So, I read this last night and it really pissed me off. Salon managed to dig up a film writer, Martha Nochimson, who seems to have a serious issues with director Kathryn Bigelow, who's nominated for a Best Director Oscar for "The Hurt Locker."
...I'm still coming to grips with how a woman could possibly have dreamed up this spartan American soldier in Iraq, who, while obsessively romancing death as a bomb-squad ace, outdoes the most extreme images of machismo ever produced by mainstream America... But no cheers for Miss Kathy for breaking the glass ceiling by fabricating my worst cinematic nightmare. Quentin Tarantino, who should know better, having just directed a piercingly original ironic study of war and blood lust, dubbed Bigelow the "Queen of Directors" when she took the DGA award. I prefer the "Transvestite of Directors." Looks to me like she's masquerading as the baddest boy on the block to win the respect of an industry still so hobbled by gender-specific tunnel vision that it has trouble admiring anything but filmmaking soaked in a reduced notion of masculinity.
WOW. Let's not even talk about the trans phobia in that statement (trans men are "masquerading"???). It's jaw-droppingly shocking to me that in 2010 an educated person could basically write that a woman who makes a movie involving war and death, told from a male perspective, is only trying to suck up to Hollywood's male power structure. And I would think that a film professor would be familiar enough with Bigelow's body of work to know that she just likes to make action movies. Way to completely dismiss the entire career of one of this country's few successful female filmmakers.
I think that's really Nochimson's beef. She's trying to make a larger argument about what types of films, and filmmakers, are currently valued in Hollywood. (Is it really that insightful to observe that studios prefer movies with bombs over movies with long, drawn-out talky scenes? This is news?) And that's an excellent discussion to have, as part of a larger, continuing conversation about why things identified with "Male" are consistently valued over those identified with "Female."
But where Nochimson goes off the rails is when she appears to try to define "women's movies" and "men's movies" using assumptions that would make Phylis Schlafly proud. I'm a chick, so I should burn my copy of "The Wild Bunch"? (Yes, Martha, this feminist loves Sam Peckinpah. I'll wait while you clean up the shards of your exploded head.) I'm only supposed to like Nancy Myers movies? That sucks, because there's not much that will make me run faster from a multiplex than seeing the words "Nancy Myers" on a movie poster. I really don't understand how one could argue that gender-based stereotypes are hurting female filmmakers... and then use gender-based stereotypes to prove it.
And, for what it's worth, I think she's way off-base on "The Hurt Locker." I saw it as a depiction of one slice of the Iraq War, not a grand statement on that war or any war. The main character, Sgt. Will James (played by Jeremy Renner, also nominated for an Oscar), defuses IEDs and other bombs so that they won't kill hundreds of other people - not exactly a job most of us could do for long. I for one think that's a heroic thing. That's got zero to do with my opinion on the Iraq War. In this critique at least, Nochimson is unable to separate her distate for this war (maybe even all war) from the work of fictional characters, and it leads her to miss the point. She seems to be personally offended by Renner's Sgt. James, whose fatalism she confuses with machismo. (Hell, I'm glad there are Sgt. Jameses in the military. I hope there are a lot of them.)
And she has every right to dislike "The Hurt Locker." What she doesn't get to do, though, is belittle Kathryn Bigelow's right to tell whatever stories she finds to be meaningful, or tell me that my gender precludes me from enjoying them.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
This week in "anti-abortion laws hurt everyone"
A proposed bill in Utah would make it illegal to have a miscarriage. Not just an abortion-caused termination of a pregnancy. "This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder."
Or, as Dan Savage put it:
If every miscarriage is a potential homicide, how does Utah avoid launching a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage? And women have a lot of miscarriages: one in four pregnancies end in a miscarriage. And how is Utah supposed to know when a pregnant woman has had a miscarriage? You're going to have to create some sort of pregnancy registry to keep track of all those fetuses, Utah. Perhaps you could start issuing "conception certificates" to women who get pregnant? And then, if there isn't a baby within nine months of the issuance of a conception certificate, the woman could be hauled in for questioning and she could be indicted for criminal homicide if it's determined that she intentionally or accidentally induced a miscarriage. Of course, lots of women miscarry before they even realize their pregnant... so Utah will have to pass another law, one that compels all sexually active women—actually, let's just say all women, Utah, since some sexually active women claim they're chaste—to come in for mandatory monthly pregnancy tests...
Or you could, you know - radical thought here - trust women to handle their own pregnancies and only prosecute those cases of clear assault or abuse that are already covered under existing laws. Crazy talk.
And this, via Feministing: The cruelty of Nicaragua's extreme abortion ban is undeniable in the case of Amelia (an alias), a 27-year-old woman with cancer. Passed in 2006, the law criminalizes abortion, even if the woman's life or health is at risk. Amelia, who has a 10-year-old daughter, needs to have an abortion so she can undergo treatment for the cancer, which may have metastasized in her brain, lungs and breasts.
I can't imagine being pregnant and then learning that this very pregnancy is keeping me from getting the medical treatment that would save my life. Or that this treatment would inevitably kill the baby I was pregnant with. In effect, this law is sentencing this woman - a mother to an already living child - to death.
I have an idea, law - get the hell out of her way. Maybe she'll decide to forego chemo and deliver a possibly healthy baby at the expense of her own life. Maybe she'll opt for treatment, lose this baby (either to abortion or radiation), and live to have more healthy children. Maybe, law, it's none of your business.
So, when I say that I'm opposed to government intervention into reproductive rights because it's too complex an area for any law to be adequate... do you see what I mean?
