Ms. Manners

Whichever advice columnist my local newspaper syndicates ran a letter today from someone complaining about a couple who are social acquaintances who have a nasty habit of - publicly - pointing out others' grammar mistakes and faulty table manners. Needless to say, anything this couple's doing is far more rude than the behavior they're critiquing. It reminds me of what my mom once told me, possibly channelling Jackie O: truly classy people need not call attention to their class. Put another way: I have a mild obsession with table setting etiquette, but if I went to a dinner party and called attention to the fact that the host didn't put the dessert forks in the right place*, I would be the jerk in that situation, not the host.

Feministing has a great post about a teacher who's trying to force the male students in his class to act like "gentlemen" toward the female students. Now, I know what you're thinking... Isn't anything that teaches young people to be gracious, considerate humans a GOOD thing? Sure, but, as Jessica puts it, "there's a big difference between chivalry and manners."

"Being a nice person that opens doors for others (regardless of their gender) and being respectful is something that we should encourage in all people. That's being kind; it's mannered and it's nice. Chivalry, on the other hand, is straight up based on the idea that women are weaker need to be taken care of. It's insulting. It's also a trade-off - one that we're supposed to be grateful for - for being at the sh*t end of the patriarchy."

This is a tough one for Southerners because we pride ourselves on being nice. But you can be nice, and be gracious, without being sexist. Isn't it just easier to be considerate to everyone in your orbit, rather than try to remember arcane rules that are different for each gender? That said, in my job, I work with a lot of older people who do have very different ideas about gender roles than most people my age. Lecturing them about patriarchy would be the rude thing in those situations.

I don't understand women who get offended when a man holds a door open for them, because I hold doors open for others, too. I don't understand women who get offended when someone offers to buy them dinner. I don't understand restaurants that still have no-prices-listed menues for women. If my 83-year-old grandfather stood up wobbling on his cane until I was ready to be seated ('cause that's what men are *supposed* to do), THAT is would bother me.

I feel like it just boils down to what makes the people around you comfortable (while not comprimising your own comfort zone). Instead of forcing boys to stand up whenever a female classmate stands, wouldn't it ultimately be more productive for a class to teach students how to do that?

*horizontally (pointing right), above the plate, if you're being schmancy.

A funny from Grandma

My grandmother e-mailed this to me today:

Jennifer's wedding day was fast approaching. Nothing could dampen her excitement - not even her parent's nasty divorce. Her mother had found the PERFECT dress to wear, and would be the best-dressed mother-of-the-bride ever! A week later, Jennifer was horrified to learn that her father's new, young wife had bought the exact same dress as her mother! Jennifer asked her father's new young wife to exchange it, but she refused ''Absolutely not! I look like a million bucks in this dress, and I'm wearing it,'' she replied. Jennifer told her mother, who graciously said, ''Never mind, sweetheart. I'll get another dress. After all, it's your special day.''

A few days later, they went shopping, and did find another gorgeous dress for her mother. When they stopped for lunch, Jennifer asked her mother, ''Aren't you going to return the other dress? You really don't have another occasion where you could wear it."

Her mother just smiled and replied, ''Of course I do, dear.....I'm wearing it to the rehearsal dinner the night BEFORE the wedding.''

And, yes, I recognize that this is probably only funny if you're a Southern woman.

Fiscal conservatism at work

Yikes. Reporters at The Daily Caller uncovered the fact that the Republican National Committee spent tens of thousands on private planes and limos in one month, and also about $2,000 at an L.A. strip club. The RNC is investigating.

Since I'm always griping about a lack of context in reporting, I would really like to see follow-up stories on whether these types of expenses are unusual for political parties or not. Yes, I want to know what the Democratic National Convention spent and on what. That's the only way we'll know if both of our major political parties are sleazy and corrupt, or just one.

More importantly, it's just good journalism.

