Wow.

Just wow.



That is an amazing ad. It is astonishing how Barack Obama manages to be engaging and fully charismatic even in a setting and ad like this. This is who I want for the next president of the United States. 

And I kind of love YouTube for being around to show it to me, because up here in Connecticut, I don't get many (or any, really) campaign commercials.

PS- This makes me so much more excited to get my "lipstick" bumper sticker:from Emily's List!

I Feel Like Such A Bad Fan

Aaron Sorkin, he of West Wing and Sports Night and The American President fame, has made (made!) a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out this whole Facebook thing in preparation for writing a movie about how Facebook came about. He did it a month ago, and I'm just finding out about it now. Which makes me feel like kind of a bad fan. Like, if Joss Whedon did this, I'd have been all over it within five minutes. At the same time, I feel a little better about my lack of knowledge (down right ignorance, actually), because out of any writer anywhere, I would expect Aaron Sorkin to be the one to never touch the internet with a sixty-foot pole -again. He did it once, and it went badly for him and ever since then he's written unflattering (but funny -and somewhat true) things about the internet in general, and bloggers and fan sites and forums specifically.

Like, The West Wing had a whole episode dedicated to how message boards, and people who visit them, are havens for the unmedicated and overly hysterical called The U.S. Poet Laureate, which contained this scene:

JOSH

The Internet people have gone crazy.

DONNA
You're kidding.

JOSH
They're calling the GAO "General Josh's Standing Army", and saying I don't understand it's mandate and purpose. They're saying if I could get a review of anything I want, that I should start by reviewing the job of Deputy C.O.S. Then one guy compares me to a poor man's Clark Clifford, and a page and a half of posts, debating whether or not I was mocking Egyptians with the Sanskrit reference.

DONNA
I told you they were hysterical.

JOSH
I thought you meant they were funny.

DONNA
They're not.

JOSH
I know they're not! It's "Lord of the Flies" in there.

Sorkin has often called bloggers and people who populate the internet names, like saying that they are fat chain smokers blogging in mumus while waiting for their tv dinners to heat up. He's also made the point, time and time again, that the internet is a perilous spot to garner information because there are no credentials from people with only handles instead of names.

Says Tom Jeter of Studio 60:

I'm a fan of credentials. It's like we've all spent the last five years living in a Roger Corman film called "Revenge of the Hack".

 No culpability and no way of seeing if the person blogging is an eight year old or someone who actually knows something about the subject is a bad in Sorkin's world. Mine too, if we want to get right down to it.

All this boils down to the fact that if someone was going to be messing about on the internet, Aaron Sorkin is probably the last person on earth to be doing it. John McCain would be ahead of him. Apparently, I was wrong in that assessment...

Anyway, it's been about a month, and here's what Aaron says about it:

Welcome. I'm Aaron Sorkin. I understand there are a few other people using Facebook pages under my name--which I find more flattering than creepy--but this is me. I don't know how I can prove that but feel free to test me.

I've just agreed to write a movie for Sony and producer Scott Rudin about how Facebook was invented. I figured a good first step in my preparation would be finding out what Facebook is, so I've started this page. (Actually it was started by my researcher, Ian Reichbach, because my grandmother has more Internet savvy than I do and she's been dead for 33 years.)

Some of you might be familiar with some things I've written. I'm the author of two Broadway plays--A Few Good Men and The Farnsworth Invention, five feature films--A Few Good Men, The American President, Malice, Charlie Wilson's War and The Trial of the Chicago 7 which is in pre-production, and three television series--Sports Night, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and the first four seasons of The West Wing.

I honestly don't know how this works, which is why I'm here. If anyone has any questions I'd be happy to answer them as best I can. If anyone has any comments I'm glad to listen. And if anyone has any Facebook stories I think they might be helpful.

That's all. I'll try to get better at this as I get more practice.

Aaron

* I feel about this introduction the way I felt about Sophie's Choice--It could have been funnier.

So go and join the group. Let's give the big lug some sort of pleasant experience in the internet world. And maybe comment in the discussion group things. I probably won't be doing that, but still. 

Bitch Needs Help

I was first introduced to Bitch Magazine in college, and I'm going to attribute that introduction to my good friend Media Maven. I bought many of their magazines. I've read a lot of the articles they post on their website. I've listened to their podcast. They're also nicely linked on the side of this blog under Sites of Info and Interest. But lately, I've been slacking. So I was shocked to visit Feministing and learn that Bitch Magazine is in danger of going under unless they raise $40,000 by mid-October. Here are two of the women from Bitch explaining their plight:

My first thought: Punk Planet went under? How did I not hear about that?!

My second thought, though, was that this is going to be a busy donating season for me. I'm not a community organizer. I don't actually like a lot of people. I'm like Linus in that way. I love humanity; it's people I can't stand. I'll gladly give food or money, and I will give money to almost any organization that asks for it. Except for Planned Parenthood, but that is because they sold my name when I was 16. Anyway, I've already done my part for the ACLU this season. I'm contemplating giving money to the Dali Lama (he sent me prayer flags). And now I'm going to be donating to Bitch Magazine. I would encourage anyone who enjoys progressive, well-written, feminist thought in a magazine form, independent publishing, or who just has an extra 10 bucks floating around, to do the same.

Help feed the dog at the top of their screen!

Edit: It may help if I supplied the actual donation link. Oops!

A More Perfect Union

My father is more a fan of Keith Olbermann than I am; I prefer The Daily Show. But I do love some of what Olbermann does and I love how often Chris Hayes is a guest. And I love some of the issues that are brought up in segments such as this one.

