Last year at my new office's Christmas party, we did that "dirty Santa" game and I ended up with a pink fold-up umbrella. You can never have too many fold-up umbrellas, even though I'm not crazy about pink. But it turns out that it wasn't just any pink umbrella... it was a "breast cancer awareness" pink umbrella, complete with a little fuschia ribbon drawn on it.
And my coworkers were all "You got an umbrella! Oh look, it's a BREAST CANCER AWARENESS umbrella!" as if it's extra-good at repelling raindrops. And I was kind of... eh.
Here's something I've never written about because I honestly feel a little dickish saying it, I do: I frakking hate all those pink "breast cancer awareness" products. Pink kitchen utensils, pink shoes, pink purses, entire pink cars. Of course it's a good thing that people are aware of cancer and how to detect it early - particularly breast cancer, which women and their doctors were so squeamish about addressing until very recently. And the Susan G. Komen Foundation has become the most visible symbol of breast cancer awareness-raising. Their funding and, yes, all that pink, has saved lives.
But you know who else saves lives? Planned Parenthood. Every year, PP performs between 700,000 and 800,000 mammograms*, pap smears and other preventative exams on women, most of them low-income. PP serves the exact population who are more likely to die from treatable cancers because they don't get treatment until it's too late, usually because they don't have health insurance coverage.
EDIT: PP doesn't do mammograms themselves, apparently. But they do basic breast exams and offer referrals to doctors who do mammograms.
But because PP also performs abortions and provides other reproductive care for (again, usually low-income women), Komen has announced that it's pulling funding from one of the largest health care providers in this country.
They have every right to do that; it's their money. But the next time you get an appeal for Komen donations that swears that this foundation is the No. 1 advocate for women's health, you'll now know for sure that they're full of it. Komen's leaders proved today that their top concern is politics, not preventing cancer. They're no different than the "pro-life" people who do everything in their power to eliminate funding for those programs that actually prevent unplanned pregnancy.
But, hey, at least now my pinkwash-hating conscience is clear. Your pink spatula did not save a single woman's life today. But Planned Parenthood did.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Bad movies I love: “Forces of Nature”
Six or seven years ago, my mother went to Great Britain for a several-week-long study program. For some reason, she had to fly into Philadelphia on 4th of July weekend (which, aside from the night of a late-season Eagles home game, might be the worst possible time to visit Philadelphia). There were flight delays, total rental car blackout, emergency bookings on Expedia/Hotwire etc., and an extremely long cab ride to Pennsylvania's only vacant motel. But here's the thing: my mother slept in a bed that night, and she still made it to London the next day.
HBO seems to be cycling through movies I haven't seen in 10 years. They played the 1999 romantic comedy "Forces of Nature" one day last week, and right now it's on again. As my mother's travel horror story reminded me, it's a bad movie... and I love it. Let's explore.
Basics:
Ben Affleck, still in his post-"Good Will Hunting" career-building phase, is - wait for it - Ben, an uptight "jacket copy-writer" living in New York. He's going to be married in a few days time to Maura Tierney, who's way too awesome for him, but he appreciates that so I approve. But right before Ben and Maura are supposed to head to Savannah, where the wedding's taking place, his grandfather has an unfortunate bachelor party-related heart attack, and Ben has to wait and travel later. He's seated on the plane next to Sandra Bullock, who was officially a top-billing star at this point, and whose character is confusingly named Sarah. Sarah wears black eye-liner and says inappropriate things, so -
DING DING DING! *BLAAAAAAARP BAP BAP BAP BAAAAAAAP*
Oops! Did you hear that alarm? Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a Manic Pixie Dream Girl!
- anyway, a bird gets sucked into the plane engine on takeoff, shutting down the airport and freaking out uptight Ben/Ben considerably. Sarah/Sandra also needs to get to Savannah ASAP, so before we know it, our *hilariously* mismatched couple become travel buddies on an increasingly convoluted journey down the eastern seaboard, complete with drug smugglers, stalled trains, all-night Kmarts and cute elderly people. Ben/Ben, already anxious about the wedding and marriage, starts to fall for Sarah/Sandra... but is it love, or is it Stockholm syndrome? Looks like we'll need a wedding-day confrontation to figure it all out.
Why it's bad:
"Forces of Nature" is stylish, it's fun and, thanks to its cast (especially Affleck and Bullock), it's really fun to watch. But if you start to think about it too hard, it just makes no damn sense. "It Happened One Night," this movie's more accomplished grandfather, can get away with the crazy travel plot because it takes place in the 1930s when people didn't have things like cell phones, or even pay phones. Nothing in "Forces of Nature" happens if Ben/Ben and Sarah/Sandra don't get in that first car together.