Or, as Dan Savage put it:
If every miscarriage is a potential homicide, how does Utah avoid launching a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage? And women have a lot of miscarriages: one in four pregnancies end in a miscarriage. And how is Utah supposed to know when a pregnant woman has had a miscarriage? You're going to have to create some sort of pregnancy registry to keep track of all those fetuses, Utah. Perhaps you could start issuing "conception certificates" to women who get pregnant? And then, if there isn't a baby within nine months of the issuance of a conception certificate, the woman could be hauled in for questioning and she could be indicted for criminal homicide if it's determined that she intentionally or accidentally induced a miscarriage. Of course, lots of women miscarry before they even realize their pregnant... so Utah will have to pass another law, one that compels all sexually active women—actually, let's just say all women, Utah, since some sexually active women claim they're chaste—to come in for mandatory monthly pregnancy tests...
Or you could, you know - radical thought here - trust women to handle their own pregnancies and only prosecute those cases of clear assault or abuse that are already covered under existing laws. Crazy talk.
And this, via Feministing: The cruelty of Nicaragua's extreme abortion ban is undeniable in the case of Amelia (an alias), a 27-year-old woman with cancer. Passed in 2006, the law criminalizes abortion, even if the woman's life or health is at risk. Amelia, who has a 10-year-old daughter, needs to have an abortion so she can undergo treatment for the cancer, which may have metastasized in her brain, lungs and breasts.
I can't imagine being pregnant and then learning that this very pregnancy is keeping me from getting the medical treatment that would save my life. Or that this treatment would inevitably kill the baby I was pregnant with. In effect, this law is sentencing this woman - a mother to an already living child - to death.
I have an idea, law - get the hell out of her way. Maybe she'll decide to forego chemo and deliver a possibly healthy baby at the expense of her own life. Maybe she'll opt for treatment, lose this baby (either to abortion or radiation), and live to have more healthy children. Maybe, law, it's none of your business.
So, when I say that I'm opposed to government intervention into reproductive rights because it's too complex an area for any law to be adequate... do you see what I mean?
Sarah Palin had an abortion
At least, according to this guy's logic:
State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy...
"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.
That is really, really frakking disgusting. (Not to mention - as should be evident - untrue. There's ZERO correllation between having an abortion and later having a child with physical or mental disabilities.) It's offensive to those of us who believe that God doesn't punish people in this way, and it should go without saying that it's obscene to believe that disabled children are punishment for anything.
I hope that Sarah Palin, currently the country's most prominent advocate for families with disabled children (judging by her willingness to call out what she sees as ableism on the part of anyone from Barack Obama to Seth MacFarlane) will publicly criticize Marshall for his comments.
State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy...
"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.
That is really, really frakking disgusting. (Not to mention - as should be evident - untrue. There's ZERO correllation between having an abortion and later having a child with physical or mental disabilities.) It's offensive to those of us who believe that God doesn't punish people in this way, and it should go without saying that it's obscene to believe that disabled children are punishment for anything.
I hope that Sarah Palin, currently the country's most prominent advocate for families with disabled children (judging by her willingness to call out what she sees as ableism on the part of anyone from Barack Obama to Seth MacFarlane) will publicly criticize Marshall for his comments.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Rat in a (watery, littery) cage
This actually happened last week, but it's taken me this long to stop hyperventilating:
http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-rat-in-toilet-100212,0,1090717.story
My real-time reaction? AHH! AHH! Oh my hell, that's a (expletive deleted) rat in a (expletive deleted) toilet! Holy OMG, ahh! LOUD NOISES!
Here's the thing: I'm afraid of heights, drowning and housefires. I find all-you-can-eat buffets and cannolis deeply unpleasant. But a frakking rodent invading my home via toilet is a special category of phobia. This actually happened to my grandmother, so it isn't far-fetched. (Only it was a squirrel, and she trapped it with an encyclopedia volume rather than a litter bucket, but whatever.)
So, thanks, local TV, for keeping me up at night!
http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-rat-in-toilet-100212,0,1090717.story
My real-time reaction? AHH! AHH! Oh my hell, that's a (expletive deleted) rat in a (expletive deleted) toilet! Holy OMG, ahh! LOUD NOISES!
Here's the thing: I'm afraid of heights, drowning and housefires. I find all-you-can-eat buffets and cannolis deeply unpleasant. But a frakking rodent invading my home via toilet is a special category of phobia. This actually happened to my grandmother, so it isn't far-fetched. (Only it was a squirrel, and she trapped it with an encyclopedia volume rather than a litter bucket, but whatever.)
So, thanks, local TV, for keeping me up at night!
Friday, February 19, 2010
"We're not here for boys."
Ugh.
In this video, produced for Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, a number of young women attending CPAC (a leading conservative conference which this year attracted Dick Cheney, Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul) talk about why they're there. Some are representing their College Republican chapters, some are there on behalf of conservative writers and candidates and one is a publicist planning events designed to appeal to younger attendees.
But all the video-maker seems to care about is these women's geisha potential.
Watch it again. Over and over, the women talk about their conservative values, only to have the interviewer ask them if they've met any cute conservative boys. Okay, I'll admit that part of the appeal of going to any place where people share your opinions and values is meeting those same people. I'd be lying if I said I didn't keep an eye out at political events I've attended myself. But that's a fringe benefit. It's not the reason I'm there. And I think it's a little insulting to suggest that the women at CPAC are only there to hook up. Or, as the last women quoted here says, "We're not here for boys, we're here for politics."
I don't want to jump to the conclusion that conservatives like Carlson still have issues when it comes to taking women seriously... but he's making it very hard for me.