This is the kind of attitude from Palin Obama and company have to attack. It isn't enough to keep chanting "4 more years" because although that is what we're going to be getting, the picture McCain and Palin are presenting is one of two genuinely likable people. And apparently Americans have forgotten that voting for the seemingly genuinely likable guy (with the surly VP choice) is what got us into much of the mess we face today both at home and abroad. Obama should be flooding the airwaves with the idea that not only is Palin mimicking a line from Bush, it is a line not even Bush publicly states any more. Any sort of connection between Iraq and 9/11 have long been disproved, and the fact that someone who is the potential #2 (wo)man in the White House (and could hold the #1 spot at some point in the next 4-8 years) either believes it or believes it still has enough political milage to parrot it more is more than scary. If she believes it, then we are in a terrifying situation. If she doesn't believe it but thinks it will help her side win, then - as Chris Hayes rightfully points out - it is morally repugnant.

We need to actually detail how the next four years will resemble the last eight if McCain and Palin are elected. We need to make it clear that we can't afford four more years of this. I hate the argument that we should vote for a president based on what will potentially happen on the Supreme Court. It didn't work in 2000, it didn't work in 2004, and it probably won't work in 2008. But I really think we need to emphasize the whole host of issues with a McCain and Palin picked Court, along with McCain and Palin foreign policy and McCain and Palin domestic policy.

We also need to seriously examine the fact that so much of our money goes toward military endeavors. The West Wing taught me why the military needed more expensive items when Jack Reese broke a $400 ash tray to demonstrate how the added cost created an extra safety measure. But I think Chris Hayes is right when he says, "what's really, really frustrating is the fact there is no other area of policy and political debate in which your prescription can be to just spend 12 billion dollars a month and keep a hundred and forty thousand Americans somewhere with no definitive strategic end point." We also need to firmly examine whether or not Chris Hayes' assessment regarding McCain's foreign policy as being even more extreme than Bush's current policy is correct. Because if it is, that is also something that needs to be stressed to the American public. Yes, this man is a POW. Yes, he is a respected and respectable man. Yes, he does genuinely want to do the best by his country and for his country. But that doesn't mean that some of his policies aren't just insane, and that his vision for our future may not, in point of fact, be the vision we require to carry us toward a better and more actualized version of this great American experiment.

"I Was Told I Would Be Addressing You Alone"

This is the first time I've laughed, serious out loud laughed, at an SNL sketch in years. Sometimes they get my chuckling. Sometimes I smirk. But I pretty much feel like SNL's best times were of Land Shark and the Coneheads and Gilda Radner and the Blues Brothers. But this cracked me up!

I absolutely love the whole thing!

Matt Damon Rocks (Or Why Famous People Should Not Be Maligned For Voicing Opinions)

I really wonder about certain perspectives. Like, the idea that famous people - actors, musicians, writers, etc. - shouldn't talk about politics or policies. These are people that we basically - though most of us passively - stalk. We buy (or just flip through) magazines with their faces on it, pictures that are oftentimes taken through incredibly powerful photolenses from large distances. We want to know what they are wearing, what they are eating, what they are drinking, how they parent, and what products they endorse. We'll buy perfume if it has been endorsed by someone we like. We'll drink more Starbucks. We'll show more interest in designers or cuts or jackets. But the second someone opens their mouth about something truly important, we tell them to shut up. We tell them that they have no business discussing matters of the state.

Kid Rock says, "I truly believe that people like myself, who are in a position of entertainers in the limelight, should keep our mouths shut on politics... ...Because at the end of the day, I'm good at writing songs and singing. What I'm not educated in is the field of political science. And so for me to be sharing my views and influencing people of who I think they should be voting for... I think would be very irresponsible on my part". But here's the thing. As a citizen of these here United States of America, anybody anywhere has the right (and some would say the responsibility) to think about, talk about, and debate the nature of American politics and politicians. Most people aren't educated in the field of political science. But that doesn't mean that we should not think about the issues and discuss the issues. We shouldn't vote for someone (or not) just because Kid Rock (or Matt Damon) told us their opinion on that person. But these people should not feel hindered in giving their opinion either. Because as a citizen, that is their right. They should be allowed to say, "I have misgivings because", or "I support this candidate because". They have a right to voice their opinion on this thing that at the end of the day really matters. They have a right to use their celebrity to bring focus to issues that matter to them. They have a right to expect us, their fans, to recognize that they aren't deciding who we should vote for, any more than they decide what we should buy or what we should drink. But if we scrutinize their every choice, who they date and what they eat and how they lose the weight from what they eat, then they should be able to voice their opinion about a choice we all get to make every four years. Because being less than scholarly doesn't seem to stop anyone else from voicing their sometimes astute and sometimes obnoxious opinions about any number of issues. And since these are people who live in this country, they have the right to talk about who and what they think would be better for this country.

Matt Damon Is My New(est) Love

I've always enjoyed Matt Damon. I won't go see movies just for him (unlike, say, Shia LaBeouf), but I think he is an intensely charismatic and talented actor who I genuinely respect, craft-wise. Now, I think I've got a full blown crush on him due to this little video clip:

My favorite line of the thing may be:

"I need to know if she things that dinosaurs were here four thousand years ago. That's an important -I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes."

Let me make it clear that I give McCain a good chance of living through his first and possibly even his second term if he is indeed elected president. After all, his mom's still bopping around, and she seems not only adorable but fully mentally and physically capable. But that doesn't change the fact that his death -any president's death- is a distinct possibility, and Matt Damon is right to bring up the fact that maybe we don't want someone in the White House who believes not only in creationism but also thinks that the Iraq War is a holy war; I mean, that's what we have in office now. And we can see where that's gotten us.

Articles To Tide You Over

"Palin opposes gun control, you know, because the government doesn't have the right to tell us what to do with our gun... but she supports the government's control over women's bodies. Because though we are smart and freethinking enough to shoot guns (and possibly do damage to other people's bodies), we certainly are not smart and freethinking enough to control our own bodies."

That's from FeministGal, and it in is an awesome article everyone should read.

As is Habladora's post about whether or not being a woman means one is pro-women, and highlights why Sarah Palin is not, in point of fact, pro-women and pro-women's rights.

Emily also highlights the issue of the cost of rape kits in Alaska, something I touched on a couple of days ago.