I get it - Ben's plane has just crashed, the airport's shut down, there are roughly 700 people in line at the rental car counter. Here's the thing, though... YOU'RE IN NEW YORK. You know what's outside the airport gate? Several dozen taxi cabs. Ok, given the emergency situation one might have to walk a bit to find a cab, and that would be unpleasant. But even if it took half a day to get to wherever else in the biggest city in America one rents a car, that HAS to be preferable to spending two days hitchhiking with a certified MPDG, right?
To be fair, Sarah/Sandra is a cut above most of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope because she does have an inner life of her own. If there were no Ben/Ben, Sarah/Sandra would still be making her way to Savannah. But that doesn't change the fact that her purpose in the story is to make a male character evaluate his life choices by lecturing him about how he needs to LIVE! before he dies!
And every time I watch this movie I drive myself crazy trying to figure out their route. It's pretty ambiguous up until they hit South of the Border, a sequence that takes up a relatively huge amount of movie time. Which irritates me because at that point Ben/Ben is maybe three hours from Savannah, and surely someone in the wedding party could drive up there and get him. Story-wise, this is the point where Ben/Ben starts to question whether he wants to marry Maura or stick with Sarah/Sandra, so it makes sense that, the closer he gets to his wedding, the less he wants to make it there.
But, you know what? Don't think about it too much. Just enjoy.
Why I love it:
Like another bad movie I love, "The Skulls," I saw "Forces of Nature" with my best friend from college. We'd been seeing the trailer at every movie we'd seen for what seemed like months, and I still think it's a model of slick economy. Formula, schmormula - you know exactly what you're getting when you buy that ticket.
And, it's a gorgeous movie to look at. There are so many frames that you could take off your TV screen and hang on the wall, they're that pretty. It's a well put-together movie. And, this bears repeating - "Forces of Nature" works to a large extent because of its cast. Affleck and Bullock are super-charming, but even the supporting and minor characters are wonderful.
But I think the main reason I loved "Forces of Nature" the first time I saw it was that I identified with Ben, not Sarah, as every woman my age at the time seemed to do. Maybe there's something romantic about being a penniless, black eyeliner-wearing drifter who lies to people just a liiiiiitle too easily... but at the end of the movie, she's the one who changes, not him. This is one Hollywood romantic comedy that doesn't really buy into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl who will change your life (tm).
Gotta go, they're about to kiss.
HBO seems to be cycling through movies I haven't seen in 10 years. They played the 1999 romantic comedy "Forces of Nature" one day last week, and right now it's on again. As my mother's travel horror story reminded me, it's a bad movie... and I love it. Let's explore.
Basics:
Ben Affleck, still in his post-"Good Will Hunting" career-building phase, is - wait for it - Ben, an uptight "jacket copy-writer" living in New York. He's going to be married in a few days time to Maura Tierney, who's way too awesome for him, but he appreciates that so I approve. But right before Ben and Maura are supposed to head to Savannah, where the wedding's taking place, his grandfather has an unfortunate bachelor party-related heart attack, and Ben has to wait and travel later. He's seated on the plane next to Sandra Bullock, who was officially a top-billing star at this point, and whose character is confusingly named Sarah. Sarah wears black eye-liner and says inappropriate things, so -
DING DING DING! *BLAAAAAAARP BAP BAP BAP BAAAAAAAP*
Oops! Did you hear that alarm? Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a Manic Pixie Dream Girl!
- anyway, a bird gets sucked into the plane engine on takeoff, shutting down the airport and freaking out uptight Ben/Ben considerably. Sarah/Sandra also needs to get to Savannah ASAP, so before we know it, our *hilariously* mismatched couple become travel buddies on an increasingly convoluted journey down the eastern seaboard, complete with drug smugglers, stalled trains, all-night Kmarts and cute elderly people. Ben/Ben, already anxious about the wedding and marriage, starts to fall for Sarah/Sandra... but is it love, or is it Stockholm syndrome? Looks like we'll need a wedding-day confrontation to figure it all out.
Why it's bad:
"Forces of Nature" is stylish, it's fun and, thanks to its cast (especially Affleck and Bullock), it's really fun to watch. But if you start to think about it too hard, it just makes no damn sense. "It Happened One Night," this movie's more accomplished grandfather, can get away with the crazy travel plot because it takes place in the 1930s when people didn't have things like cell phones, or even pay phones. Nothing in "Forces of Nature" happens if Ben/Ben and Sarah/Sandra don't get in that first car together.
