Skip to content

Posts from March 2012

Weekend web readin’

Weekend web readin’ published on No Comments on Weekend web readin’

From Amnesty International News, Amnesty International Urges Stricter Limits on Police Taser Use As U.S. Death Toll Reaches 500

Money quote:

On Monday, Johnnie Kamahi Warren was the latest to die after a police officer in Dothan, Al. deployed a Taser on him at least twice. The 43-year-old, who was unarmed and allegedly intoxicated, reportedly stopped breathing shortly after being shocked and was pronounced dead in a hospital less than two hours later. “Of the hundreds who have died following police use of Tasers in the United States, dozens and possibly scores of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force being used,” said Susan Lee, Americas program director at Amnesty International. “This is unacceptable, and stricter guidelines for their use are now imperative.” Strict national guidelines on police use of Tasers and similar stun weapons – also known as Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) – would effectively replace thousands of individual policies now followed by state and local agencies.

From Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance, International Sex Worker Rights Day

Money quote:

Saturday, March 3rd, is International Sex Worker Rights Day, which is being celebrated around the world by groups and individuals who seek to recognize and defend the rights of sex workers.
According to Woodhull’s Executive Director, Ricci Levy:

“Research has demonstrated that the criminalization of sex work is associated with violence against sex workers, decreased access to health care, barriers to reporting human rights abuses, and disempowerment in condom negotiation (whether a sex worker’s wishes regarding condom use are respected). Governments should recognize and address the relationship between laws criminalizing sex work and the human rights violations that result from these laws.  

We see the affirmation and defense of the rights of sex workers as an integral part of our work to affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right. International Sex Workers Rights Day isn’t just about securing the rights of sex workers; it’s about securing human rights.”

From Dr. X’s Free Associations, Jim Hoft is shocked! Stunned! 

Money quote:

Always slow to process the world around him, Hoft also seems to believe that some sort of trick was played on him because Fluke is a law student and reproductive rights advocate rather than a ‘coed.’ It was just assumed in the conservative blog world that “Georgetown student” means “coed,” which is, by the way, an anachronistic term that hasn’t been used in decades except by conservative values voters, porn producers and horny frat boy types.Of course, there was never any deception involved. From the beginning, Fluke was identified in the mainstream media as “a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of the school’s Students for Reproductive Justice group.” That was reported 15 days before Hoft was stunned by the news that Ms. Fluke wasn’t a character from a movie entitled D.C. Coed Sluts.

From Dispatches From the Culture Wars, Politician Stands Up for Church/State Separation

Money quote:

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. 

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.

Who said that? Known communist Ronald Reagan.

Marks of the cross that don’t rub off

Marks of the cross that don’t rub off published on No Comments on Marks of the cross that don’t rub off
Tattoo representing the Fourth Station: Jesus
meeting his mother

As mentioned previously, I’m a tattooed person. Not heavily so, but I’ve got ’em. I also have, after quite a lot of observation of other people’s tattoos and their explanations of why they got them, developed a schema regarding the central elements of getting a tattoo:

1) Placement: where does it go on your body, and how is it aligned?
2) Significance: what is its meaning, and how well is that conveyed?
3) Aesthetics: how good does it look, in the end?

These are weighted differently for different people, but they’re all important. Discount any one of those three, and you’re on your way to a bad tattoo. A highly meaningful, beautiful tattoo will very likely still be regretted if you get it in a place where you might later want to hide it but can’t, or it doesn’t work with your body. A beautiful tattoo in a good place that means nothing to you might be just fine if you’re already covered with other tattoos, but if it’s your only one or one of just a few, you might later wonder why you bothered getting it. A tattoo which is very important to you and in a good place but looks bad will leave you regretting that you didn’t choose to represent such a significant thought better.

With regard to meaning, it’s cliche that you shouldn’t get the name of a significant other tattooed on you. It’s tempting fate, practically foretelling the end of what was previously considered a rock solid, everlasting case of true love. I would even say that in most cases it’s probably not a good idea to get text tattooed on yourself, though there are exceptions. The name of a deceased relative or your child is probably pretty safe– the deceased relative is gone and cannot change (though I suppose you could discover something horrible about them posthumously, the likelihood of that seems small) and whatever happens with your child, he/she is still your child.

