Joel Achenbach’s column at the Washington Post today is entitled — and I wish I were kidding — Those Daffy Democrats. When I first saw the headline I thought, “Cool. Joel’s going to dissect the absurd sexist anti-Democratic coverage that seems hell-bent on making Nancy Pelosi into a vindictive cootie-laden schoolgirl.”
Wrong. Joel doesn’t dissect the sexist coverage of Pelosi or the incredible anti-Democratic tilt of the news media. He accepts it all at face value.
Here’s his first paragraph:
You know all the old jokes about Democrats. When they form a firing squad they stand in a circle. “I’m not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” The word “fractious” always comes up. Think: Jimmy Carter running for re-election with Teddy pounding on him every day. This kind of thing goes way back, to the early 1790s, when Thomas Jefferson would have furious arguments with himself.
“Great setup,” I thought when I first read the piece; now Joel’s in position to deconstruct the current wave of anti-Democratic slander. Second paragraph:
Rumor had it, just months ago, that the Democrats had learned to master the art of party discipline. But now that the Dems are in charge of Congress, what do we read about every day? Internal party dickering, sniping, backbiting. We read about leadership battles, such as Murtha vs. Hoyer. And now we’re all on pins and needles about who Speaker Pelosi will pick to run the Intelligence Committee. Such drama!
Exactly! That second sentence has the key phrase — “what do we read about every day?” Now Joel can explain that the reason we read about this alleged drama and schoolgirl backbiting is because that’s the script the pundits have chosen. Go to it, Joel:
The latest news is that Pelosi won’t give the Intelligence job to ranking Democrat Jane Harman, who she doesn’t like for personal and political reasons, or the No. 2 Dem, Alcee Hastings, who was impeached as a federal judge many years ago in a bribery scandal. (Hastings’ lawyer argued in the Post yesterday that the congressman had never been convicted by a jury; today’s Post story demolishes that argument.)
But Pelosi still hasn’t decided who she’ll put in the post — thus ensuring the continuation of the story, and more discussion of how Pelosi doesn’t like so-and-so, or is at odds with such-and-such faction.
Wait a minute. Where’s the deconstruction? Joel’s repeating this stuff almost like he believes it…
From The Post:
“The fight over the top spot on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exposed the kind of factional politics that bedeviled House Democrats before they were swept from control in 1994.”
From the NYTimes: “The news that someone is not being given a post is rarely the subject of announcements here. But the question of who will lead the Intelligence Committee has developed into something of a soap opera.”
No deconstruction. No commentary from Joel on the extraordinarily tendentious nature of the reporting. No analysis of how the “soap opera” exists only in the eyes of the pundit class and the reporters who follow their lead. He just presents it, as if it’s unquestionably accurate.
Joel ends the piece with a recap of some of the items on House Democratic agenda for their first 100 hours, which he snidely notes “might take” rather longer than the Democrats anticipate. Yeah, how can they get anything done when they’re so busy criticizing each other’s make-up and stealing each other’s boyfriends?
As the Poorman said, when do we get to elect new pundits?
Posted by Violet under Gender Issues, Politics on November 29, 2006, 1:49 pm EST
25 Comments »
You don’t need brownie mix to make brownies. All you need is some basic ingredients, a mixing bowl, a spoon, and a pan.
I used to make these brownies all the time when I lived in the city. It was a pain to go to the grocery store — and I was on a tight budget anyway — so I got in the habit of making quick desserts from scratch to satisfy my sweet tooth. These brownies are easy and fast.
Brownies
1 cup sugar
1 stick of butter or margarine, softened (see below)
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
2 eggs
1/2 cup cocoa (baking cocoa, not hot chocolate mix)
2/3 cup all-purpose flour (if you have self-rising flour, omit the baking powder and salt)
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.
Soften the stick of butter like this: If you have a microwave, unwrap the stick of butter, break it in two, and heat it in a bowl in the microwave for 15-30 seconds, depending on your microwave. Ideally the butter should be soft, not liquid (but if it melts completely, don’t worry — your brownies will still taste great). If you don’t have a microwave, unwrap the stick of butter and slice the butter into about 10 pieces. Lay the pieces on the wrapping paper (or on wax paper or a little saucer) and set the whole thing on top of the oven that is heating up. While you gather the rest of your ingredients, the butter will be softening on the warm oven. But don’t leave it too long or it will melt and run all over the place!