I get it - Ben's plane has just crashed, the airport's shut down, there are roughly 700 people in line at the rental car counter. Here's the thing, though... YOU'RE IN NEW YORK. You know what's outside the airport gate? Several dozen taxi cabs. Ok, given the emergency situation one might have to walk a bit to find a cab, and that would be unpleasant. But even if it took half a day to get to wherever else in the biggest city in America one rents a car, that HAS to be preferable to spending two days hitchhiking with a certified MPDG, right?
To be fair, Sarah/Sandra is a cut above most of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope because she does have an inner life of her own. If there were no Ben/Ben, Sarah/Sandra would still be making her way to Savannah. But that doesn't change the fact that her purpose in the story is to make a male character evaluate his life choices by lecturing him about how he needs to LIVE! before he dies!
And every time I watch this movie I drive myself crazy trying to figure out their route. It's pretty ambiguous up until they hit South of the Border, a sequence that takes up a relatively huge amount of movie time. Which irritates me because at that point Ben/Ben is maybe three hours from Savannah, and surely someone in the wedding party could drive up there and get him. Story-wise, this is the point where Ben/Ben starts to question whether he wants to marry Maura or stick with Sarah/Sandra, so it makes sense that, the closer he gets to his wedding, the less he wants to make it there.
But, you know what? Don't think about it too much. Just enjoy.
Why I love it:
Like another bad movie I love, "The Skulls," I saw "Forces of Nature" with my best friend from college. We'd been seeing the trailer at every movie we'd seen for what seemed like months, and I still think it's a model of slick economy. Formula, schmormula - you know exactly what you're getting when you buy that ticket.
And, it's a gorgeous movie to look at. There are so many frames that you could take off your TV screen and hang on the wall, they're that pretty. It's a well put-together movie. And, this bears repeating - "Forces of Nature" works to a large extent because of its cast. Affleck and Bullock are super-charming, but even the supporting and minor characters are wonderful.
But I think the main reason I loved "Forces of Nature" the first time I saw it was that I identified with Ben, not Sarah, as every woman my age at the time seemed to do. Maybe there's something romantic about being a penniless, black eyeliner-wearing drifter who lies to people just a liiiiiitle too easily... but at the end of the movie, she's the one who changes, not him. This is one Hollywood romantic comedy that doesn't really buy into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl who will change your life (tm).
Gotta go, they're about to kiss.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Which side are you on?
Earlier tonight, on Facebook, I posted this:
This video - its emphasis on white men notwithstanding* - affected me tremendously. Yeah, I cried. I lived through some of these moments, and many more not featured in this video - both mass media moments and the ones that weren't caught on camera, like the first time a friend came out to me, terrified too see how I'd react.
(*There are gay women other than Ellen and Rachel, as awesome as they may be.)
It was in that spirit that I posted this clip. The way I felt watching this must be how my parents feel watching archival footage of Bull Connor's men spraying civil rights demonstrators with fire hoses. And that's when I knew something I've always suspected - that LGBT rights are the civil rights struggle of our time, and that someday my children will think of these moments the way I thought of the Montgomery Bus Boycott when I was a kid.
And that's that they're wrong. For me growing up, as a very small child, the KKK was roughly akin to Darth Vader - that one-dimensionally opposed to fairness and common-sense morality. The people who are going on TV today to compare same-sex parents to dogs will know that feeling one day. That state legislator pushing through a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage will one day find his picture in a history book next to that of George Wallace.
The now ex-friend who left a bigoted comment in response to my post didn't surprise me, but he disappointed me. He's got a right to his opinion, because in this country we don't police people's thoughts. But we do govern behavior, and we do so fairly and impartially. If marriage is so good for society's stability that we incentivize it with thousands of legal perks, than those benefits are open to all couples.
There is no logical argument against marriage equality. There is no moral argument. And, for those of us who belong to the church whose leader told us that there is no law above treating others as we would want to be treated, there is certainly no Christian argument against it.
Which side of history are you on?
This video - its emphasis on white men notwithstanding* - affected me tremendously. Yeah, I cried. I lived through some of these moments, and many more not featured in this video - both mass media moments and the ones that weren't caught on camera, like the first time a friend came out to me, terrified too see how I'd react.
(*There are gay women other than Ellen and Rachel, as awesome as they may be.)
It was in that spirit that I posted this clip. The way I felt watching this must be how my parents feel watching archival footage of Bull Connor's men spraying civil rights demonstrators with fire hoses. And that's when I knew something I've always suspected - that LGBT rights are the civil rights struggle of our time, and that someday my children will think of these moments the way I thought of the Montgomery Bus Boycott when I was a kid.
