mercuriosity, posts by tag: links - LiveJournal (original) (raw)
1. I made a silly video of Stephen running in his sleep:
[Soundtrack: Apocalyptica, "Hall of the Mountain King"]
2. You should definitely read this ( spoilerCollapse ) awesome comic about a prince and a mermaid!
3. Jim Hines, whose Princess series I enjoy a lot, has a blog on Goodreads. In the short time I've been following it, he's made at least three posts about rape, usually prompted by some case in the media. Here's the most recent. I am always deeply impressed by the absolutely unequivocal stance he takes against rape, against victim-blaming, and for consent. Too many other so-called allies equivocate.
In my review of The Stepsister Scheme, I wrote:
( SpoilersCollapse )
I can't even say how awesome it is to have that positive assessment affirmed by out-of-verse comments from the author himself. I can't vouch for his feminist cred in other respects, but his stance on consent is unassailable. It is really, really great to, for once, be able to like an author better after reading Things They Say On The Internet than the other way around.
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
Good morning. It's Spring Break. I just got up at the crack of dawn (well ok, 8am, same diff) to go to the post office and pick up a package before the line could get horrendously long (last time I went I stood in line for two hours. Two! Hours!!). It's a package with SHOES in it, so it was worth getting up for.
Now I am drinking coffee and grumbling at news headlines.
Am I the only one who finds it depressing to read headlines about the stock market in the wake of disasters like Japan's? Like, I honestly don't give a flip if investors are "panic selling" because they are "spooked" by the prospect of a nuclear catastrophe. Oh no, how horrible for them. I do care to the extent that economic troubles will make it that much harder for the people of Japan to recuperate and rebuild. But I can't even fathom a mindset that responds to a tragedy of such proportions with, "But what about my stocks?" This is one reason I don't think vast quantities of money can be morally neutral.
[Edit: I should note that I realize upheaval in the stock market has consequences for ordinary people, which I obviously do care about. My frustration is with the media framing and the machinations of the market in general.]
For Honolulu’s Homeless, an Eviction Notice
According to the article, "In 2009, the [National Coalition for the Homeless] named Honolulu the eighth meanest city in the country in its dealing with the homeless." The rest of the list can be seen here. It's interesting to note that 7 out of 10 of the cities listed have warm, sunny climates conducive to living outdoors. I don't know if there's a connection, but there does seem to be a certain irony in civilization's demand to work against nature, rather than with it.
N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy
More than two months after the Tucson shootings, the administration is calling together both the gun lobby and gun safety groups to find common ground.
Okay, seriously? Fuck "common ground" with people who have demonstrated a total disregard for human life and safety, fuck the N.R.A., fuck Wayne LaFuckingPierre, and fuck Obama and his spineless bowing and scraping to the gun lobby. I am so mad I could spit nails.
Here's a good--although disheartening--piece I read yesterday: The clarifying Manning/Crowley controversy. The third section, in which Greenwald succinctly takes apart the "common sense" notions of "objectivity" and "sensitivity", is particularly gratifying.
---
In cheerier news, I am thinking of getting an e-reader. I don't know why, I think I am being lured in by the elegant simplicity of design and the prospect of hundreds of Project Gutenberg books at my fingertips, and fooling myself that I'll ever have time to read any of them. If you use an e-reader, which one do you have, and how do you find it?
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
31 January 2011 @ 08:20 pm
Re: H.R.3, the No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
Bodily Autonomy for Women Act:
Chipping Away at Roe...and the Definition of Rape
There are so many rape culture tropes being served here, I could frankly spend the entire day documenting the innumerable manifestations of misogynistic fuckery at work here.
But instead I'm going to focus on but one truly shocking aspect of this proposed legislation which probably won't get a whole lot of attention: The proposed law effectively, if not by design, gives veto control over terminating pregnancies resulting from rape to the rapist.
See also #dearjohn: No On 3, for things you can do to express your extreme displeasure with this proposed legislation.
Re: Egypt:
Washington's Sudden Embrace of Al Jazeera Won't Erase Past US Crimes Against the Network
For people who have followed Al Jazeera's history with the US, the fact that it is now perceived by the White House and the American public as a force for democracy and freedom is an ironic, some would say hypocritical, development. The contrast between Washington's posture toward al Jazeera from the Bush era to the Obama presidency could not be more stark.
Re: Puerto Rico:
Protests and Arrests Continue at the University of Puerto Rico
This is a struggle that has been going on for months with very little coverage in the U.S. media even though Puerto Rico is a colony of the U.S. I ask again, were this happening at a university in Indiana, would it be so ignored?