Combine all the ingredients in a mixing bowl. You can throw them all in together any which way, but the ideal is to mix them in this order:
- Stir the sugar and softened butter together until well-mixed.
- Add in the eggs and vanilla.
- Add in the dry ingredients (cocoa, flour, etc.)
Stir with a spoon until all the ingredients are well-combined. The batter will be grainy. Grease a square 8×8 pan (get a glob of Crisco on a napkin and spread it in the bottom, sides, and corners of the pan). Spread the batter in the pan.
Bake for 25 to 30 minutes, until a wooden toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean.
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on November 28, 2006, 6:05 pm EST
15 Comments »
In the Thanksgiving thread we’ve been talking a little about the character of American cuisine, and one thing I often think of when this topic arises is that American restaurant food is really a separate cuisine itself, apart from the regional varieties of home cooking. I suppose to some extent that’s true in all countries — you can’t get that good ol’ home cookin’ in a restaurant — but it’s striking to me that most of the food I ate growing up is unavailable in restaurants, at least in the form I knew it. The main exceptions are steaks (easy) and holiday turkey menus (which are generally done poorly by commercial outfits).
Since I’m still in too much of a post-prandial daze to write a real post, I thought instead I’d investigate this cuisine issue by asking you all what kind of food you ate growing up. And what part of the country (or world, if you’re outside ‘murka) you’re from.
I’ll start.
My parents are Southerners, so although I grew up all over the country and even outside the States, our home cooking was mostly Southern. I’m in my forties, so when I was growing up there was nowhere near the amount of prepared and packaged food there is today. My parents cooked. A lot.
Here are some typical menus I remember from childhood:
*
Fried chicken (pan-fried style, definitely not the battered deep-fried stuff favored by benighted lowlanders)
Mashed potatoes Potato salad (yellow)
Green beans
Rolls
*
Country style steak (this is pan-fried cube steak, prepared in a similar fashion to the chicken above)
Rice or Mashed potatoes
Gravy
Fried okra
*
Flounder filets, fried (pan-fried, not deep-fried…do I need to keep explaining this?)
English peas
Carrots
*
Fried pork chops (pan-fried, no flour coating at all)
Turnip greens
Black-eyed peas
Cornbread
*
Spanish pork chops (simmered with sliced bell pepper in a tomato sauce — not sure why Southerners thought this was Spanish)
Rice
Turnip greens
Cornbread
*
Meatloaf
Lima beans
Mashed potatoes
*
Spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce (long-simmered, very good, vastly superior to any you’ll eat in a restaurant)
Sourdough rolls
*
Salmon stew (milk-based)
Saltine crackers
*
Swanson TV dinners — turkey and dressing (the only kind of TV dinner back then I think)
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on November 24, 2006, 2:27 pm EST
145 Comments »
It’s pie week here in the Socks household. The cherry streusel pie I baked the other day is already gone, but fortunately its place has been taken by the apple pie and two pumpkin pies now cooling on the counter.
We have homemade cranberry sauce for the first time this year, and it’s fabulous.
Tomorrow my Dad will roast part of a dead animal and we’ll have the usual accoutrements: dressing, gravy, smashed potatoes, green beans, and whatever else we decide is necessary in order to induce maximum post-prandial sloth.
For those of you outside ‘Murka who have no idea what I’m on about: tomorrow is Thanksgiving.
Posted by Violet under Holidays on November 22, 2006, 6:16 pm EST
22 Comments »
Ack. I meant to post this last week and it slipped by me.
Lauren’s starting a wiki called Help Us Help Ourselves, a compilation of how-to articles created by us in the feminist community. If you’ve got a useful skill, and particularly if you have specialized professional knowledge you can share, please consider writing up a contribution. Read more about the project here.
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on November 21, 2006, 1:13 am EST
55 Comments »
Our government in action:
The new guy appointed to head up the family planning program at the Department of Health and Human Services is — get this — a godbag who doesn’t believe in family planning. Or rather, he believes that family planning should consist solely of each man deciding whether or not to plow his wife or let her lie fallow for a year. Contraception, according to said godbag, is “demeaning to women.” Translation: Shut the fuck up, bitches. We men will decide whether you get knocked up or not.