What about….your religion?

 In a hip, artsy, area of Houston, a hip, artsy pastor is taking an unorthodox approach to Lent.
Standing in front of his congregation at Ecclesia Church, a congregation he admits is different – more diverse, more urban – than many evangelical churches – Chris Seay encouraged them to do so something he said combines the ideas of sacrifice and devotion that mark the Lenten season, the 40-day lead up to Easter. He asked them to get tattoos. Specifically, he asked congregants to get a tattoo corresponding with one of the Stations of the Cross, the collection of images that depict scenes in Jesus’ journey to his crucifixion. “The tendency we have as Christians is to skip past Jesus’ suffering,” Seay said in an interview. “Not only do tattoos come with a bit of suffering, they are also an art form that has not fully been embraced.” To help with the project, Seay enlisted Scott Erickson, artist-in-residence at his church. Erickson designed 10 distinct Stations of the Cross tattoos, leaving out four stations that Seay said changed in context when you are asking someone to get something permanently drawn on their body.

So, not just religious tattoos (though those are numerous, in most religions you can think of as well as plenty more). Tattoos encouraged by your pastor, within specific parameters, applied by your church’s artist-in-residence. The article doesn’t say which four stations of the original 12 Stations of the Cross were left out because they change in context as tattoos, but I’m guessing “Jesus is stripped of his garments” is one of them.

It’s up to them, of course, but it doesn’t sound like the best idea to me. First, because people have been known to change religions, or deconvert entirely. Second, because even if they don’t change religion, they might leave this church. And if they do, they would leave it bearing a very specific mark that ties them to every other member of the congregation who likewise decided to participate in this. Third, because that’s a whole lot of constraint on the design and aesthetic quality of the tattoo that they might not have chosen for themselves otherwise. Individuals opt to get tattooed ritually– that is, to make a religious ritual out of the experience of getting tattooed itself– all of the time. But to make a proposition of such to a congregation on the occasion of Lent seems…well, pushy. Like some people might feel encouraged to get a permanent mark etched on their skin as a signal to pastor and/or congregation of their commitment, rather than as a signifier to themselves as individuals of the meaning of Jesus’ sentencing, suffering, death, and resurrection.

Other people can argue about whether getting a tattoo in the first place is fundamentally irreligious. I don’t believe it is. It seems to me that if people do something for the sake of religion, it can’t be irreligious by definition. I also don’t care to play No True Christian and take a side on whether it’s doctrinally appropriate for believers of the Bible to get tattoos (though there are comments on that in the article itself if you wish to play). The pastor (Seay) says he has dissuaded some congregants from getting tattoos after announcing the idea, though the article doesn’t discuss why.

The standard objection to tattoos is “How is that going to look when you’re old?” I’d say a much more important concern is “How are you going to think about that if/when you become a different person, or when others do?”

“I’m sorry I did what I clearly meant to do and don’t regret in the slightest”

“I’m sorry I did what I clearly meant to do and don’t regret in the slightest” published on No Comments on “I’m sorry I did what I clearly meant to do and don’t regret in the slightest”

Rush Limbaugh issued a double backflip notpology today for his slut/prostitute/sex tape remarks about Sandra  Fluke, saying first that he didn’t mean to attack her personally (err…how do you say that someone is a slut who needs to learn how to have sex less on accident?), and then continuing to misrepresent the content of and reason for her testimony at the Democratic hearing, portraying it as “discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.” Sorry Rush, but no. It did not amount to a verbal rendition of a Penthouse letter. In fact, it did not address Fluke’s personal sex life at all. He then went on to say that it is not our business to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom, which a) is an odd statement for someone who just got done demanding sex tapes from someone, and b) a complaint better directed toward someone like Rick Santorum who is actually advocating that bedroom activities are the government’s business. Not Fluke, and not Pelosi, and not anyone who wants birth control to be covered by insurance.

Rush Limbaugh is a troll, as Rachel Maddow points out in the video below. Not a mythical creature who lives under a bridge, but someone who gets his jollies–and in this case makes a living– by being an asshole and pushing people’s buttons. I hope people continue to push his advertisers to stop sponsoring a platform on which he can do so.

