Things that don’t legitimately exist in conservatives’ eyes:
- Presidents who are not white that are born in the United States
- Poor people
- Poverty
- Uninsured or underinsured people
- Women’s reproductive rights
- Donald Trump’s nutbaggishness
- Racism
- Corporations that are not people
- Sensible gun control laws to help stop people from getting murdered over stupid shit
- Tax breaks for anyone but the uber-rich
Also:
- Genuine compassion
- Gratitude
- Humility
Our real first gay president
The new issue of Newsweek features a cover photo of President Obama topped by a rainbow-colored halo and captioned “The First Gay President.” The halo and caption strike me as cheap sensationalism. I realize airport travelers look at a magazine for 2.2 seconds before moving on to the next one. I grant that this cover will probably get Newsweek a 4.4 second glance. I also understand that Newsweek is desperate for sales. Nevertheless, I doubt that the Newsweek of old, before it was sold for a dollar, would have pandered as shallowly.
The caption is a superficial way to characterize an important development of thought that the president — along with the country — has been making over recent years. It is also entirely wrong. Like the mini-furor a couple of months back about the claim that Richard Nixon was our first gay president, the story simply ignores that the U.S. already had a gay president more than a century ago.
There can be no doubt that James Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House. Moreover, the nation knew it, too — he was not far into the closet.
Today, I know no historian who has studied the matter and thinks Buchanan was heterosexual. Fifteen years ago, historian John Howard, author of “Men Like That,” a pioneering study of queer culture in Mississippi, shared with me the key documents, including Buchanan’s May 13, 1844, letter to a Mrs. Roosevelt. Describing his deteriorating social life after his great love, William Rufus King, senator from Alabama, had moved to Paris to become our ambassador to France, Buchanan wrote:
I am now “solitary and alone,” having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.
(via neil-gaiman)
Moreover, for anyone who defends the Obama administration here and insists that the U.S. Government simply must have access to all forms of human communication: does that also apply to in-person communication? Should home and apartment builders be required to install monitors in every room they build to ensure that the Government can surveil all human communications in order to prevent threats to national security and public safety? I believe someone once wrote a book about where this mindset inevitably leads. The very idea that no human communication should ever be allowed to take place beyond the reach of the Government is definitive authoritarianism, which is why Saudi Arabia and the UAE — and their American patron-ally — have so vigorously embraced it.
Greenwald points out that the FBI does not need this, because they can go to a judge, get a warrant, and use traditional surveillance when it’s necessary. “But what about encryption?!” Well:
the problem cited by the FBI to justify this new power is a total pretext: “investigators encountered encrypted communications only one time during 2009′s wiretaps” and, even then, “the state investigators told the court that the encryption did not prevent them from getting the plain text of the messages.” As usual, fear-mongering over national security and other threats is the instrument to justify massive new surveillance powers that will extend far beyond their claimed function.
I’m profoundly disappointed in the Obama administration’s record on civil rights and privacy. I expected better from a president who is a Constitutional law scholar.
tl;dr: The very idea that no human communication should ever be allowed to take place beyond the reach of the Government is definitive authoritarianism
The offending tweet was made by a schoolfriend, not the kid whose account it’s on. (see the next two tweets). But look at the class of Stephen Fry’s answer.
(via Reddit)
(via wilwheaton)
(via neil-gaiman)
Because ladies, you only count if you die and your husband actually gets upset about it.
The bill contains provisions to prohibit tax deductions for abortion insurance coverage and abortion services; to provide for a sales tax on abortion; to establish a personhood stance for when life begins; to limit late-term abortions; to prohibit state employees from performing abortions during the workday; and to mandate that doctors tell women that abortion cause breast cancer along with other state-approved health issues.
The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother’s death. (via Huff Post)
What the ACTUAL fuck?
Think about this for a second: the state of Kansas — a legislature that is not made up of medical professionals — just passed a law — a law! — forcing medical professionals to lie to their patients, even if that lie will lead to serious injury or death.