In this video, produced for Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, a number of young women attending CPAC (a leading conservative conference which this year attracted Dick Cheney, Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul) talk about why they're there. Some are representing their College Republican chapters, some are there on behalf of conservative writers and candidates and one is a publicist planning events designed to appeal to younger attendees.
But all the video-maker seems to care about is these women's geisha potential.
Watch it again. Over and over, the women talk about their conservative values, only to have the interviewer ask them if they've met any cute conservative boys. Okay, I'll admit that part of the appeal of going to any place where people share your opinions and values is meeting those same people. I'd be lying if I said I didn't keep an eye out at political events I've attended myself. But that's a fringe benefit. It's not the reason I'm there. And I think it's a little insulting to suggest that the women at CPAC are only there to hook up. Or, as the last women quoted here says, "We're not here for boys, we're here for politics."
I don't want to jump to the conclusion that conservatives like Carlson still have issues when it comes to taking women seriously... but he's making it very hard for me.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tony Stewart sings, Dale Jr. loves his family and Kyle Busch wears pink for money: Daytona 500 in ads
I really really wanted to do a re-cap of the Daytona 500 like I did last year, but there were two small issues with that. First, I had Season 2 of “Rescue Me” in from Netflix, and, as the pre-game festivities grew closer, and I started thinking about the first of dozens of pre-race broadcasts full of Darrell Waltrip and that inane carton gopher, the trials of Tommy Gavin and Ladder 62 got more and more appealing… so I didn’t tune in until about Lap 50 or so. And then I took a nap. (That’s issue number two.)
Waltrip is Waltrip, Chris Myers is Chris Myers, and I’ve worn out my thesaurus coming up with new ways to describe how much both of them annoy me. But at least there were commercials. The Daytona 500 may just be the second-most creative ad blitz in sports, after the Super Bowl. Highlights:
My favorite:
Coca-Cola: NASCAR Harmony @ Yahoo! Video
I was actually coming out of the nap when this aired, and I thought I was hallucinating for a few seconds. I liked it. Tony Stewart needs to sing more; that would entertain me.
Aflac: Snow Angel @ Yahoo! Video
The Aflac duck’s been around that long, really? Wow, that thing really needs to die. Like now.
Sprint: Calling Jimmie Johnson @ Yahoo! Video
Generally, these Sprint commercials bug me just because they’re on *constantly,* but I thought this was cute. Let’s just hope Sprint doesn’t beat this one into the ground, too.
Sunoco: Common Thread @ Yahoo! Video
Ah, nostalgia. The go-to emotion for ads targeted to NASCAR fans.
Hellmann's: Dinner with Dale @ Yahoo! Video
Yay, it’s the Earnhardt Family Heart Attack! (Seriously, I didn’t know they even MADE “real” mayo anymore. Why not just mainline cholesterol directly into your veins?
More Earnhardts:
Nationwide Insurance: Nostalgia @ Yahoo! Video
The name of this commercial is – no kidding – “Nostalgia.” A little on-the-nose, Nationwide. And, while I miss the badass spots Dale Jr. used to do for Bud, I get the appeal of bringing in family members… as long as the family member is his sister Kelley, ‘cause a) I’m starting to get a girl-crush on her, and b) she works on camera. The Nationwide spot she and Jr. do is like a normal commercial. This one’s just awkward. I hate endorsement spots where the actors pretend they’re having a real conversation. As if all of us have random heart-to-hearts about our family history with our insurance provider. In the garage. Wearing pancake make-up.
Toyota Sponsafier @ Yahoo! Video
I like this ‘cause it makes Kyle Busch look silly. I dislike it because anything, such as a mainstream TV ad, that makes
Other thoughts... Pothole, blah blah blah... I really think Waltrip needs to stop calling Dale Jr. "Junebug"... Speaking of, what was with Waltrip cheering on Jr. on the last lap (which was awesome, btw), then immediately congratulating Jamie McMurray on the fact that Jr. DIDN'T pass him? He can't have it both ways... I loved McMurray's Victory Lane interview. The guy went from not knowing if he'd even have a ride this year to winning NASCAR's version of the Master's... Digger needs to die - but that's a whole 'nother post.
Up with pirates!
Or, fun with correlation and causation with respect to the number of running plays in a football game, one of FootballOutsiders' favorite whipping boys.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png
(courtesy of the comments thread)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png
(courtesy of the comments thread)
Saturday, February 13, 2010
It's Valentine's Day, y'all! (and I suppress a gag)
I really, really hate Valentine’s Day.
I’m not one of those people who’s all “I’m single, so I hate Valentine’s Day.” No, I just really, really hate it. Even on those select V-Days when I’ve been coupled up, I’ve still hated it. It’s a totally contrived, commercial holiday designed to either a) make you feel like sh*t ‘cause you’re single, or b) make you feel like sh*t ‘cause you’re not spending enough money on your significant other. I refuse.
For serious – shouldn’t you make your SO feel special all the time? Aren’t the best relationships the ones where you realize that it’s 2 o’clock on a Tuesday, and you’re buying gas and you see that obscure flavor of Mountain Dew that your guy just loves, so you buy it for him? Or, your wife gets home after a rough day at work, and you give her a foot massage?
I’m just saying, if I’m ever in a relationship where we don’t worry about making each other feel special until Hallmark-approved “holidays,” I’m thinking that’s a pretty crappy relationship.
So, for fun:
5 ways to get through Valentine's Day without looking like a total jerk
The History Channel on V Day
How Al Capone celebrated
TV's most eligible bachelors
A brief history of great love letters, some leading to castration
And, finally, dead guys to whom I'm strangely attracted: Warren Oates, Joseph Cotten, Orson Welles, Zebulon Vance and Averell Harriman.