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
30 January 2011 @ 02:24 pm
Hmm, another article in the NYT about us mixed race young uns and how we even have our own campus clubs and whatnot: More Young Americans Identify as Mixed Race.
I always have a mixed (ha!) reaction when I see headlines like this. On the one hand, yay media coverage acknowledging that we exist! On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I've seen exactly this headline at least once before in the past year. The great part is that you can keep reusing it, probably for the foreseeable future, without ever having to say anything new or challenging. Throw in something about Obama (setting up a false opposition between being black and being multiracial, while you're at it), census data, "people of the future", blah blah blah, HEY PRESTO, you've got yourself an article!
Unsurprisingly, the comments are full of the same fail I've come to expect whenever an article like this is published; i.e., a lot of people Not Getting It and saying, "Why are we still talking about race?" and "Ultimately we're all multiracial anyway"--hahahahahaha NO. Trigger warning as well for outright racism and even fat-hate (wtf?).
Apparently, this is meant to be a whole series of articles. I wish I could say I'm excited to see the rest of them...
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
10 January 2011 @ 05:56 pm
Or you could just read Liss at Shakesville, who as usual says all that needs to be said and says it better than just about anybody else.
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
10 January 2011 @ 02:31 pm
"There are extremists on both sides."
This is a popular refrain in the wake of Saturday's shootings in Arizona. This is a seemingly logical and true statement, and difficult for anyone to deny without looking ridiculous. That's why it's a popular tool of those who want to shut down any real discussion of culpability. But what does it mean? At this point, approximately nothing. Let me break it down for you:
We're not talking about extremists. We're talking about Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and other mainstays of the conservative mainstream. I may consider their views dangerous and extreme, but they are not treated as such by the Right. Which by itself is a huge part of the problem.
Left-wing extremists don't have cable TV programs, radio shows, and public offices from which to disseminate their extremist views. I'm sure you can find extreme Leftist rhetoric, even violent rhetoric, if you search on the Internet; meanwhile, all you have to do to hear extreme Rightist rhetoric is turn on the TV or the radio. In this way, Right-wing demagoguery is given legitimacy, authority, and the illusion of rationality.
Sure, you may find calls to violence at both extremes of the political spectrum, but only one "side" has made war and increasingly unregulated gun ownership cornerstones of their political platform. See also, #1.
This isn't a theoretical debate about which side has the largest proportion of extremists, or the most dangerous. All theoretical extremists aside, in the past several months, I have only heard one side talking in apocalyptic language about how our country is headed for doom and catastrophe, I have only heard one side talking about "reloading" and "Second Amendment solutions", I have only heard one side suggesting that those on the opposing side are not only wrong, but un-American enemies that need to be "targeted" and "taken out", I have only heard one side implicitly endorsing armed rebellion against the government.
On balance, there's no balance.
---
More resources [Warning for ableist language in all links, and as usual, don't read the comments]:
The Right's Rising Tide of Violent Rhetoric @ Media Matters
False Equivalency Watch @ Washington Monthly
Climate of Hate @ NYT
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
09 January 2011 @ 05:02 pm
The latest news (video) on the condition of Rep. Giffords and the other victims. As I write this, Rep. Giffords is reportedly able to communicate by following simple commands. Her doctors are "cautiously optimistic."
A couple of inspiring stories in the midst of this tragedy:
A woman who was already shot reportedly grabbed a magazine clip away from Loughner as he was trying to reload.
Giffords' intern Daniel Hernandez ran toward the sound of gunfire, stayed with Giffords until help arrived (warning for graphic photo).
From the You've-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me files:
An aide to Sarah Palin is now claiming that the crosshairs on the infamous map were "never intended" to be gun sights; they were "surveyor's marks". Unbelievable. She also manages to use lots of ableist language to shift all the blame onto mentally ill people, awesome.
And some must-read links:
An excerpt from Death of a President, by William Manchester, about the violent and poisonous political atmosphere in the months leading up to the assassination of JFK.
The Cloudy Logic of 'Political' Shootings, by James Fallows, who points out that the "politics" of assassinations and assassination attempts rarely match up 100% with what we expect; but that doesn't mean they're not political, and it doesn't mean the political atmosphere doesn't influence or contribute to them.
Mental illness is not a valid explanation for what Jared Lee Loughner did, so stop it already.
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
08 January 2011 @ 04:58 pm
Two happy news stories, to balance the two crappy news stories:
- Under Siege in War-Torn Somalia, a Doctor Holds Her Ground — A profile of Hawa Abdi, who is basically SUPERWOMAN. Dr. Abdi helps house and feed ninety thousand people in refugee settlements on her own property, and runs a 400-bed hospital where she provides free medical care. She also runs a school that has 800 students.