An Edgar-silent clock for “24”

I think I might be the only anti-violence liberal feminist on the planet who adores “24.” I can see how the TV drama could be characterized as a post-9/11 neo-con fantasy… but I’ve never really agreed with that interpretation. If, in the future, cultural historians look at the fact that “24” premiered two months after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and ended a year into the Obama course-correction and conclude that “24” was nothing but Dick Cheney’s wettest dream, they’d be missing out on a lot.

For one thing, my neo-con friends (yes, I have them) got pissed about the Season Five plotline involving a presidential adviser basically manufacturing a terrorist threat in order to have a splendid little war (something a lot of anti-war progressives just assume happens already anyway). And remember that in Season One, we didn’t learn until very late that the assassination plot against then-Senator Palmer was related to his previous foreign policy moves. At least for a little while, CTU had to assume that it was racist wingnuts who were after the presidential candidate. So, years before our allegedly post-racial society (indicated by a real-life black senator-turned-president), you had a supposedly conservative TV show acknowledging that a) racists still exist, and b) a black man running for president would, in fact, be in danger of violence from said racists.

The New York Times credits “24” with convincing Hollywood that TV viewers would indeed stick with a show whose season-long dramatic arc required an attention span, and I think that’s fair. The same article also – sigh – once again drags out the torture thing. So, let’s get that out of the way right now.

Whenever Jack Bauer or someone else at CTU broke out the truth serum, electrodes, ass-kicking, etc., to get information on the ticking-time bomb terrorist plot of the moment, I didn’t work myself into a philosophical tizzy over the rightness or wrongness of it all. I just thought it was boring. For me, the enhanced interrogations were “24”’s least creative moments. Once you’ve crossed that line, where do you go from there, story-wise?

Years ago, my very first screenwriting teacher introduced me to what he called The Rule of 10. You’ve got a character in a situation where he or she needs to take action. Make a list of 10 ways this could happen, ranging from most conventional to the most out-there, even implausible. And then you go with one of the out-there ones. One example I can remember him using was the scene in “North by Northwest” where Cary Grant finds himself cornered and pulls a fire alarm to get away.

The problem with “24” was that, too often, its writers stuck with options one through about three on the list, and that’s assuming they made a list at all. Fans like to poke fun at Season One plot devices like Teri Bauer’s amnesia, but at the time that particular twist injected some suspense into the story for a few episodes. More suspense then “Is Jack going to torture this guy?” anyway. (Answer: yes.) (And, before you say anything – Kim and the cougar don’t count. Kim shouldn’t have even been involved in that season, which needed some serious Tim Gunn-style editing.)

But “24” made up for those times when the only suspense was how long it would take us to learn that there’s a mole in CTU with some kick-ass character writing. One of my favorite moments in any movie or TV show – ever – was the introduction of Jean Smart’s First Lady Martha Logan on Season Five. Early on in what might be the best “24” season, Martha’s getting dressed for an appearance with some foreign dignitaries. She looks at herself in the mirror, tells her assistant, “I look like a wedding cake,” then plunges her head into a sink of water. It was perfect. We’d met this character 10 seconds earlier and already we knew that Martha was a fruitloop who was capable of absolutely anything.

Yes, CTU and Los Angeles were put through the wringer too many times. That’s why the best thing the show ever did creatively – moving to another city – should’ve happened about two seasons earlier. I was always hopeful that Jack would lose his patience with the bureaucracy and go undercover or something with a patriot group. No hotline to the president, no assistance from Chloe and her unfreezeable conference call skills, no futuristic toys of any kind. Just Jack the Everyman thinking his way out of problems on the fly. See, that is a show I would watch.

Good-bye, “24.” You’ve got a few more hours in day nine left to go, and then maybe a feature film that may or may not be a bad idea. And then it’s the silent clock for you.

Introducing the second-best* radio station on the planet

*(…because Rock 92 will always be the best-ever.)

This year on spring break I went with a group of students on a work trip to build most of a house in Jean Lafitte, La., an experience that would need probably dozens of blog posts to process entirely. But a few minutes ago I made the mistake of listening to a Hannah Montana song, and, needing an instant antidote, I turned to WCDV-FM out of Baton Rouge, which reminded me that I feel the need to tell everyone I know about a truly awesome radio station.