I’m not one of those people who’s all “I’m single, so I hate Valentine’s Day.” No, I just really, really hate it. Even on those select V-Days when I’ve been coupled up, I’ve still hated it. It’s a totally contrived, commercial holiday designed to either a) make you feel like sh*t ‘cause you’re single, or b) make you feel like sh*t ‘cause you’re not spending enough money on your significant other. I refuse.
For serious – shouldn’t you make your SO feel special all the time? Aren’t the best relationships the ones where you realize that it’s 2 o’clock on a Tuesday, and you’re buying gas and you see that obscure flavor of Mountain Dew that your guy just loves, so you buy it for him? Or, your wife gets home after a rough day at work, and you give her a foot massage?
I’m just saying, if I’m ever in a relationship where we don’t worry about making each other feel special until Hallmark-approved “holidays,” I’m thinking that’s a pretty crappy relationship.
So, for fun:
5 ways to get through Valentine's Day without looking like a total jerk
The History Channel on V Day
How Al Capone celebrated
TV's most eligible bachelors
A brief history of great love letters, some leading to castration
And, finally, dead guys to whom I'm strangely attracted: Warren Oates, Joseph Cotten, Orson Welles, Zebulon Vance and Averell Harriman.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Here comes Danica
ThatsRacin.com has a blog post from Cup/Nationwide crew member Dennis Terry, who's going to be part of the over-the-wall crew for Danica Patrick's Nationwide team. Terry gives his take on Patrick's performance in her ARCA start last weekend, calling her "a racer first and a celebrity second."
Personally, I've been ambivalent about Patrick in the past. I was a little dubious when she started talking about racing in NASCAR (for one thing, Indy car drivers don't have the best track record in stock cars), but I thought she equipped herself well in the ARCA race. Those GoDaddy.com commercials still make me want to punch someone in the face, though.
On a related note, the comments on the Winston-Salem Journal article announcing that Patrick would appear in the Nationwide race at Daytona reached new depths of ignorance, even by the standards of the Journal.com comments section. There's a whole mess of stupid happening here:
- Posted by (jonnrad) on 02/08/2010 at 01:23 pm.
Women are long overdue in the premier NASCAR series. No reason a woman can't drive as well as the men.
(Me: Duh, but, sadly, this did need to be pointed out.)
- Posted by (nra_4ever) on 02/08/2010 at 02:24 pm.
have you ever been in a car with a woman driving?
(Me: fuck you.)
- Posted by (FlipperTheFloggedDolphin) on 02/08/2010 at 03:10 pm.
What's next?? An Asian driver????
(Why the hell not? If he/she can race, who cares about ethnicity? Oh, yeah, asshole racists like you.)
- Posted by (staballoy) on 02/08/2010 at 03:36 pm.
More effective would be to have a man drive and Ms. Patrick sit in the passenger's seat furnishing directions and opinions. He'd be so eager to get where he's going, they'd win handily.
(You know what would be hilarious? If you said that to Patrick's face. I might actually pay the ridiculous ticket prices to see that one.)
- Posted by (usmc65) on 02/08/2010 at 03:41 pm.
I hope the uniform doesn't make her a$$ look big.
(Wow, you are so witty! 'Cause Patrick's a girl, and girls only care about appearances, and we'd rather die than look fat. I'm totally sure that's the A-number one thing on Patrick's mind right now. Asshole.)
-Posted by (pigpen) on 02/08/2010 at 03:47 pm.
Great ! Go Daddy Go!
(See what I mean, Danica? This madness must stop. No one calls your boss "the Amp guy.")
- Posted by (JUSTOPINION) on 02/08/2010 at 03:49 pm.
Have seen alot of racing and she deserves a chance. If you need convincing, watch the replay of her saving her spin. Not that I am a expert, but listen to the commentary from the announcers and watch how calm she was. Then she drove back to the front. Why not pick apart Ricky Carmichael. He made his living on 2 wheels. He finished right beside her.
(Wow, a normal person. Clearly a plant.)
-Posted by (bigdeacon) on 02/08/2010 at 09:51 pm.
It makes sense. Women are generally smaller so that reduces the weight of the car and results in higher speeds and better fuel efficiency. More power to her.
(Aw, this one's hard, 'cause this person is clearly trying to be magnanimous... But NASCAR has weight guidelines. Every car, including driver, weighs the same. They add weight to cars to make up differences between the drivers' weights. So, thanks for the generally positive comment, but you're still kind of clueless... Or I could be wrong. Goodness knows NASCAR's changed every other rule in the book, so they might have ditched the weight thing, too, for all I know.)
Personally, I've been ambivalent about Patrick in the past. I was a little dubious when she started talking about racing in NASCAR (for one thing, Indy car drivers don't have the best track record in stock cars), but I thought she equipped herself well in the ARCA race. Those GoDaddy.com commercials still make me want to punch someone in the face, though.
On a related note, the comments on the Winston-Salem Journal article announcing that Patrick would appear in the Nationwide race at Daytona reached new depths of ignorance, even by the standards of the Journal.com comments section. There's a whole mess of stupid happening here:
- Posted by (jonnrad) on 02/08/2010 at 01:23 pm.
Women are long overdue in the premier NASCAR series. No reason a woman can't drive as well as the men.
(Me: Duh, but, sadly, this did need to be pointed out.)
- Posted by (nra_4ever) on 02/08/2010 at 02:24 pm.
have you ever been in a car with a woman driving?
(Me: fuck you.)
- Posted by (FlipperTheFloggedDolphin) on 02/08/2010 at 03:10 pm.
What's next?? An Asian driver????