Doctors help people. Doctors go to school for years to learn how to best care for their patients. Doctors swear an oath to do just that… and these politicians have decided to pass a law forcing doctors to do exactly the opposite.
This is criminal. Every single one of those lawmakers should be immediately removed from office, and when the first woman or child dies because of this law, they should all be tried for murder.
What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. These. People.
Many of you may have seen the articles today about the awesome fourteen year-old who took a petition to Seventeen Magazine requesting that they do one non Photoshopped spread a month. Seventeen, to their credit, heard her out. They ultimately turned her down.
Now, Seventeen Magazine can do whatever it likes. And it should be said that Seventeen is hardly the only magazine guilty of this, and they might not even be the worst offender out there. Photoshopping is standard industry practice.
Because this kind of thing eats at my brain, which certainly cannot abide any more NIBBLING, I decide to write a bit about this. Much of what I have to say will be obvious to some of you, and not obvious at all to some of you, and somewhat obvious to some of you. Some of you will avoid the whole thing and are already driving away at a high speed, probably heading for some kind of lighthouse or other secluded spot. I APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR CUNNING.
But for those who want to read my thoughts, here they are.
1. Most fashion/lifestyle magazines make their A LOT of their money from ads.
Ever notice how those glossy mags are made up of lots of ads? (Ever notice how a bridal magazine is pretty much ALL ADS? There’s a story in itself.) There’s not really a lot of actual magazine content in there. Because the ads are of primary importance, the content must not be offensive to/wildly contradict the aims of the advertisers.
This, in and of itself, is not an evil thing. It’s just the simple fact of the matter. Glossy mags are often advertisement collections with thin wafers of story nestled between them.
2. The point of advertising is to make you buy something. Which means you must create a perceived need.
Hey, did you know how you HAVE to buy an engagement diamond? How that has always been the thing, since all of time? Oh, except, no it hasn’t. The whole “diamond engagement ring” thing was made up by DeBeers with the help of an advertising firm in the 1930s. They made up the phrase “A diamond is forever” in 1947. They wanted to sell diamonds, so they made up a need. You HAVE to have a diamond for your engagement! It’s the DONE THING!
Advertisers make up all kinds of needs! You need a bigger/smaller television/computer/phone/car. You need this diet to be thinner. You need this pizza with actual cheeze deposits in the sides. YOU NEED IT. LACK OF IT MEANS FAILURE.
3. Ads create an (often/usually) fictitious worldspace in which whatever product being advertised is the answer to a problem or a deficit. Sometimes, a deficit you had NO IDEA YOU HAD.
You’re just wrong! Didn’t you know your hair is wrong? You eyelashes are too short! Your white, glinting teeth cannot be seen from the moon. Your phone is a source of shame and embarrassment to your family. Frankly, everyone hates you and your sandwich. Loser.
4. This means that the actual point of an ad may be very counterintuitive. You may think ads are there to make you feel good. In fact, many ads are designed to make you feel BAD, and then propose the solution to this BADNESS.
Which brings us to Photoshop. The ads generally found in something like Seventeen or any similar magazine are usually for things like clothes, makeup, skin care, and hair care.
So a common example is something like this …
[Image of more or less normal looking girl—except she is a model and she probably looks fine, if not much more than fine. Better than you on pretty much any given day. And this is the BEFORE picture!]
Caption: Is your skin dull and lifeless?
Your thought: She looks … good?
[Another image of the same gorgeous girl, looking unhappily at her chin.]
Caption: Are your pores oversized?
You: Wait, what? What’s wrong? What does she see? *run to mirror* OH GOD. You can see a pore. Is that a pore? If you can see them, that’s bad, right?
[That girl again, still sad, now examining her cheek with a look of disgust.]
Caption: Have you lost your glow? Are dead skin cells holding back the real you?
You: OH GOD IT’S SO MUCH WORSE THAT YOU THOUGHT. EVERYONE HAS PROBABLY BEEN STARING AT YOUR PORES AND YOUR DEAD, DEAD SKIN. YOU ARE SO SCREWED, because you know an AFTER picture is coming. WHY NOT JUST GIVE UP NOW?
