Note: not all of these ideas originated with me, though I seem to have paraphrased the collective anger of the entire Twittersphere. I tweeted and re-tweeted at length about it, and you can see many of the original tweets here.

ETA: As of 3:18 Eastern, 2:18 Texas time, it has been conceded that SB5 is dead. THANK YOU to all the journalists out there who took photographic evidence of the attempted voter fraud and were ears on the ground. Without you, they surely would have gotten away with it.

ETA 2: Karsten School brings us a from the floor report. Democratic microphones were cut off. There was an attempt at a closed-door caucus for lack of accountability. Some state police acted like flaming dickwads. Yeah, that's pretty much what tyranny looks like.

So, remember a few years ago when that dude decided not to pay his fire department fee in an area where they'd voted "if you don't pay, we don't put out your fire"? He, of course, had a fire (his second!), and they didn't put it out (as they did the first)? So of course he took it to the news and played the victim and the entire nation was like "you firefighters are horrible people, how dare you not risk your lives to save the possessions of the guy who just assumed you'd do it anyway!"

This is why Libertarianism is not going to work. Because there will always be people who don't want to pay in, but will expect the benefits anyway. And people, having at least some vague notion of empathy left, will demand that help is provided. And here, we're just talking about possessions. (Yes, I know there were pets claimed to have died, but neighbors claimed there weren't, and they had well over an hour before the flames made it to the main house from the shed where the fire started, ie... plenty of time to have saved pets. So I think the pets thing was bullshit, frankly.)

That's why Libertarianism won't work. Here's why Libertarianism is scary: during the GOP debate, the moderator asks Ron Paul (paraphrasing) "should a man who chose not to buy healthcare be allowed to die if he has an accident and needs medical care?" And the Tea Party-filled audience screams yes and cheers.

If that's not scary enough... what the fuck about the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance? Should they just die too? Because up until two years ago, that would have meant me.

Yeah. Tea Party? You guys are soooooo pro-life. And honest to god, even though I know one Libertarian I actually like, I'm starting to read "Libertarian" as "denies privilege exists, and is devoid of empathy." There's a reason why most of the Libertarians I've encountered are well-off white men, I'm just sayin'. While life has perhaps dealt them some raw hands, they've never had to deal with the effects of institutionalized oppression. What is life or death for some is only abstract for them. Some of them would GLADLY pay if a friend needed the money for healthcare (because, of course, that friend has been judged worthy by their standards), but to support healthcare for all is just a step too far, apparently. I dunno, it just scares the shit out of me that people actually think this way.


ETA: And it's not like this was a hypothetical question for Ron Paul. In 2008, his campaign manager, who had no health insurance, died of pneumonia. But no, guys, it's totally okay to let people die from totally treatable illnesses and injuries, right?

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,” the conservative Tea Party favourite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

1. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them." (IE, all acts of horrific violence happen in a vacuum, divorced of context.)

VS.

"...should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence" (IE, you liberals are going to incite violence with your accusations against me, because violence does NOT happen in a vacuum!)

Has no one pointed out to Palin that these two statements are in direct opposition? Logical coherency, HOW DOES IT WORK?

I guess liberals calling out violent rhetoric actually incites violence... not, you know, the original statements about reloading, second amendment remedies, bullets over ballots... etc. Or something. What do I know?


2. Blood Libel: Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

AKA, the criticism y'all are leveling against me for my appallingly violent rhetoric is exactly like the religious persecution faced by the Jews throughout the ages!

(Those words, they do not mean what you think they mean, Sarah. Oh, and bee tee dubs, "blood libel" has been used throughout centuries as a context to justify inciting violence against Jews, jsyk. So much for the whole "violence happens in a vacuum" theory, huh?)


3. Add to that, Representative Giffords is Jewish, and try not to hulksmash your keyboard.


4. I'mma just leave this here: The Guardian: Blood libel – what does it mean?

Cat-Calling, “Bystander Sexism,” and How Sexual Harassment Hurts Men

The fact that street harassment tends to divide men and women as classes is no secret. Women who have experienced street harassment often report coping by responding with wariness to all strange men, in order to fend off possible future harassment. And men express frustration that they can’t approach a woman in a way they perceive as non-harassing—whether it’s to ask for directions or deliver a compliment—without being regarded as a potential offender. But the defensive strategy is often made necessary by the frequency of such harassment; Chaudoir and Quinn note that “42% of U.S. female college students [report] that they are the direct targets of cat-calls at least once a month.” And this casual sexism has serious effects on its victims: “the experience of street harassment is directly related to greater preoccupation with physical appearance and body shame, and is indirectly related to heightened fears of rape for U.S. undergraduate women.”

rachelmanija :: "Why didn't you kick him in the balls?"

Obnoxious statement # 1: “Some guy harassed you/threatened you/cat-called you/insulted you/otherwise menaced you? Why didn’t you just punch him/slap him/kick him in the balls/use your martial arts to beat the hell out of him?”

Also, I am trying to embed Jon Stewart's brilliant takedown of Glenn Beck, and html-failing. In the meanwhile, here is a link! Conservative Libertarian.

I have not been posting much in the way of political and social stuff lately. I've had my hands more than full lately, and they will continue to be that way straight through Yule, I think, as I am entering my busy season (and also my favorite, wherein I voluntarily spend at least 10 hrs in the studio a day because I love fall just that much). But I have been paying attention to the news and suffice it to say I want to beat people over the head with a big club for using the term "Obama's death panels." The "grassroots" (read: insurance company-funded) tv ads that talk about how Obama wants your little old granny to suffer make me want to choke a bitch. It's deliberate misinformation, and I am fucking tired of dealing with these people. I am fucking tired of these being the rich assholes who get to control shit. And beyond that bit of swearing, that's all that I have really time for right now, though I will continue to pay attention.

Also, I'm just posting this to further the word-- linkses to people who've actually written thoughtful, measured responses to johncwright, the Tor writer who went on an unbelievably vitriolic homophobic rant that he deleted after getting about 10 pages of both reasoned answers and "I will never buy your books ever ever ever again." Alas, the internet is forever, and here is a screencap.

Responses:
yuki_onna / Cat Valente - An Open Letter
naamah_darling - A Closed Letter
The Sodomite Hal Duncan - An Open Letter to John C. Wright

So, y'know. I know I have a booklist about twenty kajillion books long right now, but I DO read sf/fantasy for the bulk of my pleasure reading, and this guy joins Orson Scott Card and a lot of this year's racefailers on the list of people I will never ever ever monetarily support. (And also for my reference, because I haven't gotten around to it yet and have a tendency to accidentally close browser tabs, when people refer to his wife's recent shenanigans, this is what they are talking about.)

Anyhow. That's what I've been thinking about in the tiny little space of my mind not currently occupied by kittens, jewelry, and wedding.

So, let me get this straight. It's not okay to terminate potential lifeforms in utero, but it's perfectly justifiable to murder someone who's already alive? How the fuck is THAT Pro-Life?

In a church, no less. Rest in peace, Dr. Tiller.

So, first the big O signs an order to close Gitmo and the secret network of prisons. Then he enacts measures that would make it harder to classify information, thus making his administration more transparent and accountable. Now this:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.

Yeah. I. Um. I don't have words other than thank you.

The end of an error, indeed. I doubt the human race could've fared worse if Gaius frakking Baltar were president for the last eight years.

Goodbye, President Bush. I feel like I should feel more vindicated, but your obvious weariness and befuddlement just makes me sad.