Every day on the way to and from our work site, we listened to this station. Why is it awesome? Because it’s the only radio station I’ve ever heard of that’s completely devoted to the music of Generation X – all those one-hit wonders you loved in middle and high school. They played “Mr. Jones” – seriously – every time we tuned in, along with some C&C Music Factory, a little Destiny’s Child and some much needed Pras (prompting me to download “Ghetto Supastar” as soon as I got home.)

Since my dad doesn’t acknowledge that any music happened after he graduated from high school, I grew up listening to Oldies 93 and the soundtrack from “The Big Chill.” I don’t knock that… but it’s nice to see my generation get some FM love.

Your daily funny

Children lack foresight. They act according to their immediate desires without considering the possible consequences. Thus, children require healthy restrictions to protect them from harm. If this protection is removed, children will be in danger of suffering the consequences of indulging their reckless whims.

For example, a child admiring a parent’s ability to drive a car may desire to take on that role. Even though the child lacks the mental and physical capacity to drive, he still insists on doing it. The exciting prospect of participating in an adult activity is just too enticing. Although this short-sighted decision places the child and others in danger, he lacks the capacity to understand this. Thus, he requires an adult to restrict his actions for his own protection.

Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it; they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others. As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism’s reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to “steer” the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situations they create; our
Feminist society lowers academic, professional and civil service standards to accommodate women’s irresponsible desire toaccept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently, our schools, our economy and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.

Thanks, Manhood101.com. I needed the chuckle.

The feminist lion speaks

The L.A. Times has a great Q&A with Gloria Steinem:

"Are the biases against women more nuanced now?
No, they're not nuanced at all. They're unequal pay, pink-collar ghettos -- 70% of women are still employed in primarily female occupations that are less well paid. A parking lot attendant who's a guy makes a lot more money than a child-care attendant who's a woman. We have moved forward from 59 cents to 70-some cents on the [male] dollar. By the fact that we value our children more than our cars, it does not make sense that a parking lot attendant who's a guy makes a lot more money than a child-care attendant who's a woman.

What about the greater numbers of women in college, in some professions?
I'm glad about that, but part of the reason that's true is because [some] male blue-collar professions pay better than female white-collar professions. You can still graduate from college with a BA degree and make less than a man with a high school education.One place that [advances] are very important is sports and physical strength and fitness. Rich cultures, patriarchal cultures, value thin women, like ours; poor ones value fat women. But all patriarchal cultures value weak women. So for women to become physically strong is very profound. Title IX helped enormously, and sports and fitness have helped a great deal."

Reading this, I was reminded of my reaction when I got to see Steinem speak a few years ago... It's fascinating to me how many people think they know who Steinem is and what she's about, but have never actually read or listened to her. For instance, you may have heard (many, many times) about how feminists hate men, hate mothers, hate families and want mandatory abortion because we're all just so full of hate. And since Steinem is frequently cast as the official spokesperson for all of feminism (which she also addresses in this interview), I kind of want to print this part on little cards and hand them out to people:

"Women tend to need the healthcare system more because we bear children. Insurance companies -- not all of them, but many of them -- "gender-rate." Women may pay 40% more for their health insurance than men do. [Companies] are not allowed to [discriminate] racially anymore, but they still do it on gender. They say the reason they get to charge more is we have children. I would say having children is a socially useful act. Being female is not a preexisting condition."

(Note: one of the things the health insurance reform bill signed into law yesterday does is prohibit insurance companies from charging women higher rates.)

As she did in the talk I attended, Steinem also brings up the concept of tax deductions for caregiver costs, which would be a massive benefit to families. If you're not familiar with Steinem's work, this Q&A is a great starting point.

On health insurance reform

Well, I just watched President Obama sign the health insurance (not health care) reform bill into law. What is there to say about health insurance reform that hasn’t already been said, blogged, argued or screamed?