And that's that they're wrong. For me growing up, as a very small child, the KKK was roughly akin to Darth Vader - that one-dimensionally opposed to fairness and common-sense morality. The people who are going on TV today to compare same-sex parents to dogs will know that feeling one day. That state legislator pushing through a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage will one day find his picture in a history book next to that of George Wallace.
The now ex-friend who left a bigoted comment in response to my post didn't surprise me, but he disappointed me. He's got a right to his opinion, because in this country we don't police people's thoughts. But we do govern behavior, and we do so fairly and impartially. If marriage is so good for society's stability that we incentivize it with thousands of legal perks, than those benefits are open to all couples.
There is no logical argument against marriage equality. There is no moral argument. And, for those of us who belong to the church whose leader told us that there is no law above treating others as we would want to be treated, there is certainly no Christian argument against it.
Which side of history are you on?
Always in need of cowboys
"Justified" is back! Yay! Weeks ago, I actually wrote on my calendar that the season three premiere was airing last night, which tells me, definitively, that "Justified" matters more to me than the Iowa caucuses.
I enjoyed "Justified" in its first season and fell in love with it in its second (excepting one particular issue). As with any show that got that good, one worries that its writers can stay at that level, or even keep getting better and better. And it's silly to make a judgment about how successfully a show's writers are doing that until at least halfway through a season. "Justified" isn't a "CSI"-type procedural; it's a novel. And you don't quit on a novel after one chapter. So, while there are things introduced in last night's premiere that make me say "YES, I want to see more of this!" and other things that made me say ".....eh..." I'm going to hold off on saying that season three is definitely this or that...for now.
Things I liked: Ava, always Ava. I could not be happier that she's apparently continuing her development into a Lady Macbeth-esque consiglieri for Boyd Crowder. Devil's lucky he got out of that meal with only a frying pan to the head, considering what happened to Ava's late husband. Speaking of the men in Ava's life, remind me never to play chess with Boyd. I mean, he did deliberately assault Raylan so he'd get sent to the same holding pen as Dickie, right? I'm not just granting Boyd Jedi powers, am I?
Here's something else I liked, surprisingly... Winona. Or, rather, the fact that Winona does in fact have a personality and we actually got to see it for a change. Too often in the show's first two seasons, Winona seemed to be there only to whine and give Raylan someone to fuss over. That's not fair to the character, and frankly it got old pretty quickly. Yes, Winona once again ended this episode in a room with a bad guy and a gun, but at least she wasn't the primary target this time. (Baby steps, writers.) And she got to make jokes! I for one think Jiffy Pop Givens is an awesome name.
But my problem is, though I like pregnant Winona, the pregnancy plotline doesn't really excite me all that much. For me, Raylan as that classic American archetype (seen in countless Westerns, and probably at least one episode of "Community") - the man that can save society but can't be a part of it - is a million times more interesting than a guy with a wife, kid and mortgage who fights crime until it's time for Jiffy Pop's soccer game. I, too, would rather Raylan just get a dog.
I'm also not too pumped about the whole Dixie Mafia story. I know, I know, it needs to play out. But Winn Duffy, et al, have just never compelled me the way the Bennetts and Crowders did. I think at least part of that is because I can relate to people who sing on the front porch and battle mining companies. I can't relate as much to skeevy guys in cheap suits who shoot each other in between one-liners. I'm probably alone here.
Anyway, quibbles aside, I'm pumped to have "Justified" in my life again. And seriously, Carla Gugino cannot get here quick enough.
Rachel sightings: four, by my count, but three were separate shots in one scene.
I enjoyed "Justified" in its first season and fell in love with it in its second (excepting one particular issue). As with any show that got that good, one worries that its writers can stay at that level, or even keep getting better and better. And it's silly to make a judgment about how successfully a show's writers are doing that until at least halfway through a season. "Justified" isn't a "CSI"-type procedural; it's a novel. And you don't quit on a novel after one chapter. So, while there are things introduced in last night's premiere that make me say "YES, I want to see more of this!" and other things that made me say ".....eh..." I'm going to hold off on saying that season three is definitely this or that...for now.
Things I liked: Ava, always Ava. I could not be happier that she's apparently continuing her development into a Lady Macbeth-esque consiglieri for Boyd Crowder. Devil's lucky he got out of that meal with only a frying pan to the head, considering what happened to Ava's late husband. Speaking of the men in Ava's life, remind me never to play chess with Boyd. I mean, he did deliberately assault Raylan so he'd get sent to the same holding pen as Dickie, right? I'm not just granting Boyd Jedi powers, am I?