(Why the hell not? If he/she can race, who cares about ethnicity? Oh, yeah, asshole racists like you.)
- Posted by (staballoy) on 02/08/2010 at 03:36 pm.
More effective would be to have a man drive and Ms. Patrick sit in the passenger's seat furnishing directions and opinions. He'd be so eager to get where he's going, they'd win handily.
(You know what would be hilarious? If you said that to Patrick's face. I might actually pay the ridiculous ticket prices to see that one.)
- Posted by (usmc65) on 02/08/2010 at 03:41 pm.
I hope the uniform doesn't make her a$$ look big.
(Wow, you are so witty! 'Cause Patrick's a girl, and girls only care about appearances, and we'd rather die than look fat. I'm totally sure that's the A-number one thing on Patrick's mind right now. Asshole.)
-Posted by (pigpen) on 02/08/2010 at 03:47 pm.
Great ! Go Daddy Go!
(See what I mean, Danica? This madness must stop. No one calls your boss "the Amp guy.")
- Posted by (JUSTOPINION) on 02/08/2010 at 03:49 pm.
Have seen alot of racing and she deserves a chance. If you need convincing, watch the replay of her saving her spin. Not that I am a expert, but listen to the commentary from the announcers and watch how calm she was. Then she drove back to the front. Why not pick apart Ricky Carmichael. He made his living on 2 wheels. He finished right beside her.
(Wow, a normal person. Clearly a plant.)
-Posted by (bigdeacon) on 02/08/2010 at 09:51 pm.
It makes sense. Women are generally smaller so that reduces the weight of the car and results in higher speeds and better fuel efficiency. More power to her.
(Aw, this one's hard, 'cause this person is clearly trying to be magnanimous... But NASCAR has weight guidelines. Every car, including driver, weighs the same. They add weight to cars to make up differences between the drivers' weights. So, thanks for the generally positive comment, but you're still kind of clueless... Or I could be wrong. Goodness knows NASCAR's changed every other rule in the book, so they might have ditched the weight thing, too, for all I know.)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
It’s official: Sarah Palin has no business within 100 miles of the White House
I don’t care about her kids, I don’t care about her syntax, I don’t care about what she scribbles on her hand.
A "Dear Julius" letter
Julius Peppers doesn't want a long-term deal with the Carolina Panthers.
Okay, let's re-cap. Peppers is from North Carolina, played college football and basketball at UNC, and was drafted in the first round by the Panthers. So, last off-season when he started talking about possibly wanting to play somewhere else, my reaction was: I'll miss him, but I understand. Most of us have been at that point where we've hit a wall, personally and/or professionally, and need a change of scenery. I don't begrudge Pep that at all.
The Panthers franchised him, but no other team wanted him, so the Panthers made Pep the highest-paid player in the NFL - roughly $1 million per game, plus the $1.5 million bonus he got for making the Pro Bowl. And Pep sort-of delivered with a 10.5-sack season (only sort-of because it was heavily weighted toward the end of the season). In truth, the only time he played like a guy making more than anyone else at his position or any other was in the December Sunday Night Football game vs. the Vikings.
But now Pep doesn't want to even talk about coming back to the Panthers. Because why? Because they don't call him:
In an interview that aired Tuesday morning on Charlotte radio station WFNZ-AM, the five-time Pro Bowl defensive end indicated he's irritated by the team's "silence" and has changed his stance on whether he wants to continue his career in Carolina.
"How can you say you want to be somewhere when you're not really sure if they want you there because they're not even talking to you?" Peppers said.
But wait, it gets better:
After being held to a career-low 2½ sacks in 2007, the Panthers still offered to make Peppers the NFL's highest-paid defensive player. Peppers on Tuesday provided conflicting reasons on why he rejected the contract.
"That deal was to make me the highest-paid defensive player, but slightly, very slightly," Peppers said. "I didn't really feel the sincerity behind that deal."
"I had 2½ sacks that season and they're coming to offer me being the highest-paid defensive player. Like, I can't even accept that," Peppers said. "I'm not deserving of that."
He promptly donated that year's salary to the United Way. I'm sure.
*PROFANITY ALERT*
(Seriously, stop reading if bad words offend you.)
Okay, you know what, Pep? You're starting to sound like the hot chick that a nice guy dates forever and ever because she's the hot chick, but she sucks out his life force with her pure evil. "OMG, do you believe that jerk only got me the 2-carat diamond for our mid-week anniversary? What does he think I am? I'm not feeling the sincerity of that jewelry." It reminds me of the mother of this guy I dated, who had no job and broke up with one of her boyfriends after her car broke down and he wouldn't buy her the new one she wanted (a car, yes, just not the one she wanted), saying he "didn't understand commitment."
Fuck, you, Pep. Fuck your lazy pot-head 30-year-old ass that only shows up for nationally televised games and gets paid more than the rest of the Panthers' defense combined. Fuck you for texting your girlfriend half an hour before kick-off (true story). Fuck you for not leading the team where you're one of the most senior members. Fuck you because my family and I kept our season tickets through joke years where our only bright spots were John Kasay's fucking field goals. Fuck you because of all the fans at every home game who start screaming for you during player intros as soon as "#90, University of North Carolina" flashes on the jumbotron.
Go play for the goddamned Cowboys, you whiny asshole. You'll fit right the fuck in.
Okay, let's re-cap. Peppers is from North Carolina, played college football and basketball at UNC, and was drafted in the first round by the Panthers. So, last off-season when he started talking about possibly wanting to play somewhere else, my reaction was: I'll miss him, but I understand. Most of us have been at that point where we've hit a wall, personally and/or professionally, and need a change of scenery. I don't begrudge Pep that at all.