At the end of the day, we have a set of what amount to consumer protection regulations that all happen to relate to the health insurance industry (some of which, yes, still need to be funded by future action in Congress). On one hand, we have House Republican leadership calling the bill’s provisions “Armageddon,” and on the other you have Democratic leaders insisting that, without reform, the costs for both private insurance and public programs (like Medicare and Medicaid) would continue to spiral out of control.

At the moment, we’re wrapped up in debating what ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “known unknowns” – things we all know still need to play out. I’m more interested in the “unknown unknowns” – the unintended consequences of this reform legislation, both good and bad, that we can’t even conceive of using our current frames of reference.

For instance: what will happen when it’s no longer a given that, if your child has a chronic condition (nothing life-threatening… let’s say, allergies), that your family will always have to struggle financially? What will it be like to be able to shop for insurance on the open market, even though you have, say, eczema? How much easier will it be to finally branch out on your own and start that small business, now that a) your old employer no longer holds your health care benefits hostage, and b) you can more easily afford to provide benefits to your own staff?

There aren’t very many of us who can divorce national policy from our own experiences. That’s true of the opponents of reform who are lucky enough never to have been bitten by an HMO, and it’s true of me, too. When I look at the bill that the president just signed into law, I see policy that I truly believe is worth its cost because of how it will benefit Americans in the long run.

And I believe that because, when I look at this bill, I see my family. I see a family that’s bigger than most – not Duggar-sized, but we do fill up Mom’s 14-foot dining room table – and where each generation is progressively better off because of the hard work of previous generations. I see a kid who’s allergic to everything that grows or has fur (that’s me), a kid who came out of the womb with full-body eczema (also me), and a kid who needs glasses to find her glasses (ok, that one’s me, too). The point is, we’re pretty blessed not to have had any major family illnesses – I’m talking leukemia or something here – but even the garden variety stuff would’ve bankrupted my parents if we hadn’t had insurance.

Speaking of me – I didn’t have insurance for just over two years, from the time I was 22 (and got booted off my parents’ policy) and when I was fortunate enough to get a job with full benefits at age 24. So, for two years: no prescription allergy meds (buying over-the-counter and not-nearly-as-effective out-of-pocket); no doctor visits (which meant treating everything I caught with NyQuil); paying for my required contact lens exam and contacts out-of-pocket; and no prescriptions for anything, ever. AND I WAS ONE OF THE LUCKY ONES. Looking back on that time, I thank God that my food allergies weren’t as severe as they are now. That screw-up at the cafeteria a few years ago that cost me an ambulance ride and ER co-pay probably would’ve bankrupted me.

So, a lot of people probably look at these new regulations and see a larger, more unwieldy federal government, or lower Medicare payments for doctors, or potential future budgeting problems. To be honest, I see those things, too.

But they’re dwarfed by the other things I see. Not to get too Big Rock Candy Mountain on you, but I see an America where no family – ever – has to choose between buying medicine or buying food. I can’t wait for an America where someone can go to the ER for an actual emergency and not have to wait behind the people who are there for a sinus infection, and where, consequently, hospitals don’t have to jack up their costs to cover those uninsured patients.

It’s about time that paying for the health care that keeps us alive became something we just didn’t have to stress over.

Civil Rights Movement Redux

People often ask me why I care so much about attaining equal rights for LGBT people when I’m not either L, G, B or T myself. Answer? This is the civil rights issue of our times. To a large extent, our country’s history is about welcoming various populations to the privileges and protections that come with being a full citizen of the United States. When my parents were my age, legal discrimination of non-white people was the leading civil rights battle (and I in no way want to suggest that we’re past societal racism). For us today, it’s legal inequality for people who are gay and transgender.

This story of a high school student in Mississippi reminded me a lot of the stories I’ve heard about racial integration a generation ago. Constance McMillan’s school district would rather cancel her school’s entire senior prom than let her attend with her girlfriend. That’s no different than the public pool operators who closed down rather than let black kids swim there.

