You, with your parties and your events and your "oh come and have drinks with us"ness are making it terribly difficult to be the layabout hermit type of writer.
Instead I will have to be the booze swilling social butterfly type of writer. If it worked for Dorothy Parker, well then.......
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
You Are What You Read
I've been thinking about books lately. Mostly mourning all the books I've lost, but also about what books radically shook my brain and made me a better thinker and/or person.
I'm about to repeat myself for about the thousandth time, but I wanted to get these bits down into one post so next time I go searching for them, I know where they are. Thank you internet for being the back up storage for my brain.
The first was a book about torture, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture by John Conroy. I read this when we first went to war in Iraq, and when the first torture pictures started trickling out on the web (long before Abu Girab became public) I immediately recognized the 5 Acts used by the KGB (and later everyone, including us) to torture without leaving marks. Recognizing torture as an institutional and not just an individual act is one of the things I learned to do from this book. But the most important thing I took away from this was in a single little chapter at the end about the one in 50 people who will intervene instead of join in. It taught me that the smallest acct of humanizing a victim in the midst of abuse can turn the tide of the Ordinary People and stop or mitigate the abuse. But there are a thousand ways and times we can humanize a victim that don't involve the hard bright lines of torture but the everyday, common place injustice. So even if I don't have spare change for the homeless guy on the corner, I treat them kindly because you never know if my acting decently will inspire the dude behind me who does have the spare change to give it out.
You want to hear about Swedish Socialists? Of course you do! I read a biography (which I now cannot find the name of) of Tage Erlander, Sweden's first Socialist Prime Minister. A huge chunk of how I think about political economy comes from this book. But the most basic is that Business' only purpose as far as the State is concerned should be the payment of taxes. If a business cannot either pay corporate tax OR pay its employees well enough that they pay income tax, then the business is a failure in the eyes of the State and should be allowed to fail. Think about that when you hear yet another story about how some mega-corp made billions of dollars and didn't pay taxes.
I have to admit, I didn't read all of John Rawls' Theory Of Justice. But I read enough to get the Veil of Ignorance idea, and it is the most elegant way to think about social justice in any form. The idea is that in order to design a fair society, the designers (us) have to be ignorant (or imagine we are) of what position we will hold in the society of our creation. It's this idea that makes me, a non-illegal drug user, so adamant about bodily autonomy for everyone.
And then there is Elizabeth Gaskell. A little Victorian Social Justice fiction writer in the same strain as Dickens. Best known for writing the books that became BBC miniseries like Cranford and North and South, she is perhaps a bit of a proto-socialist. She wrote the most profound thing about wages that I have ever read, and I've badly paraphrased here multiple times.
You should go read the rest of the page. It gets into how steeply the price of land rises.
There is, of course, always more. There's Gramsci's prison diaries and (thanks to Montag)Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle. There's Frank Herbert's Dune series, which yes is problematic and the older I get the more I see that. But it gave me my first understanding of the power of empire. Which of course leads me to David Spurr's Rhetoric of Empire. I could keep going, but...
So dear readers, if you are still with me, what books rocked your melon in new and fabulous ways?
I'm about to repeat myself for about the thousandth time, but I wanted to get these bits down into one post so next time I go searching for them, I know where they are. Thank you internet for being the back up storage for my brain.
The first was a book about torture, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture by John Conroy. I read this when we first went to war in Iraq, and when the first torture pictures started trickling out on the web (long before Abu Girab became public) I immediately recognized the 5 Acts used by the KGB (and later everyone, including us) to torture without leaving marks. Recognizing torture as an institutional and not just an individual act is one of the things I learned to do from this book. But the most important thing I took away from this was in a single little chapter at the end about the one in 50 people who will intervene instead of join in. It taught me that the smallest acct of humanizing a victim in the midst of abuse can turn the tide of the Ordinary People and stop or mitigate the abuse. But there are a thousand ways and times we can humanize a victim that don't involve the hard bright lines of torture but the everyday, common place injustice. So even if I don't have spare change for the homeless guy on the corner, I treat them kindly because you never know if my acting decently will inspire the dude behind me who does have the spare change to give it out.
You want to hear about Swedish Socialists? Of course you do! I read a biography (which I now cannot find the name of) of Tage Erlander, Sweden's first Socialist Prime Minister. A huge chunk of how I think about political economy comes from this book. But the most basic is that Business' only purpose as far as the State is concerned should be the payment of taxes. If a business cannot either pay corporate tax OR pay its employees well enough that they pay income tax, then the business is a failure in the eyes of the State and should be allowed to fail. Think about that when you hear yet another story about how some mega-corp made billions of dollars and didn't pay taxes.