[Image of same girl, now with smoother/bigger/smaller/in some way better hair and skin that emanates a glow that is not quite of this world. Just touching this skin would probably cure all known disease. Angels would weep for such skin.]
Caption: TRY NEW BIOZOID SMOOTHENATING MOISTURE FOUNDATION, now with vitamin Q and FRUIBITROL, derived from the TEARS OF BATS.
Your thought: I don’t know what that stuff is BUT I CLEARLY NEED IT. TO SAVE THE WORLD FROM MY PORES.
[Girl bounces off smiling with guy/dog/best friends you will never have.]
Caption: BIOZOID SMOOTHENATING MOISTURE FOUNDATION … because your face is dead and full of holes.
You: Are already hiding under the table nervously eating staples right out of the box.
Fact: Model is quite stunning, but her face has also been digitally altered. Because NO ONE EMITS LIGHT LIKE THAT. Skin does have pores. The skin is the largest organ of the body and it is COMPLEX and awesome, and it goes through all kinds of moods. Making up skin/hair/makeup issues is the entire engine of the skincare/haircare/makeup industry. Which is how they get you to buy the new thing, which is very much like the old thing. Except now with the TEARS OF BATS, which have been “clinically proven” in their hired labs to do something or other at INTENSELY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS not normally found in the product. So cheer up, get out from under the table, and stop eating staples!
A lot of the more egregious Photoshop happens in the more full-body photos, in which actual human are whittled away into humanoid hanger-objects. Often the models look into the camera miserably, pouting. At you. It’s like they are looking at you and HATE WHAT THEY SEE. They might be appeased if you dressed better. But as it stands now, THINGS ARE NOT GOING WELL BETWEEN YOU.
Or maybe it hurts not having floating ribs and a head that must weigh twice as much as your torso.
But why change the body? Why DO that? What purpose can it serve? Here’s my best guess.
Altering the image creates something truly and profoundly OTHER. It creates the unattainable, which means you have the endless carrot and stick.
And the fashion shoots are often not about the fashion, but about a lifestyle, a picture of some life you COULD HAVE if you just EMBRACED THOSE WHITE JEANS. YOU TOO would spend your time in a field with twenty-nine of your equally angry-looking, plaid-clad friends, in a group photo of well-curated collective misery that might as well be captioned, “SUCK IT, POORS.”
Yes, you have been kept from finding yourself ALL THIS TIME by lack of the perfect dress. Those thigh-high socks. The right belt!
YOU HAVE BEEN SO CLOSE. IT HAS JUST ELUDED YOU. TRY A BIT HARDER.
Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with fashion photos. I love a dress, myself. (Though ideally I would never take off my pajamas and once did a signing event in a hotel bathrobe, because that thing was FLUFFY.) Fashion is an art, and fashion photography is also an art. Some of it is, anyway. The best photos are often very intriguing. There’s a reason they interest us. There’s a reason we look at all kinds of manipulated images of humans. We look at sculptures and paintings and drawings and we see things that have been re-imagined, altered, idealized, made more grotesque.
The only difference now is, we have a simple technology that enables photographs of actual humans to be changed into something that’s supposed to pass as real, or something achievable. And it gets into your head and messes around with your perception of how things are supposed to be.
A heavily photoshopped ad shows dissatisfaction with the way people are. When you look through any glossy mag, or at any commercial or ad, KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE YOU. Know that it’s a game. Step back, and don’t worry.
I invite your comments. In fact, I LONG for them.
Tennessee senate warns hand-holding is a ‘gateway sexual activity’
You know, if you make everything forbidden, then everything becomes tantalizing. Back when women were covered from neck to toes, ankles were erotic. Men wrote entire epic poems about the turn of a shapely ankle for a reason.