Here's something else I liked, surprisingly... Winona. Or, rather, the fact that Winona does in fact have a personality and we actually got to see it for a change. Too often in the show's first two seasons, Winona seemed to be there only to whine and give Raylan someone to fuss over. That's not fair to the character, and frankly it got old pretty quickly. Yes, Winona once again ended this episode in a room with a bad guy and a gun, but at least she wasn't the primary target this time. (Baby steps, writers.) And she got to make jokes! I for one think Jiffy Pop Givens is an awesome name.
But my problem is, though I like pregnant Winona, the pregnancy plotline doesn't really excite me all that much. For me, Raylan as that classic American archetype (seen in countless Westerns, and probably at least one episode of "Community") - the man that can save society but can't be a part of it - is a million times more interesting than a guy with a wife, kid and mortgage who fights crime until it's time for Jiffy Pop's soccer game. I, too, would rather Raylan just get a dog.
I'm also not too pumped about the whole Dixie Mafia story. I know, I know, it needs to play out. But Winn Duffy, et al, have just never compelled me the way the Bennetts and Crowders did. I think at least part of that is because I can relate to people who sing on the front porch and battle mining companies. I can't relate as much to skeevy guys in cheap suits who shoot each other in between one-liners. I'm probably alone here.
Anyway, quibbles aside, I'm pumped to have "Justified" in my life again. And seriously, Carla Gugino cannot get here quick enough.
Rachel sightings: four, by my count, but three were separate shots in one scene.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Why I'm not on the Tebow bandwagon
I'm probably going to get football-jinxed for this, as Denver's currently down at halftime in their playoff game against the Patriots, and there's another 30 minutes of football to go, and John Fox almost never loses to the same team twice in one season, but here goes:
1 - I have complicated feelings about Tim Tebow.
2 - I sincerely want the Broncos to lose tonight, partly because of those complicated feelings, and partly not because of them.
For the record, I like and admire Tebow as a person and role model. Right now, the NFL has a bona fide served-time-in-federal-prison ex-con and an accused rapist starting at quarterback, so a guy who loves his mom and isn't ashamed of his faith doesn't trip my outrage meter. I wish that I'd had a role model like Tebow when I was a teen. By any account, he's a great guy.
But he's not such a great pro football player. Relatively, I mean. Obviously he's a better athlete than 99.99999% of the general population, and he seems to be an inspiring team leader. But, let's be honest; the reason he gets so much attention is his very public faith. If the QB of, say, the Cleveland Browns had done exactly what Tebow's done this year, his last-minute exploits would be a topic for precisely one half of one segment of "SportsCenter," and then the conventional wisdom would acknowledge that you only get to have late-game comebacks if you're down late in the game. There's a word for teams that eke out those white-knuckle finishes: luck. And luck runs out.
So, there's the faith. Anyone in the media is attracted to novelty, and a devout Christian in a league of guys who wind down at strip clubs is going to get attention, even moreso if he's a Heisman Trophy-winner with a BCS championship under his belt. And Tebow has the underdog thing going for him, too - none of the sports talking-head class thought he could hack it in the NFL. Beginning, middle, end, conflict, foreshadowing, reversals - There's a reason they call them "stories."
I get all of that. It's Jerome Bettis winning the Super Bowl in Detroit - his hometown, in case you hadn't heard - all over again. But, at least for me, the stakes are higher. This isn't just the sports media narrative of the week. It's my faith we're talking about.
Tim Tebow is a great guy, I'm sure, but his brand of Christianity isn't representative of what a lot of us believe. For some of us, the idea that God cares about the outcome of a football game is a little gross. (Read my friend Parson Carson's take.) Some of us have read Matthew 6:5, and while we get that Tebow wants to shout to the Lord and all that, we're a little uncomfortable with private faith being made public.
Why? Because Tebow seems to be one of those rare people who does, in fact, live the values he's pushing publicly... but I feel like at least some of the people fawning over him aren't the same. It's so easy to bow to your knees in the endzone (so to speak), or to buy the jersey of the guy who does, and feel like that's all you have to do. Christ didn't mean for this to be easy.
If Tim Tebow inspires you, then the best thing you could do is NOT bow in whatever your endzone might be. Instead, do the things Tebow does when "SportsCenter" isn't watching.
1 - I have complicated feelings about Tim Tebow.
2 - I sincerely want the Broncos to lose tonight, partly because of those complicated feelings, and partly not because of them.
For the record, I like and admire Tebow as a person and role model. Right now, the NFL has a bona fide served-time-in-federal-prison ex-con and an accused rapist starting at quarterback, so a guy who loves his mom and isn't ashamed of his faith doesn't trip my outrage meter. I wish that I'd had a role model like Tebow when I was a teen. By any account, he's a great guy.