And Rebecca Traister has an incredible critique of the recent phenomenon of what she calls "zombie feminism":

"Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks have weakened not only the White House's glass ceiling, but the wall protecting Roe v. Wade; the potential first female vice president in America's 200-year history describes her early career as "your average hockey mom" who "never really set out to be involved in public affairs"; and teen pregnancy is no longer an illustrative example for sex educators and contraception distributors but for those who seek to eliminate sex education and contraception.

In this strange new pro-woman tableau, feminism -- a word that is being used all over the country with regard to Palin's potential power -- means voting for someone who would limit reproductive control, access to healthcare and funding for places like Covenant House Alaska, an organization that helps unwed teen mothers. It means cheering someone who allowed women to be charged for their rape kits while she was mayor of Wasilla, who supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, who has inquired locally about the possibility of using her position to ban children's books from the public library, who does not support the teaching of sex education."

I'll be discussing that one later this weekend in a more in-depth fashion, but right now I have to drive an hour and a half to call people who yell at me all day. See you on the other side of Friday!

Oh, and here's a little Sarah Haskins for you:

The Verdict

I just watched the last half an hour of The Verdict starring Paul Newman, and I loved his final summation:

"You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law. But today you are the law. You ARE the law. Not some book... not the lawyers... not the, a marble statue... or the trappings of the court. See those are just symbols of our desire to be just. They are... they are, in fact, a prayer: a fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, "Act as if ye had faith... and faith will be given to you." IF... if we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves. And ACT with justice. See, I believe there is justice in our hearts."

Who Knew You Had To Pay For Rape Kits?

I was all prepared to be incredibly outraged that while Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, rape victims were billed for their rape kits. I was ready to throw down some pretty harsh language about Sarah Palin. But then I found out something even more outrageous: that other states, among the Illinois, also charge rape victims for the rape kits they use - though Illinois does offer compensation if the victim does not have medical insurance. I'm offended. I'm appalled. The very fact that victims are being asked to pony up money for something that helps the police find the offending criminal is just mind-blowing to me. I don't know what to feel sickened and affronted about first. Should it be that we don't charge other victims of crime for police time and forensic work? Should it be that rape victims have already been victimized and used, and so forcing them to undergo another traumatic event - like shelling out as much as $1,600 for an uncomfortable and humiliating experience - is less than empathetic and doesn't exactly put the victim at ease? Should it be that one of the reasons the Wasilla chief of police opposed a law signed by the then-governor protecting victims from being charged for their rape kits was "the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams"? Should it be that rapes can happen to any woman, and that if threats of financial burden stop even one woman from pursuing the conviction of her rapist (and I doubt it would just be one woman who would be stopped), that is one time too many the monetary cost of the thing overcame the judicial rewards?

Rape victims have enough on their plates between the abysmal conviction rates of accused rapists (according to RAINN, only %6 of rapists will ever spend a day in jail) and the stigma that comes with admitting to rape, even now, without having to pay for a method that will help police find the rapist in question. It is incredibly sad and pathetic that in this day and age, anyone anywhere would feel this type of extortion is acceptable, much less the people who make the laws.

Note: Sarah Palin Is An Idiot

"They made us line up in bathing suits and turn our backs so the male judges could look at our butts. I couldn't believe it!"

Sarah Palin, to Vogue as reported by Newsweek.

I was speechless at such an admission. Even I, in my never having watched a beauty pageant ways, knew that beauty pageants consisted of several parts and that a bathing suit competition was one of those parts. I shudder at the fact that someone would enter a beauty contest and not recognize that they would be (a) judged on their physical appearance, and (b) objectified in the suit the pageant mandated they bring. The whole point of a beauty pageant, from the whole judging perspective, is to examine the physical beauty of the contestants! I suppose the contestants may enter for some other reason - I hear a lot of them offer scholarship options - but on the whole, no one enters a beauty contest without being ready for the objectification. The sole reason why one would enter a beauty pageant - even for the scholarship money - is because they think they are beautiful enough and fit enough and fit the paradigm of beauty well enough to win!

Men, You Gotta Be Women

Hey, Donny Deutsch says so:

"So the huge lesson here is: Before you can sell the candidate, whether it's a man or a woman, you gotta first sell her as a woman".

You heard him, guys. If you're in politics and you're a man, go get yourself a sex change and a skirt and sell yourself as a woman. 

And darn that Hillary Clinton for not figuring out that you actually have to sell being a woman, with skirts and shit, and instead believing that just by actually being a woman you were selling yourself as a woman. Darn her for not playing to gender norms! Oh, that feisty Hillary! She was so crazy to think that raising a polite, articulate, and well-educated daughter would be a good example of her as a good mom! She was so stupid to wear pantsuits and trust that the American public would figure out her gender on their own! Oh wait - they kind of did! At least enough to call her "bitch" and "cunt" and all sorts of other derogatory terms relating to her sex! 

I hate the mainstream media.

A Weird Balancing Act

Here's the thing: I think political families should be off-limits when it comes to political campaigns. Cindy McCain's past problems, McCain's adopted daughter, Palin's 5 children -one pregnant, one with Down's Syndrome- Obama's children, none of those things should matter. We shouldn't scoff at Palin or utilize her daughter for political points. We shouldn't point and laugh at how the woman with an abstinence only agenda has a pregnant teenage daughter. Why? Because of Ron Reagan Jr. Seriously. Ronald Reagan Jr. is my reasoning. The first time I saw Ron Reagan, he was scoffing at conservative policies in the 1980s in regards to the AIDs epidemic. It was one of VH1's specials, one of their Behind the Musics; one of the year ones. Here was a man who derided Ronald Reagan Sr.'s policies, deriding the policies of the day that didn't work to save druggies and homosexuals because those were not Republican voting blocks. I thought, "Man, this guy really hates the Reagans". But that guy was a Reagan. He just happened to also be liberal. The chances of Bristol being liberal are probably slim, but that doesn't mean that she should be held up as political fodder. And that is partially because we don't know what happened, not exactly. We know the result. We know that she is pregnant. But we don't know if she used protection or if she was truly a victim of abstinence only education. We don't know if she was a student of abstinence only education. What's more, we don't have the right to know; we don't have the right to violate her privacy in order to score some cheap political point against her mother. And more than that, her decisions are not her mother's.