I have to admit, I didn't read all of John Rawls' Theory Of Justice. But I read enough to get the Veil of Ignorance idea, and it is the most elegant way to think about social justice in any form. The idea is that in order to design a fair society, the designers (us) have to be ignorant (or imagine we are) of what position we will hold in the society of our creation. It's this idea that makes me, a non-illegal drug user, so adamant about bodily autonomy for everyone.
And then there is Elizabeth Gaskell. A little Victorian Social Justice fiction writer in the same strain as Dickens. Best known for writing the books that became BBC miniseries like Cranford and North and South, she is perhaps a bit of a proto-socialist. She wrote the most profound thing about wages that I have ever read, and I've badly paraphrased here multiple times.
I say, our labour's our capital, an we oughta draw interest on that. They get interest on their capital somehow a' this time, while ourn is lying idle, how else could they live as they do?
You should go read the rest of the page. It gets into how steeply the price of land rises.
There is, of course, always more. There's Gramsci's prison diaries and (thanks to Montag)Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle. There's Frank Herbert's Dune series, which yes is problematic and the older I get the more I see that. But it gave me my first understanding of the power of empire. Which of course leads me to David Spurr's Rhetoric of Empire. I could keep going, but...
So dear readers, if you are still with me, what books rocked your melon in new and fabulous ways?
This Doesn't Count As An RQ Cooks Post
It's my end of the month, so the cupboards are a bit scanty. But I've planned well. Or so I thought. Tomatoes were on sale, so I was going to make a giant batch of pico de gallo and then make things like arroz con pollo and tortilla soup to get us through till I do the BIG grocery shopping on Wednesday. Best laid plans and all that. We took the chicken out of the freezer to thaw last night and somehow the fridge went all wonky and froze everything. So arroz con pollo waits till tomorrow.
Tonight we are having some weird casserole. Oh look, we've got left over egg noodles going mushy, the tail end of some sharp cheddar, a half a cup of leftover alfredo sauce and a single piece of olive and rosemary bread that I threw in the freezer rather than throw out. Turn that stale bread into bread crumbs, throw everything else in a casserole pan with a lot of extra spices and top with the bread crumbs. Throw in oven at 450. Wait, hope. It can't be bad with cheese sauce and noodles, really.
Tonight we are having some weird casserole. Oh look, we've got left over egg noodles going mushy, the tail end of some sharp cheddar, a half a cup of leftover alfredo sauce and a single piece of olive and rosemary bread that I threw in the freezer rather than throw out. Turn that stale bread into bread crumbs, throw everything else in a casserole pan with a lot of extra spices and top with the bread crumbs. Throw in oven at 450. Wait, hope. It can't be bad with cheese sauce and noodles, really.
Monday, June 06, 2011
This Evening's Music is Provided By Joan Jett
It seems appropriate that if I am going to abuse the song title by connecting it to douchebags in tacky blue suits, I should at least post the song.
You know what is one of the best feelings ever
Shutting down apologists for the elites (of either the red or blue flavor) and their "OMG THE DEFICIT/DEBT ELEVENTY11!" argument with "No country that is fiat in their own floating currency has ever gone bankrupt. Your argument is a red herring". I MUST thank Lambert profusely for giving me that little talking point.
On that topic, did you all notice that Moody's has resumed their "We'll blackmail you with your credit rating" stance. Fuckers. As if they have any credibility.
On that topic, did you all notice that Moody's has resumed their "We'll blackmail you with your credit rating" stance. Fuckers. As if they have any credibility.
I don't give a damn about your bad reputation
Oh look, another sex scandal to keep us all from focusing on the actual important business of the country.
You know, mostly I don't give a shit about who a (almost universally male) politician sleeps with, as long as they are above age and not a subordinate and it doesn't fuck with their job of governing. It's funny (not haha) when it's a Republifucker who's been spouting faux family values/homophobia shit, but really their sex lives aren't at all relevant to my life. Though, when a lefty fucks up, it would be nice if they didn't let their very important message hit the floor with their pants (like you John Edwards and your two Americas, and you Elliot Spitzer and Wall Street reform). And the ubiquity of these scandals, oh the fucking ubiquity.
I am tired of these over-entitled douchebags in tacky blue suits who can't seem to go without sending crotch shots or knocking up their employees in exchange for getting access to a whole fuck of a lot more power and influence than the rest of us will ever be close to. If you want to be That Guy, go work on Wall Street and snort coke off the ass of whatever young coed (male or female) wants to take your "scholarship" money in exchange for naked party time. But stay the fuck out of politics. In case you haven't noticed, we've got 4 wars going on and a huge population of broke, unemployed, hungry and homeless or about to be foreclosed on people who would like pols with a tiny bit of impulse control running our fucking country. For all the jokes they make about a woman deciding to hit the red button because of pms, I would like to flip the switch and say you tacky fuckers probably can't be trusted near the Oval Office because you might hit the button while whipping out your schlong to take a cell phone pic for HawTGRL23.