But he's not such a great pro football player. Relatively, I mean. Obviously he's a better athlete than 99.99999% of the general population, and he seems to be an inspiring team leader. But, let's be honest; the reason he gets so much attention is his very public faith. If the QB of, say, the Cleveland Browns had done exactly what Tebow's done this year, his last-minute exploits would be a topic for precisely one half of one segment of "SportsCenter," and then the conventional wisdom would acknowledge that you only get to have late-game comebacks if you're down late in the game. There's a word for teams that eke out those white-knuckle finishes: luck. And luck runs out.
So, there's the faith. Anyone in the media is attracted to novelty, and a devout Christian in a league of guys who wind down at strip clubs is going to get attention, even moreso if he's a Heisman Trophy-winner with a BCS championship under his belt. And Tebow has the underdog thing going for him, too - none of the sports talking-head class thought he could hack it in the NFL. Beginning, middle, end, conflict, foreshadowing, reversals - There's a reason they call them "stories."
I get all of that. It's Jerome Bettis winning the Super Bowl in Detroit - his hometown, in case you hadn't heard - all over again. But, at least for me, the stakes are higher. This isn't just the sports media narrative of the week. It's my faith we're talking about.
Tim Tebow is a great guy, I'm sure, but his brand of Christianity isn't representative of what a lot of us believe. For some of us, the idea that God cares about the outcome of a football game is a little gross. (Read my friend Parson Carson's take.) Some of us have read Matthew 6:5, and while we get that Tebow wants to shout to the Lord and all that, we're a little uncomfortable with private faith being made public.
Why? Because Tebow seems to be one of those rare people who does, in fact, live the values he's pushing publicly... but I feel like at least some of the people fawning over him aren't the same. It's so easy to bow to your knees in the endzone (so to speak), or to buy the jersey of the guy who does, and feel like that's all you have to do. Christ didn't mean for this to be easy.
If Tim Tebow inspires you, then the best thing you could do is NOT bow in whatever your endzone might be. Instead, do the things Tebow does when "SportsCenter" isn't watching.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
They are not unicorns
This is just bad logic.
Here Rick Santorum is trying out the tired, old, nonsensical argument against marriage equality that if two women can marry, then 47 women can marry and OMG WHAT THEN???
It's a classic argumentative fallacy that every pre-law student gets quizzed on two weeks into their first semester. The question is this, but I'm going to pretend that it's this other thing and then answer the question I just made up that you didn't actually ask in the first place. And, in this case, doing so quite badly.)
What this college student asked the guy who just nearly won the first contest to be the GOP presidential nominee was this: why can these two people take advantage of the thousands of legal protections that come with marriage, and not these two people over here? What Santorum pretended she asked was "Why can't unicorns marry aliens if that's what makes them happyyyyy?"
We're not talking about unicorns or aliens. We're talking about individual adults who happen to be attracted to those of the same sex, and Santorum knows it. Some of those adults have kids from previous relationships, and some want kids for the first time. Their families are no less stable than any other, and there's no logical or legal reason that the law shouldn't protect them the way it does my family.
Santorum is deliberately belittling these families either for political points or because he genuinely believes they don't matter as much as his family. Either way, it's disgusting and sad, and while we're on the subject, un-Christian. If he's genuinely unable to see a same-sex couple as a couple just like he and his wife - as if they're unicorns or something else unhuman - then he has no business in a position of power.
Here Rick Santorum is trying out the tired, old, nonsensical argument against marriage equality that if two women can marry, then 47 women can marry and OMG WHAT THEN???
It's a classic argumentative fallacy that every pre-law student gets quizzed on two weeks into their first semester. The question is this, but I'm going to pretend that it's this other thing and then answer the question I just made up that you didn't actually ask in the first place. And, in this case, doing so quite badly.)
What this college student asked the guy who just nearly won the first contest to be the GOP presidential nominee was this: why can these two people take advantage of the thousands of legal protections that come with marriage, and not these two people over here? What Santorum pretended she asked was "Why can't unicorns marry aliens if that's what makes them happyyyyy?"
We're not talking about unicorns or aliens. We're talking about individual adults who happen to be attracted to those of the same sex, and Santorum knows it. Some of those adults have kids from previous relationships, and some want kids for the first time. Their families are no less stable than any other, and there's no logical or legal reason that the law shouldn't protect them the way it does my family.
Santorum is deliberately belittling these families either for political points or because he genuinely believes they don't matter as much as his family. Either way, it's disgusting and sad, and while we're on the subject, un-Christian. If he's genuinely unable to see a same-sex couple as a couple just like he and his wife - as if they're unicorns or something else unhuman - then he has no business in a position of power.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Semi-live blogging the Iowa caucuses while I do other things
I totally forgot the Iowa caucuses were today! Probably because I'm a Democrat who lives in North Carolina, but I still feel guilty. Anyway, I have the news on now. But it's been a solid two days of meetings at work, including lunches, and a holiday weekend before that, so I have a ton that I need to catch up on, and I really want to avoid Chris Matthews as much as possible.