The Panthers franchised him, but no other team wanted him, so the Panthers made Pep the highest-paid player in the NFL - roughly $1 million per game, plus the $1.5 million bonus he got for making the Pro Bowl. And Pep sort-of delivered with a 10.5-sack season (only sort-of because it was heavily weighted toward the end of the season). In truth, the only time he played like a guy making more than anyone else at his position or any other was in the December Sunday Night Football game vs. the Vikings.
But now Pep doesn't want to even talk about coming back to the Panthers. Because why? Because they don't call him:
In an interview that aired Tuesday morning on Charlotte radio station WFNZ-AM, the five-time Pro Bowl defensive end indicated he's irritated by the team's "silence" and has changed his stance on whether he wants to continue his career in Carolina.
"How can you say you want to be somewhere when you're not really sure if they want you there because they're not even talking to you?" Peppers said.
But wait, it gets better:
After being held to a career-low 2½ sacks in 2007, the Panthers still offered to make Peppers the NFL's highest-paid defensive player. Peppers on Tuesday provided conflicting reasons on why he rejected the contract.
"That deal was to make me the highest-paid defensive player, but slightly, very slightly," Peppers said. "I didn't really feel the sincerity behind that deal."
"I had 2½ sacks that season and they're coming to offer me being the highest-paid defensive player. Like, I can't even accept that," Peppers said. "I'm not deserving of that."
He promptly donated that year's salary to the United Way. I'm sure.
*PROFANITY ALERT*
(Seriously, stop reading if bad words offend you.)
Okay, you know what, Pep? You're starting to sound like the hot chick that a nice guy dates forever and ever because she's the hot chick, but she sucks out his life force with her pure evil. "OMG, do you believe that jerk only got me the 2-carat diamond for our mid-week anniversary? What does he think I am? I'm not feeling the sincerity of that jewelry." It reminds me of the mother of this guy I dated, who had no job and broke up with one of her boyfriends after her car broke down and he wouldn't buy her the new one she wanted (a car, yes, just not the one she wanted), saying he "didn't understand commitment."
Fuck, you, Pep. Fuck your lazy pot-head 30-year-old ass that only shows up for nationally televised games and gets paid more than the rest of the Panthers' defense combined. Fuck you for texting your girlfriend half an hour before kick-off (true story). Fuck you for not leading the team where you're one of the most senior members. Fuck you because my family and I kept our season tickets through joke years where our only bright spots were John Kasay's fucking field goals. Fuck you because of all the fans at every home game who start screaming for you during player intros as soon as "#90, University of North Carolina" flashes on the jumbotron.
Go play for the goddamned Cowboys, you whiny asshole. You'll fit right the fuck in.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Focus on This
So the Tebow family Super Bowl ad turned out to be not nearly as scary as some pro-choice groups feared. (CBS is still full of it, though.) The commercial's main purpose seems to be to drive people to Focus on the Family's Web site, where anyone unfamiliar with Focus on the Family will read about their positions, say "WTF? Ew..." and promptly go back to watching Danica Patrick not win races. (Seriously, check out the positions. You'll come for the common-sense advice about disciplining children, but you'll stay for the persecution of environmental advocates and the loony-tunes gay-bashing!)
(Speaking of WTF... Why, in the commercial, does "Timmy" tackle his own mother? For one thing, a QB usually only tackles someone when there's been a turnover and the ball's going the other way, which doesn't speak too highly to Tebow's awesome QBing ability... But mainly, WTF? Why is he tackling his mother???)
I feel like the only pro-choice feminist in America who didn't flip out when the ad was announced. I was, and am, disappointed that someone I think of as a role model would associate himself with those nutcase bigots at Focus on the Family, but hey, it's a free country. And I think the Tebows have every right to their opinion about abortion, as much as I disagree with it. Legitimately pro-life people, who think that abortion is tragic and who therefore work to prevent it through improving support for families and promoting contraception, don't bother me at all. (It's the "pro-life" people who want to reduce abortions by pushing government intervention in private decisions, murdering doctors and harassing women at clinics that, in my humble opinion, can go frak themselves.)
In case you've been under a rock lately, here's the gist: Back in 1987, pregnant Pam Tebow was doing mission work in the Philippines when she contracted dysentery or something awful, and – according to her – doctors warned her that the medicine she’d been given could cause birth defects. She decided to go on and have the baby despite the risk to him and herself. Not only was the child born healthy, he grew up to be Heisman Trophy-winning college QB Tim Tebow. Hugs all around.
I’m just thrilled to death that everything turned out fine for the Tebow family. Pam Tebow exercised an informed choice, fully aware of the possible negative consequences of that choice. As it happens, she did so while living in a country where abortion has been illegal since 1930, so it’s debatable how things would’ve turned out had she decided to terminate the pregnancy after all. Pam Tebow can talk all she wants about her choice, but effectively, women in the Philippines don’t have one.
Here’s the thing, though. Stories like this, at least in the way they’re told, seem to say that Pam Tebow doesn’t really care that I’m happy for her. Just like when Sarah Palin drags out her youngest son (who has Down syndrome) like he’s Simba at the beginning of “The Lion King,” the implication is that those of us who support reproductive freedom are “pro-abortion.” That we’re trawling the streets looking for pregnant women to haul to the clinic. That we’re just fuming that baby Tim came out okay and grew to be a healthy adult. That when Palin decided (um, chose) to have her youngest son even after she was aware of his Down syndrome, that we were all “CURSES!” like the villain in a Scooby Doo cartoon.
And that really pisses me off. It’s insulting. It’s a scare tactic. Just because I want to help protect the right of women who CHOOSE to have an abortion doesn’t mean that I’m actively rooting for more of them.