Meanwhile, in bit of synchronicity that would strike me as ominous if I were in the midst of a paranoid fugue state, the FDA has re-approved silicon breast implants. Big plastic boobs: good. Women controlling their own reproductive lives: bad.
You know that somewhere in a top-secret underground robotics lab, male scientists are working feverishly to develop life-size Barbie dolls that can be programmed to fuck, suck, clean house, and make babies on command. Then the government can just kill us real women and be done with it.
Posted by Violet under Gender Issues, Godbags on November 20, 2006, 7:42 am EST
8 Comments »
Just one of many reasons, actually:
Excerpts from a Church of Scientology wedding service:
Minister to bride: “So now my [bride’s name], stand steady here and say do you today intend for him beside you there to be to him a wife? And do you ken that [groom’s name] here shall have you for his own? Do you? And do you understand as well that by the customs of our race you pledge to him and only him your kiss and your caress? Do you?”
Minister to groom: “Now, [groom’s name], girls need clothes and food and tender happiness and frills, a pan, a comb, perhaps a cat. All caprice if you will, but still they need them. Do you then provide? Do you? … And when she’s older do you then keep her still? Do you?”
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on November 19, 2006, 5:31 am EST
19 Comments »
It’s a curious thing about the God of the Universe, the Creator of All That Exists, the Ground of Being: He (and it is a “He”) is utterly transfixed by human penises. It is His burning focus. You would think that He might have bigger fish to fry, maybe a nebula to look after, perhaps some singularities to manage. But no: in this universe that is billions of light-years across and contains billions of galaxies, each one of which in turn contains billions of stars and billions of planets, God’s most pressing concern is what Earth hominids do with their penises.
This is why God is very unhappy that Pakistan has passed a new law removing rape cases from sharia jurisdiction. Sharia law stipulates that a woman can only prove that she’s been raped — that is, that a penis has entered her body against her will — if she can present four penis-bearing witnesses to the act. Otherwise she’s liable to be convicted of adultery, which is to say she willingly allowed the penis to enter her body, an act punishable by death. This might seem a strange way to prosecute rape, since most rapes are probably not committed in the presence of four innocent witnesses who would then be willing to testify to the crime. But the purpose of the sharia law isn’t to prosecute rape so much as it is to make sure men don’t put their penises into women who don’t belong to them, whether by consent or force. God hates it when that happens. He wants penis-bearers to respect each other’s female property. The sharia law is good because it tends to keep women from moving about freely in the world: leaving their homes unattended, holding jobs, going without full-body Hefty bag coverings, etc. God knows that if women do those things then the opportunities for men to put their penises in the wrong women are magnified. He also knows that it’s almost always the woman’s fault when a penis goes astray like that, and so it’s appropriate for women to bear the punishment. By abandoning His rules, Pakistan has secured itself a place on God’s shit list.
On the other hand, God is very happy that His law is still being faithfully observed in Iran, where earlier this week a man was publicly executed in front of cheering crowds for the crime of putting his penis into another man’s bottom. God really, really hates for penises to go into other men’s bottoms.
Posted by Violet under Why We Still Need Feminism, Godbags on November 17, 2006, 4:05 pm EST
6 Comments »
It’s a real question, not rhetorical.
Here’s the background: I’m used to hearing pro-porn people, even some pro-porn feminists, say that anti-porn feminists don’t like porn because we’re hung up about sex, think sex is dirty, whatever. That’s always seemed like a groundless accusation to me. I like sex very much; I just don’t like pornography. The same is true of most other people I know who object to porn. I tend to think that pro-porners make that accusation because they’re lumping anti-porn feminists in with godbags who rail against porn, and godbags definitely do have a problem with sex. Of course, godbags also tend to be secret and fervent porn users.
Anyway, I was recently reading a survey of modern pornography and I was struck by how much of it focuses on the “dirtiness” of sex, the “dirtiness” of women’s desires, and so forth. So much so that it all started to seem rather hilarious to me (well, aside from being depressing). Sex isn’t dirty, I’m thinking, no it isn’t dirty to “want it;” what, are we in third grade? All this focus on nastiness and forbidden desires. It reminded me of a guy I was making out with once who was apparently into that “bad” thing and started asking me “are you bad?” I burst out laughing, then got annoyed when he wouldn’t stop it. No, I’m not bad. I’m just an adult who wants to get laid. Jesus.