Right now it's 8:15 (my time), and the polls closed 15 minutes ago. MSNBC says that entrance polls had Romney, Paul and Santorum tied. Perfect microcosm of the Republican electorate right there - evenly split between big business insiders, libertarians and social super-conservatives. I'm off to wash dishes.
8:20ish, catching an update on the way to the bathroom - older voters outnumber younger (Paul) voters 2 to 1. More dishes.
A break while the people on TV contradict one another... caucuses aren't like normal elections, where people cast anonymous ballots all day long, and then we count when the polls close. Basically, groups of people gather, listen to speeches about whom they should vote for, and then either cast ballots (Republicans) or group together (Democrats) to pick their caucus' winner. Moreso than a normal voting day, caucuses skew toward people who are motivated and able to show up.
Interruption: one percent of the vote is in! 9, 4 and 3 votes, for Paul, Perry and Romney, respectively.
As I was saying - able-bodied people either with no kids or with child care and who are off work or retired are the ones who show up to caucus. It's not representative of the population even in Iowa, which is laughably unrepresentative of the whole USA's population. It's an interesting experiment in democracy, but other than that, why do we put so much weight on Iowa when it comes to choosing a presidential candidate? Obama won the Democratic caucuses in '08, which signaled to many that he could in fact win in a rural, largely white state (which he went on to win in the general election). But the Republicans' '08 winner was Mike Huckabee. Not exactly predictive.
9:01 - still too close to call. Catching up on my Internet reading. Apparently God told Pat Robertson who was going to win in November, so why on earth am I watching professional news reporters?
9:07. Rachel Maddow really really wants Rick Santorum to finish well. Watch how happily she reminds us that the highly reliable entrance polls have him tied with Romney and Paul. A good Santorum showing would write her show for a week. (And no, that was not a gay joke.) Over to CNN and ESPN.com. Oh, wait, is the Sugar Bowl on tonight, too? Man, I'm so out of the loop...
9:21. CNN's set looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old ADD patient on meth. And I can't believe the Colts fired Bill Polian. Paul is ahead if Santorum and Romney, then Gingrich and Perry following, with 15 percent of precincts reporting.
9:46. CNN is boring. MSNBC has J.C. Watts! The big three are still tied at 23 percent each.
10:09. 45 percent reporting, and Santorum is about 300 votes ahead of Romney; Ed Schultz is telling Rachel Maddow that Santorum is as good as Obama on the stump, and I just noticed that Rachel is wearing eye shadow. Lawrence O'Donnell and Al Sharpton are there as well. This is so much more interesting to watch than CNN.
10: 40. Only 53 percent are reporting, and I need to go to bed, y'all. This is crazy.
Right now it's 8:15 (my time), and the polls closed 15 minutes ago. MSNBC says that entrance polls had Romney, Paul and Santorum tied. Perfect microcosm of the Republican electorate right there - evenly split between big business insiders, libertarians and social super-conservatives. I'm off to wash dishes.
8:20ish, catching an update on the way to the bathroom - older voters outnumber younger (Paul) voters 2 to 1. More dishes.
A break while the people on TV contradict one another... caucuses aren't like normal elections, where people cast anonymous ballots all day long, and then we count when the polls close. Basically, groups of people gather, listen to speeches about whom they should vote for, and then either cast ballots (Republicans) or group together (Democrats) to pick their caucus' winner. Moreso than a normal voting day, caucuses skew toward people who are motivated and able to show up.
Interruption: one percent of the vote is in! 9, 4 and 3 votes, for Paul, Perry and Romney, respectively.
As I was saying - able-bodied people either with no kids or with child care and who are off work or retired are the ones who show up to caucus. It's not representative of the population even in Iowa, which is laughably unrepresentative of the whole USA's population. It's an interesting experiment in democracy, but other than that, why do we put so much weight on Iowa when it comes to choosing a presidential candidate? Obama won the Democratic caucuses in '08, which signaled to many that he could in fact win in a rural, largely white state (which he went on to win in the general election). But the Republicans' '08 winner was Mike Huckabee. Not exactly predictive.
9:01 - still too close to call. Catching up on my Internet reading. Apparently God told Pat Robertson who was going to win in November, so why on earth am I watching professional news reporters?