When armed militia members held her at gunpoint and insisted that she shut down her hospital, she refused, and eventually got the militiamen to submit a written apology. She recently had a tumor removed from her brain, but hasn't slowed down one bit. Nick Kristof also recently wrote a profile of her, here.
She is, um- basically my hero in every way.
[T]housands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.
From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.
Just- yeah. Fuck yeah.
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
08 January 2011 @ 03:45 pm
Today is just a day for terrible news out of Arizona, it seems. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others were shot at a political event in Tucson, AZ.
Five
Six people were killed, including U.S. District Judge John Roll, and a 9-year-old girl. Rep. Giffords is in critical condition and expected to recover.
I'm watching the coverage on CNN.com. HuffPo also has live coverage. Also reading the thread on Shakesville.
Let's be clear: this did not happen in a vacuum. I'm listening to the mainstream media bend over backwards to avoid "speculating" on the motives of the shooter or "politicizing" this tragedy by calling it what it is--a terrorist act. Already, the rhetoric asserting that the shooter must be a lone, unhinged, unaffiliated individual has started.
How different would the coverage look if the suspect were described as Middle Eastern, brown-skinned, Muslim?
Rep. Giffords' office was vandalized in March, after the healthcare reform vote. She won her most recent race against an opponent who held a target-shooting event as part of his campaign. Giffords' district was one of 20 marked with a bullseye on Sarah Palin's infamous map.
This did not happen in a vacuum.
---
Meanwhile:
Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal
This is so 1984, I can't even deal.
Mr. [Curtis] Acosta’s class and others in the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American program have been declared illegal by the State of Arizona — even while similar programs for black, Asian and American Indian students have been left untouched.
“It’s propagandizing and brainwashing that’s going on there,” Tom Horne, Arizona’s newly elected attorney general, said this week as he officially declared the program in violation of a state law that went into effect on Jan. 1.
Tom Horne is a grade-A, racist, asshat. He is exactly the kind of troll who thinks the problem of being called racist is worse than the actual problem of, you know, racism.
View original entry | comment(s) | Leave a comment
07 January 2011 @ 05:44 pm
This article in the NYT, which reports on the findings of a study of the effect of women's tears on men's arousal levels, is a steaming pile of heterocentrist and gender essentialist claptrap.
The NYT is not alone; this oh-so-exciting story has been picked up on by just about every major news outlet, because it makes for GREAT HEADLINES. Here's a blog post which rounds up some of these headlines:
- Women’s tears are a real turn off for men, new research claims
- Women’s tears tank men’s libido
- In Women’s Tears, a Chemical That Says, ‘Not Tonight, Dear’
- Tears in Her Eyes: A Turnoff for Guys?
- A woman’s tears can cripple the male libido, new study finds Perhaps the best one is from MSNBC (of course!): Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying Chicks aren’t sexy.
This is what passes for science reporting in our society. I would weep in despair, but that might turn off teh menz, and we can't have that.
I would also like to point out that while the popular media are definitely capable of ruining a story all by themselves, all too often, they receive help from the researchers' own interpretations of the results. From the NYT article:
"Chemical signaling is a form of language," said one of the researchers, Dr. Noam Sobel, a professor of neurobiology at the Weizmann Institute in Israel. "Basically what we've found is the chemo-signaling word for 'no' — or at least 'not now.'"
[...]
Another thought, he said, is that the effect of tears evolved in part to coincide with menstrual cycles.
Isn't it funny how "thoughts" like this, which fit neatly into dominant cultural narratives about gendered behavior, are so often presented without the slightest shred of evidence? The only slight, refreshing whiff of common sense in the midst of this festering dung heap comes from Dr. Martha McClintock, who herself has studied pheromones and behavior:
"Oh, please," she said. "Do we know that women cry more often during menstruation?"
She said it was "premature to speculate about the evolutionary function" of chemo-signaling in tears, adding: "I have no doubt that it affected sexuality as they report, but I would be very surprised if it doesn’t turn out to affect other emotions in other contexts. Maybe it's affecting some deeper, more fundamental psychological process that drives the effect that they're reporting."
How refreshing! How reasonable! How--oh, I don't know--SCIENTIFIC. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for good news. Get back to your crying, woman, let the men talk about gendered behavior:
[Dr. Robert Provine, psychologist/neuroscientist at UMD:] "That tears are de-arousing would not be a surprise to most men. I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than go see a tear-jerker."
Because he's a MAN, get it? Ha. Ha. Ha. Why aren't you laughing??
A thought: If this is the best we can expect from our scientists, is it really any surprise we don't expect more from our science reporting?