Obama calling Sandra Fluke to commend her and condemn what Limbaugh said was like the school principal calling you into his office to apologize for the behavior of the school bully. It’s a good gesture, but really the other students need to sign on in order for it to have enough significance. Not lend any support to the bully, and certainly not give him a radio show.

Here’s Rachel Maddow yesterday…

Here’s Rachel Maddow yesterday… published on No Comments on Here’s Rachel Maddow yesterday…

…demonstrating why dummies are more dangerous than dicks:

…and then there was “skank.”

…and then there was “skank.” published on 1 Comment on …and then there was “skank.”

Georgetown University’s president, John J. DeGioia, repudiated Rush Limbaugh’s slut/prostitute/sex tape diatribe  today by not exactly endorsing Sandra Fluke’s message, but noting that her testimony had been respectful and sincere while condemning speech such as Limbaugh’s as “misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

He did this in an email sent to everyone on campus, but it apparently fell on deaf ears blind eyes for fellow Georgetown student Angela Morabito, who published a charming editorial in The College Conservative today declaring that a) Sandra Fluke does not speak for her, and certainly not for Georgetown in general, b) the effort to make birth control covered by insurance is a plot of Nancy Pelosi and the Liberal Media (I capitalize all of that because she did, and also because it amuses me to think of it as a band, which presumably plays jazz or soft rock) and c) Fluke does speak for “skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their own choices.”

Also, Morabito apparently shares Limbaugh’s mistaken belief that the number of pills you need to take is dependent on how much sex you’re having, because she advises Fluke to consider not having so much sex that it puts her in financial peril.

Now, something important to remember– technically speaking, both condoms and the pill are methods of birth control which are used by men and women, assuming they’re using them to have sex with each other and neither party has an interest in transmitting disease or creating a pregnancy. Using condoms and the pill when you have those interests is having sex responsibly, as is using a condom in addition to some other pregnancy prevention device such as an IUD. The condom can prevent both disease and pregnancy, but it’s safer to have backup and, as discussed in the previous post, there are all kinds of reasons why women might want to be on the pill apart from that.

So ultimately, both Limbaugh and Morabito are saying that women and men having the kind of sex they want, with the kind of protection they want, with added benefits to a health of a lot of the women in this particular equation is not valuable because it could allow for women to have as much sex as they want. With men, presumably, who get no epithets thrown at them.

Hmmm.

I’ve taken the pill since I was 16, originally and still for medical reasons though I appreciate the birth control aspect as well, and never once realized that it constitutes grounds for Viagra-popping pundits and moralizing college students to make pronouncements on my sexual habits. The more you know!

ETA: Adam Serwer wrote the following in a piece today titled Dear Rush Limbaugh: Birth Control Doesn’t Work Like Viagra:

The “subsidizing-your-sex-life” argument Limbaugh is making is related to, but nevertheless distinct from the religious objection to birth control. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has opposed even allowing insurance companies to foot the bill for contraception for employees of Catholic institutions. However, it has no objection in principle to prescription drug coverage that includes Viagra. Neither, one assumes, does Rush Limbaugh. So if he wants to contend that covering birth control is akin to paying women for sex, let’s hear him explain why men who want their insurance to cover their erectile dysfunction pills are not “sluts” or “prostitutes.”

You want the blue pill; we’ll pay for it. You want the red pill; Rush Limbaugh owns your sex life.

You want the blue pill; we’ll pay for it. You want the red pill; Rush Limbaugh owns your sex life. published on 4 Comments on You want the blue pill; we’ll pay for it. You want the red pill; Rush Limbaugh owns your sex life.
In Limbaugh Land, consumption of these is
determined not by time but by sluttiness.

I’m a big believer– and try to be a big practioner– of giving people the benefit of the doubt in disagreements. Because it’s a nice thing to do, yes, but also because it’s way too easy to do things like assume the conclusion of a person’s position and then attribute that to them as if it’s what they have in mind and support (“You support legalization of marijuana, I think that legalization of marijuana means that teenagers will get stoned and run over small children at the drive-through,* therefore you must want teenagers running over kids at the drive-through.”) And there’s the additional fact that if you interpret what someone says in the best possible light, they are far less likely to complain that you put words in their mouth. In fact, you might even improve on what they were trying to say.