Within the last year, both my aunt/uncle unit and my oldest friend had their first children. From the moment that each told me they were expecting, I thought of them as parents, and of their still-incubating fetuses as children. If something had happened with either pregnancy, I would’ve been devastated. And I deeply resent – to the point where this pacifist will punch anyone who suggests differently – the idea that I didn’t feel this way.
So, if you're in the pro-life camp, this is what I want you to think about: I do not disagree with Pam Tebow or the choice she made. I could not be happier that things turned out well for her, and I have no doubt that she would love her son even if he weren’t Tim Tebow ™.
But I also want you to think about the reasons people like me are pro-choice, and support reproductive rights. For me, it’s because I think that no one – not a government, not a hospital administrator – should determine a family’s reproductive decisions other than that family. If outside entities can tell women what they can or can’t do, who’s to say that will stop at abortion? Hey, if, say, a government can tell a women she CAN’T get an abortion, what’s to stop it from saying a woman MUST get an abortion?
What about this scenario? Pam Tebow’s insurance company looks at an actuarial table that shows that a baby born under her particular set of conditions will have X birth defect 72.6 percent of the time, leading to death of mother and /or child 52.3 percent of the time. Therefore, she simply must terminate the pregnancy. If she refuses, she’s on her own for her and her son’s medical expenses. Maybe her family is permanently un-insurable. Maybe she’s even prosecuted for negligence.
It’s not farfetched. Families are already being booted off their insurance. Hospitals are already telling women how they may give birth. Or else. And we want to get Congress involved?
That’s what I want you to think about. Reproductive freedom is about so much more than access to abortion. It’s about more than one family’s experiences. Once you open the door to someone other than a family determine what’s best for that family, you can’t close it.
(Speaking of WTF... Why, in the commercial, does "Timmy" tackle his own mother? For one thing, a QB usually only tackles someone when there's been a turnover and the ball's going the other way, which doesn't speak too highly to Tebow's awesome QBing ability... But mainly, WTF? Why is he tackling his mother???)
I feel like the only pro-choice feminist in America who didn't flip out when the ad was announced. I was, and am, disappointed that someone I think of as a role model would associate himself with those nutcase bigots at Focus on the Family, but hey, it's a free country. And I think the Tebows have every right to their opinion about abortion, as much as I disagree with it. Legitimately pro-life people, who think that abortion is tragic and who therefore work to prevent it through improving support for families and promoting contraception, don't bother me at all. (It's the "pro-life" people who want to reduce abortions by pushing government intervention in private decisions, murdering doctors and harassing women at clinics that, in my humble opinion, can go frak themselves.)
In case you've been under a rock lately, here's the gist: Back in 1987, pregnant Pam Tebow was doing mission work in the Philippines when she contracted dysentery or something awful, and – according to her – doctors warned her that the medicine she’d been given could cause birth defects. She decided to go on and have the baby despite the risk to him and herself. Not only was the child born healthy, he grew up to be Heisman Trophy-winning college QB Tim Tebow. Hugs all around.
I’m just thrilled to death that everything turned out fine for the Tebow family. Pam Tebow exercised an informed choice, fully aware of the possible negative consequences of that choice. As it happens, she did so while living in a country where abortion has been illegal since 1930, so it’s debatable how things would’ve turned out had she decided to terminate the pregnancy after all. Pam Tebow can talk all she wants about her choice, but effectively, women in the Philippines don’t have one.
Here’s the thing, though. Stories like this, at least in the way they’re told, seem to say that Pam Tebow doesn’t really care that I’m happy for her. Just like when Sarah Palin drags out her youngest son (who has Down syndrome) like he’s Simba at the beginning of “The Lion King,” the implication is that those of us who support reproductive freedom are “pro-abortion.” That we’re trawling the streets looking for pregnant women to haul to the clinic. That we’re just fuming that baby Tim came out okay and grew to be a healthy adult. That when Palin decided (um, chose) to have her youngest son even after she was aware of his Down syndrome, that we were all “CURSES!” like the villain in a Scooby Doo cartoon.
And that really pisses me off. It’s insulting. It’s a scare tactic. Just because I want to help protect the right of women who CHOOSE to have an abortion doesn’t mean that I’m actively rooting for more of them.
Within the last year, both my aunt/uncle unit and my oldest friend had their first children. From the moment that each told me they were expecting, I thought of them as parents, and of their still-incubating fetuses as children. If something had happened with either pregnancy, I would’ve been devastated. And I deeply resent – to the point where this pacifist will punch anyone who suggests differently – the idea that I didn’t feel this way.
So, if you're in the pro-life camp, this is what I want you to think about: I do not disagree with Pam Tebow or the choice she made. I could not be happier that things turned out well for her, and I have no doubt that she would love her son even if he weren’t Tim Tebow ™.
But I also want you to think about the reasons people like me are pro-choice, and support reproductive rights. For me, it’s because I think that no one – not a government, not a hospital administrator – should determine a family’s reproductive decisions other than that family. If outside entities can tell women what they can or can’t do, who’s to say that will stop at abortion? Hey, if, say, a government can tell a women she CAN’T get an abortion, what’s to stop it from saying a woman MUST get an abortion?
What about this scenario? Pam Tebow’s insurance company looks at an actuarial table that shows that a baby born under her particular set of conditions will have X birth defect 72.6 percent of the time, leading to death of mother and /or child 52.3 percent of the time. Therefore, she simply must terminate the pregnancy. If she refuses, she’s on her own for her and her son’s medical expenses. Maybe her family is permanently un-insurable. Maybe she’s even prosecuted for negligence.