So Sarah Palin's viewpoints about abstinence only education, about teaching creationism in schools, her ideas about the environment, her anti-choice rhetoric, should be attacked. The weaknesses should be present (and are present) in Sarah Palin's own arguments. We can point out the flaws in abstinence only education through studies and statistics; we should be doing that anyway, and often. We can argue that creationism isn't simply a divergent view of how the planet and life got started but a religious one; and how if we grant that creationism should be taught in classrooms as an alternative theory, than every other religion's creationist tale should also be taught because Christianity doesn't get to corner the market on religious rights. We should argue that, and we should argue against the dismissive phrase that evolution is "just" a theory, because most things we accept as scientific truths are theories. It is part of the language of science. We should argue against creationism based on the fact that it is no more or less true than the Iroquois' creation myths. But we shouldn't use her family as a battering ram against her. But the truth is, it shouldn't go the other way either, with conservatives using her family in order to score some ideological point.

A lot of reports I've seen have talked about Trig, her child with Down Syndrome, as a kind of political checkmate. "Sarah Palin is so pro-life, she carried her child to term even knowing that he had Down Syndrome" seems to be the overwhelming viewpoint. And first and foremost, that is an incredibly ableist mindset, the idea that Sarah Palin and her family is so noble and self-sacrificing for "burdening" themselves with a special needs child; that a pro-choicer would have obviously made a different choice. Phyllis Schlafly made that exact argument, that a Democrat would have chosen to abort. The truth is, special needs children come with their own joys and challenges. The truth is, I know many liberal-minded people who have special needs children. The truth is, using Trig as a political point in the choice wars, no matter who is doing it, is quite frankly appalling. He should not be some kind of political football. He is a baby, and he is one who is loved and whose mother (hopefully) carried him to term because she loved and wanted him no matter what; a mother who didn't carry him to term because she felt morally obligated to once she learned of his condition but because she wanted to without that even being a consideration. Because looking at Trig like a political point maker devalues special needs people and children in society.

That isn't to say that people don't abort children if and when they learn that the child is disabled in some way. I'm not even saying that they are wrong to; I think there are numerous situations where it is completely understandable, in terms of knowing that as a parent you do not have the resources to care for this child in the way he or she will need you to; that you do not have the money to support them; that you have other children who have needs that will not be met if you have this child. It must be a terrible situation to find oneself in, to be carrying a child you wanted -maybe desperately- but cannot, for whatever the reason, carry to term. It must be a terrible feeling to not have the privilege Sarah Palin does in even being able to have five children and care for them all adequately. But for those who abort a special needs baby because that child isn't one who will be perfectly healthy and of average intelligence, I think the decision is a bit foolhardy. Because humans are fragile creatures. Helen Keller was a perfectly healthy baby. I worked with a woman whose daughter was involved in a horrible car accident, and who suffered some brain damage because of that. She was married at the time of the crash.  She's not any more, and she now cannot live alone. She was a healthy baby. 90% of fetuses who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. And one of the reasons is because we look at people with special needs with a certain type of prejudice. We call their families angels for having them; we call them angels too. We look at them with pity; we look at them with contempt. We look at ourselves and thank our lucky stars that we have healthy children with no developmental problems. And until that changes, until we stop devaluing them and seeing them as "less", then we will continue to see praise like the kind given to Sarah Palin for being so pro-life as to keep her son, a son she may have kept anyway -because she loves him.

Community Organizing

Kevin at A Slant Truth is writing about being a community organizer tomorrow, and wants other bloggers who have been community organizers to do the same thing on the same day (found via Feministing). So for anyone out there who has done some community organizing and is appalled that Sarah Palin denigrated every one of you, please write a post about your experiences. Says Kevin:

"I'm not interested in stories meant to score political points (although I'm pissed at the political cynicism that would attack community organizing). I'm interested in stories about the grassroots, the community organizers out there that are doing their thing via blogs, social networking, real life organizing that doesn't have a (D) or (R) following it. That's what I'd love to hear about. Since community organizing has been brought into the limelight, I would love to hear how those involved are working for progress and transformation. Progress and transformation from the ground up."

If you're up to the challenge and got all fired up about being dismissed by Governor Palin, write down your experiences and then leave a link the comments section. Happy writing!

River Tam: Sad Attempt At Feminism?

Cracked.com had an article about Hollywood's 5 Saddest Attempts at Feminim, and although I agreed with 4 out of the 5 entries (or at least, the ground reasoning for those entries -like Elizabeth Swan), #3 really makes me scratch my head in wonderment. And actually, also #2, because I'm really not sure if Catwoman was supposed to be such an empowering female figure. I mean, sure, Catwoman is cool and all, but I didn't really get a "Hey! We're totally trying to create a character women will see and go 'Hooray for Feminism!'" feeling from her in any of her reincarnations. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't really think I am. After all, comic books and comic book films haven't exactly been known as the bastion of feminist thought. Look at the most recent Batman for an example, or even Iron Man. Pepper Potts is cool, but she's still kind of one-note and not much of an entity. Same thing with Rachel Dawes. She was a cooler character in Batman Begins, because she was actually given something to do and had an agency and story separate from Batman himself. She was a crusader in her own right. And though the switch from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal made for a more compelling portrayal of the character, Rachel herself was downgraded significantly in The Dark Knight. Hell, she didn't even try to save herself when she was in danger. Harvey Dent did; but Rachel just sat there passively waiting to be rescued. That's not so kick-ass, but it is par for the course. And so Catwoman is just one in a long line of comic book women who is created more on the individual level than as a beacon of empowerment for women. She is created as a notable and interesting and complex adversary for Batman, and really little else. Her story, like Harvey Dent's story and the Joker's story, is meant to mirror Batman's own tale. Which is a cool literary device and allows a deeper introspection about Batman and Bruce Wayne; but does little to create a moral agent of entirely independent thought, because it all comes back to the Batman.