9:07. Rachel Maddow really really wants Rick Santorum to finish well. Watch how happily she reminds us that the highly reliable entrance polls have him tied with Romney and Paul. A good Santorum showing would write her show for a week. (And no, that was not a gay joke.) Over to CNN and ESPN.com. Oh, wait, is the Sugar Bowl on tonight, too? Man, I'm so out of the loop...
9:21. CNN's set looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old ADD patient on meth. And I can't believe the Colts fired Bill Polian. Paul is ahead if Santorum and Romney, then Gingrich and Perry following, with 15 percent of precincts reporting.
9:46. CNN is boring. MSNBC has J.C. Watts! The big three are still tied at 23 percent each.
10:09. 45 percent reporting, and Santorum is about 300 votes ahead of Romney; Ed Schultz is telling Rachel Maddow that Santorum is as good as Obama on the stump, and I just noticed that Rachel is wearing eye shadow. Lawrence O'Donnell and Al Sharpton are there as well. This is so much more interesting to watch than CNN.
10: 40. Only 53 percent are reporting, and I need to go to bed, y'all. This is crazy.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
The "Lost" wannabes
Let's talk about "Lost."
One of my all-time favorite TV shows that for some reason I haven't (yet) had the urge to re-watch since it wrapped up 18 months ago. A critical hit for a network that needed it, whose fans are kind of obsessive, and that the networks have thus far failed to repeat in terms of appeal. This piece from Entertainment Weekly explores what might make the next "Lost" successful, and concludes that trying to repeat the formula isn't the way to go. I agree.
The thing is, those TV shows that fans don't just watch, but truly love, are successful because they're original. Trying to rip off something that worked once is attracted to executives, but pretty boring for the people who actually tune into the shows themselves.
But in particular, I think that a lot of the people who parse "Lost" miss the point of "Lost." Yes, by the end of the series there was this massive, intricate mythology that you had to understand backward and forward to even follow the plot of a single episode, but that only came over time. In the beginning, it was just 40-odd people crash-landed on an island trying to find food, water and shelter. There were inklings of weirdness, but most of those early-episode conflicts came the characters just learning how to live together.
(And keep in mind how many people griped about the mythological aspects of the show that weren't paying off fast enough - or ever. The fans that stuck around did so because they cared about what happened to the characters they'd come to know, not because they'd never rest until they found out who built the Temple.)
In my experience, that's where the "Lost" wannabes have messed up. "Lost"didn't break out time travel in the pilot episode; there were entire first-season episodes about asthma medicine, for crying out loud. The show's writers started with characters that you wanted to spend time with each week, and then built from there. "24" did the same thing - remember how much of the season one plot was driven by Jack's daughter going missing? The shows (cough "The Event" cough) that dish out the supernatural jujitsu before I even know who anyone is yet, they just make me change the channel.
So, if you're an aspiring TV writer or executive trying to create the next "Lost," consider this a bit of free market research: don't try so hard to be the next "Lost." Just tell your story, make me care about it and then carry on.
One of my all-time favorite TV shows that for some reason I haven't (yet) had the urge to re-watch since it wrapped up 18 months ago. A critical hit for a network that needed it, whose fans are kind of obsessive, and that the networks have thus far failed to repeat in terms of appeal. This piece from Entertainment Weekly explores what might make the next "Lost" successful, and concludes that trying to repeat the formula isn't the way to go. I agree.
The thing is, those TV shows that fans don't just watch, but truly love, are successful because they're original. Trying to rip off something that worked once is attracted to executives, but pretty boring for the people who actually tune into the shows themselves.
But in particular, I think that a lot of the people who parse "Lost" miss the point of "Lost." Yes, by the end of the series there was this massive, intricate mythology that you had to understand backward and forward to even follow the plot of a single episode, but that only came over time. In the beginning, it was just 40-odd people crash-landed on an island trying to find food, water and shelter. There were inklings of weirdness, but most of those early-episode conflicts came the characters just learning how to live together.
(And keep in mind how many people griped about the mythological aspects of the show that weren't paying off fast enough - or ever. The fans that stuck around did so because they cared about what happened to the characters they'd come to know, not because they'd never rest until they found out who built the Temple.)
In my experience, that's where the "Lost" wannabes have messed up. "Lost"didn't break out time travel in the pilot episode; there were entire first-season episodes about asthma medicine, for crying out loud. The show's writers started with characters that you wanted to spend time with each week, and then built from there. "24" did the same thing - remember how much of the season one plot was driven by Jack's daughter going missing? The shows (cough "The Event" cough) that dish out the supernatural jujitsu before I even know who anyone is yet, they just make me change the channel.
So, if you're an aspiring TV writer or executive trying to create the next "Lost," consider this a bit of free market research: don't try so hard to be the next "Lost." Just tell your story, make me care about it and then carry on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)