It’s not farfetched. Families are already being booted off their insurance. Hospitals are already telling women how they may give birth. Or else. And we want to get Congress involved?
That’s what I want you to think about. Reproductive freedom is about so much more than access to abortion. It’s about more than one family’s experiences. Once you open the door to someone other than a family determine what’s best for that family, you can’t close it.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wait, this is BS
Dan Savage has a post about a D.C.-area school that distributed fliers for an anti-gay group, "and the schools say they cannot prevent the use of their distribution system by such groups."
No, sorry. The college where I used to work would sometimes contact our local school system about distributing literature through schools - stuff like information about summer programs and Kindermusik classes we were offering. Even with this pretty innocuous material that was of actual interest to parents of elementary and middle school parents, we had to jump through so many hoops. We had to submit samples to the school system's office and get approval for specific grades, and everything had to have a giant disclaimer on it. Which make since, because publc schools should be picky about people using them to market to a fairly captive audience.
That's why I call BS on this school system's claim that they have no say in who distributes material through their own mechanism (delivering report cards). So, what, I could drive up to Potomac and drop off a few thousand fliers promoting my personal opinions, and they would be powerless to stop me? 'Cause that would be pretty sweet way to market my No More "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was My Idea" Commercials movement.
No, sorry. The college where I used to work would sometimes contact our local school system about distributing literature through schools - stuff like information about summer programs and Kindermusik classes we were offering. Even with this pretty innocuous material that was of actual interest to parents of elementary and middle school parents, we had to jump through so many hoops. We had to submit samples to the school system's office and get approval for specific grades, and everything had to have a giant disclaimer on it. Which make since, because publc schools should be picky about people using them to market to a fairly captive audience.
That's why I call BS on this school system's claim that they have no say in who distributes material through their own mechanism (delivering report cards). So, what, I could drive up to Potomac and drop off a few thousand fliers promoting my personal opinions, and they would be powerless to stop me? 'Cause that would be pretty sweet way to market my No More "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was My Idea" Commercials movement.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Things that are a billion times more important to me than a Super Bowl commercial
One out of every six women in the U.S. will be the victim of rape or attempted rape. Think of six random women in your life. Now do the math. For Native American women, it’s more than one in three.
Women represent almost 60 percent of beneficiaries of Social Security at age 65, and 71 percent at age 85. Twenty-five percent of elderly women have no other source of income besides Social Security. Almost 30 percent of elderly African American women live in poverty.
Women pay up to 50 percent more for health insurance than men – one of the inequities that the health care reform bill in Congress would aim to fix.
Here in N.C., one in five children lives below the poverty line.
Full disclosure: there’s not much that irritates me more than the jerk who pops up on a feminist blog to tell us all to quit our bitchin’ because at least we don’t live under the Taliban. Most of us have the intelligence to appreciate the privilege we have by living in a place like America (which is completely due to the work of past feminists and allies, not just something we were handed) while also pointing out the work we still have left to do.
That said – I refuse to get worked up over a 30-second commercial THAT NOBODY HAS SEEN YET, to the point where I’m drawing lines in the sand about who’s feminist or not feminist. Yes, CBS is full of it for airing this commercial having rejected “advocacy” ads in the past. Yes, I’m highly disappointed that a person like Tim Tebow for whom I have such admiration would associate himself with the bigots at Focus on the Family. Yes, his mother HAD a choice, and other women should have choices, too – a distinction that too many of the Tebows’ fellow anti-abortion folks fail to make.
But, if I’m going to sign a petition or boycott or a broadcast of the championship of my favorite sport (not gonna happen), it’s going to be over something that actually matters. For the record, I think my stance on reproductive freedom (i.e., for it) is strong enough to withstand 30 seconds of a former college football player.
Women represent almost 60 percent of beneficiaries of Social Security at age 65, and 71 percent at age 85. Twenty-five percent of elderly women have no other source of income besides Social Security. Almost 30 percent of elderly African American women live in poverty.
Women pay up to 50 percent more for health insurance than men – one of the inequities that the health care reform bill in Congress would aim to fix.
Here in N.C., one in five children lives below the poverty line.
Full disclosure: there’s not much that irritates me more than the jerk who pops up on a feminist blog to tell us all to quit our bitchin’ because at least we don’t live under the Taliban. Most of us have the intelligence to appreciate the privilege we have by living in a place like America (which is completely due to the work of past feminists and allies, not just something we were handed) while also pointing out the work we still have left to do.
That said – I refuse to get worked up over a 30-second commercial THAT NOBODY HAS SEEN YET, to the point where I’m drawing lines in the sand about who’s feminist or not feminist. Yes, CBS is full of it for airing this commercial having rejected “advocacy” ads in the past. Yes, I’m highly disappointed that a person like Tim Tebow for whom I have such admiration would associate himself with the bigots at Focus on the Family. Yes, his mother HAD a choice, and other women should have choices, too – a distinction that too many of the Tebows’ fellow anti-abortion folks fail to make.
But, if I’m going to sign a petition or boycott or a broadcast of the championship of my favorite sport (not gonna happen), it’s going to be over something that actually matters. For the record, I think my stance on reproductive freedom (i.e., for it) is strong enough to withstand 30 seconds of a former college football player.
Jon McCain is full of something brown and stinky
John McCain in 2006:
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the [Don't ask, Don't Tell] policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in October 2006 to an audience of Iowa State University students.
John McCain this week:
Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision."
In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."
Full. Of. It.
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the [Don't ask, Don't Tell] policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in October 2006 to an audience of Iowa State University students.
John McCain this week:
Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision."
In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."
Full. Of. It.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)