But let's get back to the #3 on that list. The third spot is occupied by one River Tam, Joss Whedon creation and one of the main characters on the prematurely cancelled Firefly and follow-up film Serenity. The problem Cracked highlights?

"Despite River's inherent ass-kicking abilities, she rarely uses them to the benefit of the crew. The character has been driven insane by her experiences, and therefore she spends most of her time saying crazy things and throwing up on her brother's bed. In fact, protecting River forms the backbone of no less than five out of thirteen episodes, plus the theatrical movie. That is a lot of rescuing for a feminist hero."

And as backup for this critique, they pulled out a crazy woman who claims that Joss Whedon is a rapist. Because all men are rapists, didn't you know? Le sigh. Well, let's take a look at this argument from Cracked, because it isn't all its cracked up to be.

First and foremost, River Tam was not driven insane by her experiences. She was made insane because the government stripped her amygdala. This wasn't just some "weak woman overcome" thing. This was purposefully and medically done to her. It removed her agency, and it was part of the government's plan of turning River Tam into an object and not a subject. And although this is a small nitpick, the throwing up on her brother Simon's bed wasn't because of the insanity so much as it was based on her reaction to the drugs Simon gave her to try to conteract her insanity. So it isn't like Whedon created a crazy female character who went throwing up everywhere willy nilly. Secondly, protecting River and Simon from the government is a main theme, not because they are weak and need protecting but because they are fugitives from the law. That is a lot different than a Rachel Dawes situation. Thirdly, I don't know where they get that five episode count. From where I'm standing, protecting River was just one storyline in the pilot episode; Bushwhacked had a different backbone of introducing Reavers and the Alliance stupidity full on, with keeping Simon and River away from the government playing an adjacent role to the primary theme. Ariel is about gathering more information about River's condition and pulling off a daring heist. Objects in Space is about River being smart enough and able enough to take control of a dangerous situation and utilize her talents to protect not only herself but her newfound family and home. Safe is really the only episode that is about protecting River. Fourth, and this may be a bit of a nitpick as well, a lot of River's talents aren't strictly inherent. She had the ability to become an ass-kicker, but she had to be trained by the government. She isn't Buffy. She is a girl who was used.

Fifthly, this criticism put forth by Cracked may be a valid critique if not for two caveats, one being that River Tam is hardly the only kick ass feminist heroine on the ship (Zoe comes immediately to mind as another); and the second caveat being that this is actually kind of a traditional feminist narrative. Think A Doll's House. Think The Awakening. Think The Yellow Wallpaper. Hell, think Wide Sargasso Sea. All, with varying levels of success on the part of the female protagonist, start off as an examination of the female as the object, as something to be controlled and possessed. Nora escapes; Edna swims out to sea; the protagonist in The Yellow Wallpaper goes insane and then begins to crawl; Antoinette goes insane and decides to take her own life. River Tam is among these narratives, with Zoe Washburne representing another narrative.

River Tam had something taken from her, she was broken, and through that she became stronger and overcame and fully grew into a self-defined entity. And yet, even when she is broken by a government who wanted her as an object, as a weapon, we are told outright that she is "a person, actual and whole". Her journey is powerful because it doesn't come from a place of film-exploitation. We don't see the horrific things done to River in an attempt to titillate us; we don't see what has been done to River at all. Even her brief nudity in Serenity (the episode) is meant to emphasize her vulnerability and her odd openness to the world. And through it all, though she has been beaten and broken and used like a thing, she is someone who comes into her own; she becomes someone who is able to control her talents -talents that had made her object in a different situation- in order to fully set herself and her companions free. And that is the thing Cracked's list doesn't seem to recognize: River's journey in Firefly and Serenity is the journey toward empowerment. We don't meet her already empowered and powerful. We meet someone who has had horrible things done to her; we meet someone who has been sacrificed for the greater good. And through her journey, she becomes a feminist icon.

"Women" Politicians

So, I watched Sarah Palin's speech, and I read what people wrote about her, and I read why one of my friends is now a fan, and I have to say that I was unimpressed. Part of the reason why I was unimpressed is because of the narrative her speech took. I was insanely bored of her familial story at about the 7 minute mark, just like I was kind of appalled that her first speech after she had been announced John McCain's running mate was also in great part about being a wife and mother. An editorial in my paper said that Palin "showed us a new model of female politician". My friend said, "Like all political women must do in these types of speeches, she brought up her family in detail". That is the prevailing sentiment, and that is a sentiment I hate. Caveats, modifiers, qualifiers, and markers of this nature drive me up the wall. Sarah Palin is a woman, and she is a politician. But the one should not make for a different type of the other. That "women" politicians have a different criteria to meet than "normal" politicians is offensive, ridiculous, and more than a little sexist. 

The same Republicans that are now fighting so hard against sexism have also unanimously declared that there is a "right" way for a woman to be a politician, and that is by focusing a lot of the attention and energy on the fact that she is still a real woman -you know, one who would rather be a hands-on mom and wife and who puts that part of her life first and foremost, or at least first and foremost in her speeches. I think it is great that another woman has been selected to be a vice-presidential candidate. I think it is a little sad that it took 24 years for it to happen again, but I also believe that it is a demonstration of the progress women have made in the public realm. Even the Republican Party, a party that hasn't exactly been known for their progressive policies since about the time of Teddy Roosevelt, has had to deal with the reality of women both making in-roads in traditionally male arenas and with women who want to see more women succeed in traditional male arenas. Which is why I consider Sarah Palin's pick for vice-president is in fact a feminist victory. We did that. Not me personally, but feminists -since before Seneca Falls- have been working for women to have access to and be acknowledged in public spaces. Each generation has gotten a little closer, has fought new battles, and have changed mindsets about the way things are and should be. These in-roads have been, in many cases, slow to build; sometimes they have been minimal. Sometimes, they have been great. 1920 was a banner year. The Women's Lib movement, starting with Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, created a radical shift in how women are viewed by society and what women are capable of achieving in that society. Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act is another monumental step forward. And the party that represents "traditional family values", the party that has often presented the ideal home and family as one that has a wife and mother in the kitchen with the string of pearls and the homemade dinner with a smile, has a woman in the running for executive office. That is real change. That represents a real change in how we see women. But although Palin's nomination is a victory and a continuation of feminist ideals, Palin herself subscribes to the opposite of those ideals.