Here’s what I don’t understand: school officials in Fulton, Miss., say that Constance and her girlfriend are a potential “distraction.” That’s an officialism that should be familiar to any former student whose personality varied one iota from the principal’s preferred status quo. Wearing certain clothes is a “distraction.” Having blue hair is a distraction. The student in my older sister’s class who didn’t bow her head during the graduation prayer? Distraction. My classmate who wasn’t allowed to appear in our class photo because he wasn’t wearing a necktie? Distraction. “Distraction” is basically code for “something we, the people in charge, don’t like so therefore you can’t do it.”

Seriously, does this idiot administration honestly think there are people in this school who don’t already know that their classmate is gay? This isn’t about “distraction,” it’s about disapproval.

The good news for Constance McMillan is that she will graduate; she will move on with her life better and stronger. And hopefully her classmates will grow from this as well.

Unfortunately, what’s happening to her isn’t trivial. Right now, in this country, gay people aren’t protected from discrimination in the way that people of different ethnicities or religions are. Right now, in this country, transgender people are something like 12 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than I am. And it goes without saying that same-sex partners are prohibited in most places in America from being full partners in the ways that straight couples take for granted.

The last generation’s movement was about a lot more than swimming pools. And this is about far more than a prom.

A gross person who needs to go away:

Rielle Hunter.

Apparently, John Edwards' mistress has decided to take the high road and give an interview to GQ all about their relationship. Apparently, she's also under the impression that there's anything - ANYTHING - she could say that would make 99 percent of Americans change their opinion that she and Johnny are gross. (And also - Internet. Seriously, Rielle, your daughter will learn to read someday. Stop talking.)

In his analysis of last night's episode of "Lost" on EW.com, Doc Jensen included a quote from Benjamin Disraeli, which I don't feel like wading back through *eight* pages of Doc Jensen fanboy philosophy to dig up now, but the gist was: Circumstances are often beyond one's control, but choices aren't.

In other words, when a married man hits on you (especially within hours of meeting you - ew), you always have the option of - and I know this is crazy - NOT sleeping with him.

Wacky Sanchez

I'm so glad Jon Stewart went here, because I had the same reaction last Saturday when I flipped over to CNN just in time to see the "9 meters in English???" wackiness:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-1-2010/the-uninformant

My immediate reaction: Why are you so angry?Is it because you suck at math and/or common sense? Dude, I suck at math, but I watch football, so I know how to translate meters/yards into feet. But even if I didn't - what's with the hostility?

N.C. DoT puts on its Bad Idea Jeans

When I got pulled over twice in one week for having expired tags/ inspection, I thought something might be up… besides my own bad luck, I mean. Now that the changes to North Carolina’s tag renewal process seem to be all over the news, I’m seriously wondering if a cash-strapped state sent out a memo to target drivers in my boat.

And there are a lot of them: according to the News & Record, 1,000 North Carolinians each week are finding that their mailed-in tag renewals aren’t valid because they haven’t first gotten that year’s inspection. What seems at first like government efficiency (an oxymoron if ever there was one) actually reveals an ignorance of, and insensitivity to, the headaches caused by the change.

Take me, for example. I honestly forgot that my tags expired last summer, and only discovered this when I met with an agent to switch my car insurance on Saturday, Feb. 13. On Monday, Feb. 15, at about 9 a.m., a Winston-Salem police officer pulled me over and gave me a ticket for my tag, which had expired about eight months earlier. (Part of me thinks I should get immunity for managing to not get caught for this long. I mean, it’s not like the sticker’s on the back of my frakking car or anything.) As further luck would have it, this was a particularly hectic week at work, with lots of meetings I couldn’t miss; then it snowed some more and I got a cold. In the meantime, I went to get my car inspected, only to be told by an apparently critically clueless person that I had to renew my tag first (???). On Friday, when I was on my way to work for one of said meetings despite said cold, when a Greensboro police officer pulled me over. Mercifully, he let me go with no ticket and a lecture about how renewing my tag is more important than my job, my cold or anything else on earth.