You want to solve teens having sex? Stop forbidding things. In fact, I suggest mandating that every teen go to school naked. No clothes, no makeup, nothing. The girls will spiral into such low self esteem cutting apart their own and other people’s looks that they’ll stop flirting (and possibly eating). Meanwhile the boys will get so worried about having erections that they’ll do anything to keep their minds off sex. In fact, expose them long enough and they might develop permanent erectile dysfunction because they’ll have such a complex about being around naked girls.
There, problem solved.
“In a new family life instructions bill, holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex…Also out: winking, wearing short sleeves, any shoes not issued by the U.S. Army, and giving other children those horrible, chalky Valentine’s Day candies with vapid little sayings on them.”
What would Jesus do? Not what the Republicans are doing.
‘Seriously?’ An Open Letter to the Purpose Driven Pastor
This is the nicest, most tactful tearing a new one I have ever seen.Too bad no one will ever listen to her because she’s a woman pastor from godless California. /snark/
R. WARREN: Well certainly the Bible says we are to care about the poor. There’s over 2,000 verses in the Bible about the poor. And God says that those who care about the poor, God will care about them and God will bless them. But there’s a fundamental question on the meaning of “fairness.” Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money? Or does fairness mean everybody gets the opportunity to make the same amount of money? I do not believe in wealth redistribution, I believe in wealth creation.
In response, here’s my Open Letter to Rick Warren:
Dear Rick,
Seriously? Do the Bibles at Saddleback Church not have the 20th chapter of Matthew in them? And if so, then what do you do with the parable of the workers — the one where those who worked for only an hour were paid the same as those who worked all day… and when the all-day-workers grumbled that it “wasn’t fair” (stay with me now) … Jesus’ response ” are you envious because I am generous?” … and then (famously said) “for the first shall be last and the last shall be first.”
It seems that the WWJD answer to your “Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money?” would be “Yes.” (See also: Isaiah 55:8 “My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord.”)
And what about Matthew 25 — the chapter with what my seminary professor called “The Final Final Exam?” You must know that one — when Jesus comes to judge on the last day and the answer that gets you into the sheep fold rather than the goat line is not “inasmuch as you were fundamentally fair” — it was “inasmuch as you fed the hungry, clothed the naked and gave water to the thirsty.” And it was most certainly not “inasmuch as you “created wealth” — it was “inasmuch as you did it unto the least of these.”
Finally, Rick — while I’ve got you — can we talk contraception… just for a minute? When you told Jake Tanner “the issue here is not about women’s health” you were well — in a word — wrong.
It is about women’s health. It is totally about women’s health and a woman’s access to healthcare not being held hostage by the theology of her employer. There is a greater principle at stake here - but it is not the one you named: “the right to decide what your faith practices.” That one is already protected by the First Amendment. Rather the principle at stake is the freedom of women to make health choices independent of their employer’s faith practice that is on the line here.
And that brings me back to a couple of purpose driven things. First there’s the purpose of God’s preferential option for the poor made manifest in the work and witness of Jesus of Nazareth. And then there’s the purpose of liberty and justice for all meant to protect not just freedom of religion for those who choose to practice it but freedom from religion for those who just want equal access to health care. The former would be in the Bible and the latter in the Bill of Rights.
If you need to brush up on either we’ve got them both here at All Saints Church in Pasadena. Drop on by — the door is always open!
The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena CA
US Homeland Security Wants To Hack Non-US Consoles
“According to Foreign Policy, Obscure Technologies, a company with a background in computer forensics, has been awarded a contract to develop “hardware and software tools that can be used for extracting data from video game systems,” all in the name of catching paedophiles, who are apparently using consoles to seek out victims.”
I’d love to see a show of hands who think this is SUCH a big deal that we need our privacy yet further invaded.
Yeah, me neither, especially since most pedophilia happens among family members or close friends, NOT by strangers. NO statistics back this assertion up. Nor is there any proof whatsoever that terrorists use it—and even if they did, currently we have more of a chance of being struck by lightning than dying in a terroist attack , so…bit of overkill, don’t you think?