So suddenly it dawned on me: is it possible that a lot of people who like porn are also people who are very tuned into that whole “sex is dirty” feeling? The feeling, not the intellectual belief, because of course they’re two different things. If so, then that might explain why so many pro-porners assume that those of us who dislike porn really just think sex is dirty. Projection, or simply the human tendency to imagine that everyone else thinks and feels the way we do.
Well? Any thoughts?
Posted by Violet under Pornography on November 16, 2006, 10:25 pm EST
38 Comments »
There’s a lot of interesting stuff in this Harris Poll on belief in God, but what intrigues me is the question of God’s gender.
More than a third of respondents think of God as male, while only 1% think of God as female. Most of that 1% is coming from women: 2% of women think of God as female while less than one-half of one-percent of men do.
Of the religious affiliations shown in the results, Jews are the most likely to perceive God as female: 7%. Born-Again Christians are the least likely (gee, I wonder why) at less than one-half of one-percent.
Via Kalibhakta.
Posted by Violet under Religion on November 16, 2006, 6:42 pm EST
6 Comments »
As I understand it, the rationale behind legalizing all kinds of sex work is that the women (strippers, prostitutes, etc.) will then enjoy the rights and dignities of workers in other fields. They’ll be able to set boundaries, demand safe working conditions and reasonable job standards, earn respect for a job well done, all that stuff. Just like everybody else.
So, how’s that working out?
Twisty covers the story of how a Seattle referendum to establish a four-foot space restriction between strippers and patrons was defeated by the mafiosos and pimps who run the strip clubs, thus ensuring that Seattle men will continue to enjoy their god-given right to grope strippers and receive lap dances.
No doubt there were all kinds of issues and considerations at work in the Seattle case, but that’s beside the point for our study of the Empowered Sex Worker motif. What is revealing is the response that ensued on an anti-referendum, pro-lap dance Seattle blog when a stripper explained why the four-foot rule was a good idea:
Stripper:
“Strippers really hate the rise in lap dances and private room experiences that johns like you are increasingly demanding from us to have your ‘fun’. If imposing a four-foot rule keeps me from having one more asshole lick me, bite me, jam his fingers into me, rip my costume or otherwise act like an entitled fuckface, then four-foot rule it is. Asking you little boys nicely to stop hasn’t been working, and the last time I complained the manager laughed in my face and said, ‘You don’t have to work here, lots of girls will be happy to take a finger up the ass for what you’re getting paid.’”
Typical responses from male commenters:
“You make 100 to 300 bucks an hour? I think you should shut the fuck up and ride the dick like a good girl, or quit the business and go legit making far less. Either way, shut the fuck up.”
“That’s what you gotta deal with if you want the big bucks. So shut your mouth, shake your assets and grind on some old smelly cocks cuz if you want stripper money, that’s the deal.”
“What a wench. If you don’t want to be a stripper, then don’t. You feel you should get paid 100’s of dollars an hour just to be looked at? Are you that special? You sound like you think you’re entitled to the good life just because you were born somewhat attractive. Being a stripper is “prostitute-lite” honey, get used to it or quit. I don’t go to strip clubs because I don’t like being hustled/used by retardedly-manipulative, vacuous, coke-whore lesbos that reek of baby-powder and cheap perfume. “
See how these guys think? If you’re a woman in the sex industry, you have no boundaries. You have no rights, you have no bodily integrity, you have nothing. The very notion that strippers might want to stick to the job description of stripping, much less enact regulations to keep their revolting customers in line, is greeted with sneers. A woman drops her drawers for any reason, she’s no longer human. She’s meat.
Sex-positive feminists believe that the underlying problem here is the stigmatization of women’s sexuality. Personally I think they’re missing the root cause by one step: the deep-structure problem is patriarchy, which is why women’s sexuality is stigmatized in the first place.
But hang on — before you get all sex-positives are stoopid! anti-pornstitution rocks!, check out this review of Bernadette Barton’s book on the strip-club biz:
Many of the [stripper] activists were trying to speak out against unsafe and exploitative conditions in the sex industry, and trying to improve safety standards, but were sometimes reluctant to complain too loudly for fear of giving ammunition to conservatives and those feminists who want to abolish the sex industry altogether. That’s not to criticize the anti-sex-work feminists who, I think, raise important issues—and, judging from Barton’s book, tend to have a more accurate diagnosis of the sex industry—but it does illustrate the difficulty in seeking middle ground in the current sex-work debate. (It’s worth noting that the activists were also frustrated that “sex positive” feminists too often glossed over safety concerns.)