Here begins the fun part. I take my car to a garage near my office, which charges me $23 for an emissions test and tells me I have a faulty socket in my brake light. I can take the car back to them within 30 days to complete the inspection for only $6. But first, I have to take the car to the Saturn dealership back home in Winston-Salem to replace the light socket. The people at Flow are fabulous, and even give me a ride to the DMV to renew my driver’s license while I wait for the car (three months early! Do I get points for this?). This being Friday, I lay low all weekend until I can get back to Greensboro to complete the inspection (because I refuse to drop another $23 at a new place).

Week 2: Back to the place whose name rhymes with Schmriendly Schmire schmand Schmauto, where I’m informed that I still have a brake light bulb out. But they’re reluctant to take the light apart, ‘cause it’s a terribly frightening Saturn. They tell me to take it back to the dealership, where the Flow folks tell me a) the new bulb basically wasn’t screwed in all the way, b) it’s good to go now, and c) I should really just let them inspect the car next time. (I agree on all points.) More meetings, more days I can’t take off early…

And here begins the pissed off part. It’s Friday, Feb. 26, and I’m going to be out of town ‘til next Wednesday at a conference, where I will likely drive past many cops, so I REALLY need this inspection thing wrapped up. Back to the remaining-nameless local shop at the office whose still holding my sticker hostage. Guess what? One of my brake light bulbs is STILL out! Schmire & Schmauto guy once again is afraid to poke and prod at a Saturn, so I break it down: I am NOT taking this car back to the dealership just to find ONCE AGAIN that nothing is wrong. Take a look, and if something is in fact wrong, THEN I will take it back to Saturn. I literally have to stand over this man while he pops off the light assembly cover and learns – wonder of wonders – it’s just a burnt-out bulb after all! No worries, while I wait for “delivery” of a bulb they should have in stock anyway, which comes in at roughly 4:15. Sticker on! 35 minutes and one convenient ATM later (because the DMV still doesn’t take plastic), I ‘m legal again. Until June, when I get to go through this all over again.

So I’ve been reflecting on why we do this dance, anyway. License renewal is a pain in the ass, but it matters. Not that I’m going to forget how to drive or anything. But currently, a driver’s license in N.C. is $4 a year, which I don’t think is exorbitant. Inspections are also a pain in the ass, but they keep bald-tire, overly polluting cars off the road (at least in theory). The tag thing, though, in my opinion, is BS. A total pocket-liner for the state. My CAR is registered, my LICENSE is registered, but I need to register a TAG, and renew it each year? Someone explain the rationale of this to me.

And it gets better. Starting next year, the state will require you to have paid your taxes before you can renew your tags. Multiple problems, personal and policy: my tags are due in June, and my taxes in October. So now, I must not only come up with the cash to fix anything on my car that might make it un-inspectable, I also have to pay taxes FOR WHICH FORSYTH COUNTY HAS NOT EVEN BILLED ME before I can have the privilege of paying another $28 to get a totally meaningless sticker for my car’s tags? EVERY YEAR???

This doesn’t even make sense. What if I were still a teenager or college student, and my car were still registered to my parents? (Meaning I have no control over paying the taxes on the car.) Bad, bad, bad, bad policy.

It’s bad policy because the reality is that none of us has any option but to own and drive a car. Car-owning isn’t a privilege for people who just don’t want to take public transportation. We don’t HAVE public transportation! Now, if the state wants to invest in light rail and bus lines that run once in a blue moon, draconian measures against car-owners would be less of an issue.

In a republic, there should always be an opt-out. Even in our country today, there are opt-outs: don’t earn income at a certain level? Don’t pay income tax. Don’t own property? Don’t pay property tax. Don’t buy things? Don’t pay sales tax. But the state has this one all wrong. Implementing these poorly thought out laws is inefficient and costs us all money, publicly and individually.

(Don't get the Bad Idea Jeans reference? Click here.)