Sarah Palin still plays the role we have often expected women to play. She is a politician who emphasizes the fact that she is a woman. And it is working quite well for her. It has made her the very model of a modern woman politician. But we shouldn't want something different from a woman politician than a male politician in terms of how she relates her familial life to us. Barack Obama and John McCain and every politician of the male gender who came before talks about their family, but they did not and do not do it like Palin does. They don't have to. The assumption is that they are family men without the onus being on them to prove how involved they are with family life. They do not have to present themselves as a typical husband and father, and that is both a good and a bad. It is a good thing because it theoretically allows them to concentrate on something more important in running for political office, and that is the issues and their own political philosophy and how that philosophy will help America grow stronger. It is a bad thing because it represents the extent to which we minimize fathers' and husbands' importance in being a constant presence in their family's life. I just watched Finding Nemo for the hundred thousandth time, and one thing the movie emphasized is how extraordinary Marlin is for going the extra mile to find Nemo. He was presented as being an exceptional father, the very top of the pack. And Marlin is a very good father, don't get me wrong. But that narrative, that idea of placing children before self and battling the entire ocean to get a child back, is deemed impressive when presented as a father's narrative and typical when presented as a mother's narrative. And that plays to why "women" politicians have to emphasize their familial role and why just regular politicians aren't expected to. Because a woman's primary concern always has to be her family, and a man is considered to be above average (or in some cases, like stay at home fathers, below average) for doing the exact same thing.

We need to change that. We need to make going the extra mile for one's children an acknowledged fact, gender excluded. We should expect fathers to be just as hands-on as mothers. We should demand that fathers and mothers each do the same amount of heavy lifting in terms of child care. We should require our definition of a "good" father to be our definition of a "good" mother. And we should accept that in the political realm, a politician's immediate family and the politician's devotion to them should not make up the better part of a speech. It is appalling that Sarah Palin is winning such praise, is being presented as a good woman politician. She is either a good politician, or she isn't. I think she is a very good politician, who has very bad ideas about what is best for the nation and who has in a short time built up a goodly number of scandals. I don't know if she would be a particularly good vice-president. I doubt very much she would be a good president. 

I don't really want a president in the White House who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases including rape and incest. I don't want a president in the White House who is expected to spend a lot of time telling us about her family before she gets into the nitty gritty of actually telling us about her policies and herself. I don't want a woman politician. I want a politician who is a woman. I want that to be the order in which we examine our politicians. And Sarah Palin doesn't give me that. She is a woman who has, through design or an organic progression, given me a woman politician who conforms to the status quo about how a woman -not a politician, but a woman- should present herself to the public. That is pretty savvy. It allows people to feel good about seeing a woman in the spotlight without making them actually have to think about how women are forced to be presented. It may get Sarah Palin a slice of the pie. But as my girl Gloria Steinem says, 

"Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It is about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie."

Sarah Palin isn't into baking a new pie; she's found a way to fit into the current paradigm. And we don't need that. And I for one don't want that.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

So, I haven't written something I would consider a real, substantial blog post in about a week due to the sucky job I have found myself and that takes up a lot of my energy and even more of those things necessary to write a good blog post like my self-confidence, my passion, my attention to the outside world, and my obsessive need to research the hell out of something before actually writing about it. Jay Smooth describes the whole thing well, so I'm just going to post his little hater video for now, take some advil, and try to formulate actual and understandable thoughts about my feelings relating to the world. I do have some insight about why a lot of people vote against what would seemingly be their own self-interests though, and that is because after doing mind-numbing work all day, the mind truly is numb and doesn't actually want to do things like seek out the complex issues and really consider and compare reasons for voting for or against each candidate along with the work of really figuring out where one really and firmly stands on any of those issues any way. So it becomes so much easier to allow the talking heads and the cult of personality and identity politics to take over and make a decision that should be a more rational, deliberate, and substantial reaction to the whole voting thing. I'm also going to say that I've been bad in the last couple of days by first accidentally drinking a soda (wow did I get dizzy fast!), and then had some of that alcoholic beverage thing, which also hurts that "posting something of substance" agenda (hence the advil). Now that I'm done with my naval gazing, I'm going to let Jay Smooth do his thing -because I love him:

The "New" New Set Up

So, I liked my old blog, before it changed on me and made me throw a tantrum which resulted directly in the new blog. But I loved the old color scheme of my old blog. And I loved the stretchiness of my new blog. So I decided to try and combine the two, with odd results. I'm not sure how close I came. Maybe my loyal viewers/readers can give me some insight. Here's a picture of the old blog:

Please leave any kind of color changing suggestions in the comments!