So: anti-pornstitution radicals may have the better handle on conditions in the industry, but they’re about as popular with sex workers as Carry Nation at a saloon-keepers’ convention. Meanwhile the sex-positives are friendly but not much help, seeing as how in their native country of la-la land it’s considered empowering to have drunks shove their fingers up your ass.* Yay feminism.
Wouldn’t it be great if all the feminist battle units could lay down arms, abandon their entrenched rhetorical positions, and start talking afresh on what we know, what we can agree on, and how we might work together to help the sex workers who are out there on the front lines getting battered daily by johns and pervs and pimps?
Yeah, well, nobody ever listens to me.
*Gross distortions of anti-pornstitution and sex-positive feminism for entertainment purposes only. Action figures sold separately.
Posted by Violet under Gender Issues, Prostitution, Recommended on November 15, 2006, 12:57 pm EST
212 Comments »
Drive-by linkage:
From abyss2hope, an entry in the Jesus Fucking Christ department: Idaho Grandmother And Uncle Plot Alleged Rape Victim’s Murder.
Charliegrrl reports that a 19-year-old “glamour model” in Britain is auctioning off her virginity in a contest sponsored by some godawful lad mag. (Not work safe.)
Echidne links to a Purple America map of the election results.
Amanda posted a Purity Ball video last week that I actually can’t bring myself to watch. You know how I feel about Purity Balls.
Stan Goff (an avowedly non-reclusive leftist) addresses an Open Letter to Robert Gates.
In good election news from the other Dakota, Trish Wilson savors a victory over Fathers Rights Activists.
Flawedplan strolls down memory lane with Zines Beat Blogs to Death.
Meanwhile, Victoria Marinelli roars down said lane in a red convertible (actually it was her girlfriend’s mother’s van) as she relives her past as a radical feminist counter-terrorist Missing Person.
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on November 13, 2006, 7:51 pm EST
15 Comments »
The cease-fire that ended World War One was signed at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. The holiday that commemorates this event is still referred to as Armistice Day in the U.K. but is now known as Veterans Day here in ‘Murka, where with typical American can-do-ism we decided to honor the veterans of all wars (including ones we haven’t started yet) in one fell swoop and get it over with.
In Britain they mark the day by observing a two-minute silence. In the U.S. we buy sheets for half-off at Bed Bath & Beyond. Wonder what they do in Canada? Some kind of hybrid thing, like buying sheets in silence?*
I would say “Happy Veterans Day” but that doesn’t seem to be quite the point, so I’ll just say to all you veterans: “I’m glad you made it out alive.”
*Actually I believe the Canadians observe something called Remembrance Day, a moveable feast that falls on the second Sunday in November and is also observed in Britain, where it appears to have cornered the market on poppy-wearing and wreath-laying. Poppies and wreaths used to be the province of Armistice Day proper, so I imagine there’s a bit of rivalry there and tense moments in the faculty lounge where holidays go to have a smoke.
Needless to say I’m just an American so actually I have no fucking clue about any of this.
Posted by Violet under War, Holidays on November 11, 2006, 7:45 pm EST
8 Comments »
I’m back from the hospital! I’m not dead! I haven’t had a heart attack, I’m not having a heart attack now, and I’m apparently not on the verge of having a heart attack. My symptoms are still with me and as weird as ever, but all the ER stuff came out fine: EKG, chest X-ray, blood tests. Now I just have to go see my regular doc next week so she can do a bunch of other (no doubt hugely expensive) tests to find out what the problem is.
Thank you all for your concern and kind wishes. I am deeply touched. I’ve learned two important lessons from all this:
- Mandos thinks I’m an old bat.
- Paul Tergeist has infiltrated my doctor’s office where he is posing as the triage nurse. When I called my doctor’s office this morning and described my symptoms, Nurse Paul said, “No, honey, don’t come here. Get to the ER. Now.”
I have absolutely no fucking clue what’s going on with these chest pains and the choking, head-exploding sensation (really, really not pleasant), but I can’t overstate how relieved I am to know that I’m not on the verge of death. Thanks to all of you who urged me to go the doctor.
Posted by Violet under Reclusive Leftist on November 10, 2006, 8:11 pm EST
26 Comments »