However….it’s hard to give Rush Limbaugh any benefits for making the following argument:

1. Women who want health insurance to cover birth control are asking to be paid to have sex.
2. Therefore, they are prostitutes, or at least sluts.
3. And if we’re going to pay them to have sex, we should get something out of it.
4. Therefore, they at least owe us video footage. So make with the sex tapes already.

Yes, this is the most charitable possible framing of what Limbaugh said on his radio show regarding the testimony of Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke in Congress on the need for contraception coverage.
First:

LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Then:

LIMBAUGH: So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

First of all, Fluke wasn’t even talking about herself– she was talking about a lesbian friend who stopped taking hormonal birth control because it was too expensive, and not covered by her university on religious grounds. She was on the birth control to stop ovarian cysts from forming, and after going off the pill a cyst formed that required surgery to remove the entire ovary.

But let’s say Fluke was talking about herself. And let’s say she’s heterosexual, and just wants to have sex with a man or men with a drastically reduced likelihood of getting pregnant. That seems like a good idea, right? That sounds like being careful. Responsible. And regardless of how much sex she has, and how many men she has it with, she’s going to require exactly the same amount of birth control as her lesbian friend (who might be having all kinds of sex herself, but presumably not with men): one packet every month. One pill every day. So the “she’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception” slam is blown out of the water, right there.

What about the claim that having insurance pay for birth control equates to taxpayers being made to pay people like Fluke to have sex? Well, again, people take the pill for a lot of reasons that don’t involve preventing pregnancy…like Fluke’s friend, who (again) could be having any amount of sex with any number of people. So maybe instead of telling women not to have sex if it requires using birth control, Limbaugh should tell them to become lesbians. But she wanted the pill to prevent cysts. Some women take it to control their menstrual cycle. Some women take it to minimize the symptoms of endometriosis. It is a multi-purpose medication, used for a number of very important purposes just like lots of other medication already covered by insurance. Like, you know, Viagra, which I’ve never heard of someone taking because he’s afraid of losing a testicle.

Additionally, of course, there is the fact that paying people to have sex without getting pregnant is cheaper than paying them to get pregnant, carry out the pregnancy, and give birth to a child they didn’t want and can’t care for. Limbaugh considers legal abortion a “holocaust” and women who fight for the right to have abortions “feminazis,” so it sure seems like he should be all in favor of any preventative measures women can take before conception to make sure that it…well, doesn’t happen. Nope. He’s a proponent of Santorum-backer Foster Friess’s method of aspirin-between-the-knees, which it’s hard to believe was funny when the FDA legalized the pill (for menstrual disorders first, note) in 1957. When I’m pretty sure people already knew that it’s possible to have sex with your knees together.

Limbaugh’s argument is fundamentally not financial; it’s moral: birth control is about making it possible for women to have sex without risk of pregnancy, and they shouldn’t want this. If they do, it’s probably because they’re having sex with someone they are not married to and don’t want to marry, which makes them sluts. Message to Limbaugh: most Americans by far either have used or will use birth control to avoid pregnancy. Most Americans by far have had or will have sex outside of marriage. Most Americans by far, I am guessing, do not want to risk creating a pregnancy every time they have sex, whether married or unmarried. Limbaugh himself is almost certainly one of these Americans in all three cases.

So why is he arguing so adamantly against this? Because it offers a chance to make a cheap shot at American women. All Americans benefit by having easy and cheap access to birth control, but Sandra Fluke’s testimony made for an opportunity to say that women who benefit from that access must be sluts.  As Rep. Jackie Speier said today in calling for a boycott of Limbaugh’s sponsors, it’s flat out misogyny:

“Shame on you for calling the women of this country prostitutes,” Speier said. “Ninety-eight percent of the women in this country at some time in their lives used birth control.” “So I say to the women in this country, do something about this,” she continued. “I say to the women of this country, ask Century 21, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, and Sleep Number to stop supporting the hate mongering of Rush Limbaugh and if they do not do that, then I ask them to boycott those companies.”

Yes. Yes to this, but I wish she hadn’t appealed specifically to women. It’s an issue that should be of interest to everyone, because it affects everyone, and…everyone should consider Rush Limbaugh a hateful moron for saying crap like this. Charitably, of course.

*The actual plot of a PSA that ran on TV for a while.