My Crush On Jon Stewart Grows Daily

So, this weekend I'm going to post about Sarah Palin's speech and the sexism issue and Sarah Palin's policies -and also why John McCain shouldn't ever be forced to make a speech and how if the worst of the worst occurs and he does win the presidency, he should really think about taking a page from Jefferson's book and sending Congress a letter in lieu of actually presenting the State of the Union to them (and us). But this video was too good not to share right now:

Jon Stewart once again does his thing, and does it well. The hypocrisy, it runs rampant. I pretty much hate all of these people. No, Sarah Palin should not be getting sexist comments made about her. No, the age of her children should not be a factor in her readiness to be vice president. But feminism isn't a mantle we can pick up when it is someone we like being harmed, to be put back down again when we want to truly diminish another woman we don't like nearly as much. Feminism -and critiquing sexist comments- should not be utilized in such a manner, because it politicizes sexism and makes sexism into something that could only possibly happen to people we like. If it happens to people we don't like, well, some women really are white bitches (or so I'm told):

So, Republican talking heads, please please please just stop. Please. I'm begging you. If you're defending Sarah Palin against sexist attacks, do us all a favor and make sure you haven't made those exact same kinds of attacks mere months ago. If you had, you can still defend Palin. But first, you kind of have to apologize for and take ownership of the same demeaning crap you fostered on other women. Because now, you're just being disingenuous.

Yes, I'm Cute; Now Shut UP

So, new job. Creepy guy. And of course, my "creep magnet" is always on, so the creepy guy is not only the person who trains me but also takes a big liking to me -even though I made sure I gave him the death glare and allowed him to catch a glance the book I was reading (that being "The Beauty Myth") as I blocked myself from his view with it. One would think that would have been enough to get him to back the hell off. But no. Like most creeps, a violation of personal space was a must -as was this: he called me "cute". After staring at me long enough to make my skin crawl. So, here's the deal. I understand we live in a culture that bases women first and foremost (and sometimes solely) on their looks. I understand that a lot of men feel free to comment on strange women's looks. But get this: don't. Seriously. There are very few times in my life when I want a strange guy walking up to me and telling me that I'm cute. Because almost from right there, I know that you're not really a guy I want to know. One, you've decided to talk to me based solely on physical appearance and then told me that straight out. I understand we decide who to talk to a lot of the time on proximity and appearance -and we choose to talk to people we are in some way (though not always sexually) attracted to. You know what works better than "you're cute" though? Almost anything else. What can a person really say to "you're cute"? "You can thank the randomness of my genetic code"? "Talk to my parents"? "Fuck off, you asswipe"? Two, a guy who feels "confident" enough to pass judgement out loud about a woman's physical appearance is almost always a guy who seems to feel like he deserves some kind of physical reciprocation for the compliment. Which, no.

So, some ground rules. Talking to someone you find vaguely (or really) attractive about something else -the clothing, the book, the weather, the traffic, dogs, cats, balloons, music, etc- will probably elicit a much more productive response -and as an added benefit, it doesn't make you look like a giant asshole. Also, quick glances are a fine thing, but long stare-downs are the opposite of good. Those looks are rude, intimidating, and have more to do with the "right" to stare at a woman than any compliment. And if the woman in question doesn't seem interested in talking to you, acknowledge her right to be left alone.

Because I don't want to be judged based primarily on my cuteness, partially because that will some day fade and I would rather be judged for something more substantial than fleeting access to attention and praise. But also because I don't care if some random guy finds me attractive. I'm not on this earth to be eye-candy to some jackass, and neither are any other women walking the street. And I should have the right to exist in a space -in a work space, on a street, in a subway, in a restaurant, in a store- without being harassed. Because that is what the "you're cute" is. It is harassment, because I didn't invite the comment, and those comments are made out of the mistaken belief that I should grant my time to any guy who comes my way and deigns to offer his opinion of my physical appearance. So for all the guys out there who think you're delivering compliments to the random girls you find cute? Most likely, you're not. And I'm tired of coming home and feeling beaten up and bloody because I have to fend off men who believe they are entitled to my time, my attention, and my gratitude. So the next time a guy I don't know "compliments" me by telling me that I'm cute, I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm good enough to take home, whatever it is that day, he is getting my knee to his groin. Because I have had it up to my eyeballs with the kind of "compliment" that makes me feel like I'm just some sort of blow up doll and not a real person. So, yes. I'm cute. I had the wonderful fortune of having good genes in terms of getting a physical appearance that is now culturally acceptable. Now, shut up and leave me alone until you have something of substance to discuss.

"Why You Trying To Take Us On The Path To The Dark Side, Sarah Palin?"

I have a lot I want to say about Sarah Palin, her policies, how she lied about being Miss Congeniality at the Miss Alaska Pageant (who does that? I mean really), how her daughter's pregnancy should not really be used against her or her daughter but that we should be having a national discussion about abstinence programs and how they don't work without the benefit of a political "scandal", etc, etc, etc. But I think Jay Smooth from Ill Doctrine does a pretty decent job with a huge issue, the dismissal of community organizers in Palin's RNC speech; so, take it away, Jay:

Obama needs to get ads out there with that message in them, that Sarah Palin just spit in the face of every church group trying to better the neighborhood, every church soup kitchen, and every church funded food pantry. Because that was just... well, the only thing that's coming to mind is "ill-advised" (of course, Jay's own word of "despicable" also fits).

Again With The Doctor Horrible

Okay, for everyone who has bought the Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog soundtrack (or others who are just interested in things like lyrics while they're waiting to invest in an actual CD and an actual DVD from an actual store), Joss Whedon et al have put the liner notes on-line. Sweet! Now I can have an Ellen DeGeneres moment where I gasp, "That's what they're saying? OH!" And here's something from the team themselves:

Thanks to all of you, we're already one of the top sellers in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and the list goes on!

It is great for listening in your car, at work, while working out, it makes a great gift, do I sound like a whore? I'm whoring now, aren't I? Anyway, spread the word, tell a friend, say it was Horrible...

Yeah, I still love them.

In other news, the Whedon team (which is in reality probably a bunch of interns -lucky, lucky interns...) are also preparing to have us, the fans, send in video applications to the Evil League of Evil! *Gasp* Awesomeness!!!!! Anyway, the ten best get placed on the DVD. I can't wait to see what people come up with, and I'll be sure to post when submissions are being taken. Until then, come up with some kooky quasi-villain and figure out how to work a webcam -or some other recording device that can be then hooked up to the computer. I'm a complete luddite, and therefore know little about such matters. Luckily, I have a Mac, so I can record myself via my computer itself. Now, all I need is an idea... a great, innovative, original wanna-be villain idea... This is gonna take a while.