“All fair and reasonable, if you’re of the political persuasion that the ends justify the means, but here’s the interesting part — as a result of US Privacy issues, Obscure Technologies will be purchasing used consoles from overseas as guinea pigs, extracting personal information from consoles being used around the world.
Best be wary if you intend to eBay any of your consoles in the recent future…”
Land of the free, eh?
How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did
“Every time you go shopping, you share intimate details about your consumption patterns with retailers. And many of those retailers are studying those details to figure out what you like, what you need, and which coupons are most likely to make you happy. Target, for example, has figured out how to data-mine its way into your womb, to figure out whether you have a baby on the way long before you need to start buying diapers.
…
Target started sending coupons for baby items to customers according to their pregnancy scores…What Target discovered fairly quickly is that it creeped people out that the company knew about their pregnancies in advance…
So Target got sneakier about sending the coupons. The company can create personalized booklets; instead of sending people with high pregnancy scores books o’ coupons solely for diapers, rattles, strollers, and the “Go the F*** to Sleep” book, they more subtly spread them about:
“Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We’d put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We’d put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.
“And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works.”
We’re #47! After Occupy Journalist Arrests, US Plummets in Global Press Freedom Rankings
Freedom of speech, my tuchas. Free press my hairy ass.
“Reporters Without Borders has released its annual World Press Freedom Index and the United States fell 27 points to No. 47 on the list. Why? “more than 25 [reporters] were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police” during Occupy movement protests.
…In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behavior, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.”
…
And these Occupy arrests are not isolated incidents. According to organizations like the Society for Professional Journalists, the National Press Photographers Association and the Committee to Protect Journalists, the arrests at Occupy events are part of a growing trend in the U.S. and worldwide.”
Apple Does Not Need Your Money to Treat Workers Fairly
I’d pay more to make sure people weren’t crippled, maimed, killed, or jumped off a building in utter despair, wouldn’t you? One person added up how much more that would mean the consumer paid if Apple didn’t do something like, oh, reduce it’s already embarrassing amount of profit only slightly, and you know how much more it would cost per consumer? About $43.
“Here’s why Apple can do better without the need for us to pay more for our iPhones: While it pressures suppliers and manufacturers to keep costs to a minimum, Apple has more money than it knows what to do with. The company disclosed in late October that it is sitting on more than $80 billion in cash. And because consumers are willing to pay a premium to own its products, Apple makes huge profit margins on its devices. One firm looked at the materials cost of the iPhone 4s (the latest model), excluding shipping and marketing, and estimated a profit margin somewhere in the 70 percent range, or $546 for every 32GB iPhone 4s sold.”
Oldest Alien Planets Found—Born at Dawn of Universe
With an estimated age of 12.8 billion years, the host star—and thus the planets—most likely formed at the dawn of the universe, less than a billion years after the big bang.
…
Based on the team’s calculations, one world is almost as massive as Jupiter and completes an orbit in roughly seven days. The other planet is nearly three times Jupiter’s mass and has an orbital period of nine and a half months.
…
The discovery indicates that planet formation in the early universe was possible despite the fact that stars in existence back then were metal-poor—the astronomy term for stars lacking in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.
…
The idea of planets springing from such a stellar makeup runs counter to a widely accepted theory called the accretion model, which says that heavy elements are needed to form planets.
Nature deficit disorder ‘damaging Britain’s children’
Is anyone shocked that this happened? Heck, the supposition that it would is as old as a 1994 TV show. Maybe older.
“The trust argues, as have other bodies in previous years, that the growing dissociation of children from the natural world and internment in the “cotton wool culture” of indoor parental guidance impairs their capacity to learn through experience.
It cites evidence showing that:
- children learn more and behave better when lessons are conducted outdoors
- symptoms of children diagnosed with ADHD improve when they are exposed to nature
- children say their happiness depends more on having things to do outdoors more than owning technology.
…
The phrase nature deficit disorder was coined in 2005 by author Richard Louv, who argued that the human cost of “alienation from nature” was measured in “diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses”.”