The Terrible Fate Of Zack Addy

Bones season 4 is starting tomorrow with a 2 hour season premiere extravaganza that sees our two brave (and beautiful... what, I'm not allowed to crush on David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel?) heros visiting London and probably causing mass chaos for the sake of hijinks while simultaneously solving some gruesome murder of yesteryear- or yesterday. They really aren't that picky any more. Anyway, it is on Wednesdays (obviously, as tomorrow is Wednesday) at 8, and I'm going to be watching it.

But I am still disgruntled. I am disgruntled because last season, Zack Addy, cute and sweet and socially maladjusted and logical and brilliant Zack Addy, was outed as being an idiot who was helping a crazed serial killer murder people and then eat the flesh from their bones with one sick set of dentures. Zack, due to being locked up for his part in the crime spree and having much of his hands decimated by a lab explosion he himself set up, will not be back this season in the lab. Oh, there are plans to visit him Hannibal Lecter style, but the joy is gone; the magic of Zack Addy has been destroyed for a subpar season finale. 

Why doesn't Zack's outing make sense, do you ask? Well, that's fairly simple. Dr. Zack Addy is an incredibly logical being. And while the entirely rational mind can be a dangerous thing, Dr. Addy doesn't have an entirely rational mind -only a mostly rational one. And for him to be convinced that killing certain people would better save the world when there has been no evidence that Gormogon -a series of serial killers all belonging to the same anti-Masonic order- had done anything to make society better was ridiculous. Equally ridiculous was for Zack Addy to believe that only "widow's sons" -the serial killer's preferred victims- deserved to die for their sins. Even barring Zack's ability to see good and evil in this, there is the fact that Gormogon attacked Dr. Brennan and Agent Booth with a bomb of bones that could have easily killed them. Since Zack practically hero-worships both Brennan and Booth, it would be highly unlikely he would then earnestly and willingly help the person who tried to kill them. Dr. Addy was someone who wanted to solve crimes, to put the bad guy away. He was also rational enough to understand that joining up with a serial killer would place the authenticity of his work -and those of his friends' and colleagues' work- in incredible jeopardy and could possibly lose the Jeffersonian its prestige, its funding, and its connection to the FBI.

And then there is the fact that Zack, although socially awkward, does have a social network of people he is close to and whom he would share his troubles with. Dr. Brennan for one; Booth, for another. His best friend Hodgins, and his friend and sometimes-confidante Angela. All of these people are people Zack has gone to with moral and personal queries in the past; and Zack had said in a previous episode that if he had a moral dilemma to work out, he would go to both Angela and Brennan for advice first and foremost. He also highly values his family, claiming that the true meaning of Christmas -in one episode- is 40 people clamoring to see you. He also isn't so socially awkward to not acknowledge that although he is a rational empiricist, to his mother he is still strictly Lutheran.

All of that put together means that unless there was a very good explanation, the character known as Zack Addy for 2 seasons and one truncated season would not have joined up with a serial killer. We in the viewing audience and Zack were not given that very good explanation. Instead, we were given a logical argument a first year philosophy student could have dismembered in less than 2 minutes, and one that Dr. Brennan dismantled in less than a minute. Remember Zack Addy. He will be missed.

Dr. Horrible's Soundtrack

For all of those who are not yet aware, the Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog Soundtrack is now available from iTunes. Download early. Download often. Well, do it once and then listen to it a bunch of times. I'm planning on burning it to a CD right away so I can listen to it both to and from my mind-numbing, soul-crushing job!

Hell Isn't Other People

Jean-Paul Sartre had it wrong. Hell isn't other people. Well, other people are part of the hell. Hell is shopping for women's dress pants. Yes, women's dress pants. I have a new job (YAY!), it is telemarketing (BOO!), and it requires business attire for no discernible reason other than to make me miserable on a daily basis. So off I went, out into the wild yonder of the mall. And found that there are very few clothing stores that actually carry anything I can fit into. Due to the nature of resizing clothing, I have the unfortunate issue of no longer fitting into a size 2. I used to be able to pull it off; it would be a little baggy, but ultimately acceptable. And for most stores, 2 Petite is the smallest they go. Which is unfortunate, both because complaining about this issue isn't exactly something that garners sympathy and because I have no clothing I can fit into. Which is where the "hell" part of this equation fits in. Trying on pant after pant after pant, having them not fit in the waist, having the odd pant that fits in the waste still be too long even though it is called "Petite", and ultimately giving up in store after store and just buying a skirt that apparently makes me resemble a mermaid is hell. Plus, those people are less than helpful. Seriously, I know retail isn't a fun job; but neither is shopping and I expect something more than a grunt of recognition. Also, waiting forever at the register with my clothing items is also less than fun.

Which is where The Gap comes in. I never liked The Gap before -and prior to this whole job thing, I had planned on buying "green" clothing, made with environmentally friendly fibers and by people who weren't locked in a sweat shop for something like 12 hours a day. I had found a few sites that sold cute dresses and shirts but nothing businessy, so my liberal idealism was squashed and I spent my day in a mall instead -dealing with ill-fitting clothing and crabby employees. Until The Gap. The Gap stocks size zero (only regular, though). The Gap had employees that were pleasant and attentive. The Gap had clean dressing rooms. The Gap had an employee who told me about how Banana Republic's size zero was smaller than The Gap's, that petite pants were available on the website but they were cut differently, that on-line orders could be returned at Gap stores, and that I got 15% off my purchase and 10% off every first Tuesday of the month if I applied for a Gap Visa card. Euphoric from my success, I did. So, The Gap is expensive. The Gap is ridiculously expensive. The Gap was also the most pleasant shopping experience I have had in a good long while. Shopping for women's dress pants is hell, but The Gap was -if not heaven- limbo.