Enough is enough. Pull your damn pants up, all of you, and do some fucking work. That's what we're paying you for.
You know, mostly I don't give a shit about who a (almost universally male) politician sleeps with, as long as they are above age and not a subordinate and it doesn't fuck with their job of governing. It's funny (not haha) when it's a Republifucker who's been spouting faux family values/homophobia shit, but really their sex lives aren't at all relevant to my life. Though, when a lefty fucks up, it would be nice if they didn't let their very important message hit the floor with their pants (like you John Edwards and your two Americas, and you Elliot Spitzer and Wall Street reform). And the ubiquity of these scandals, oh the fucking ubiquity.
I am tired of these over-entitled douchebags in tacky blue suits who can't seem to go without sending crotch shots or knocking up their employees in exchange for getting access to a whole fuck of a lot more power and influence than the rest of us will ever be close to. If you want to be That Guy, go work on Wall Street and snort coke off the ass of whatever young coed (male or female) wants to take your "scholarship" money in exchange for naked party time. But stay the fuck out of politics. In case you haven't noticed, we've got 4 wars going on and a huge population of broke, unemployed, hungry and homeless or about to be foreclosed on people who would like pols with a tiny bit of impulse control running our fucking country. For all the jokes they make about a woman deciding to hit the red button because of pms, I would like to flip the switch and say you tacky fuckers probably can't be trusted near the Oval Office because you might hit the button while whipping out your schlong to take a cell phone pic for HawTGRL23.
Enough is enough. Pull your damn pants up, all of you, and do some fucking work. That's what we're paying you for.
This Is How You Understand Reclamation and Intersectionality
Jay Smooth talks to white rapper Brother Ali about the "n" word.
Remember kids- the rule for language reclamation is you either have one (cunt, pussy, etc) or are one (bitch, slut, etc) or you DON'T get to use the word. Even ironically. There is no amount of social justice work, or other oppressions that you might have, that erase your privilege in another area.
(disclaimer- I don't know who Brother Ali is, but I hope in his thoughts on oppression he includes us ladies too.)
Remember kids- the rule for language reclamation is you either have one (cunt, pussy, etc) or are one (bitch, slut, etc) or you DON'T get to use the word. Even ironically. There is no amount of social justice work, or other oppressions that you might have, that erase your privilege in another area.
(disclaimer- I don't know who Brother Ali is, but I hope in his thoughts on oppression he includes us ladies too.)
Women "wired" to Find Submission Arousing- Bwahahahahha
And then RQ fell out of her chair laughing.
Thank god I didn't have a drink when I read that. I might have needed a new laptop due to spit check. Now that I have (kinda) regained my composure, let's get serious for a minute. (Starting with the disclaimer that the plural of anecdote is not data....)
For a long time I had your standard, patriarchy-approved and socially programmed views on sex acts, though I always had a decidedly slutty view on numbers and partners. I tried the whole "oh spank me big boy" shit, etc etc. And was left wanting (or more likely, giving instructions on the proper way to position your hand). I was, at best, meh on the whole "getting fucked" aspect of fucking. Sex was good, great even, but it didn't get awesome till I discovered my innate toppy nature. Once I shrugged off all the porny "this is what a woman is supposed to want" shit and discovered that if someone is going to be doing the spanking, hair-pulling, bossing around stuff it really should be me- then sex became that existential floaty head space shit that we all imagine it's supposed to be.
So yeah, if you ask a bunch of women who have grown up in a patriarchy full of porny images where the average sex act involves female submission to the all powerful cock, then your study is going to be skewed that direction. That's not "hard-wired", that's social construction of a narrative to the benefit of the socially dominant class.
Are some women submissive? Yep. So are some men. Some people, both men and women, are a bit of both. And some people, both men and women, don't want sex at all. And some people, both men and women, like sex but are neutral on the power play shit. And some of us women have some rocking skills with a whip. I'm just sayin'.....
Thank god I didn't have a drink when I read that. I might have needed a new laptop due to spit check. Now that I have (kinda) regained my composure, let's get serious for a minute. (Starting with the disclaimer that the plural of anecdote is not data....)
For a long time I had your standard, patriarchy-approved and socially programmed views on sex acts, though I always had a decidedly slutty view on numbers and partners. I tried the whole "oh spank me big boy" shit, etc etc. And was left wanting (or more likely, giving instructions on the proper way to position your hand). I was, at best, meh on the whole "getting fucked" aspect of fucking. Sex was good, great even, but it didn't get awesome till I discovered my innate toppy nature. Once I shrugged off all the porny "this is what a woman is supposed to want" shit and discovered that if someone is going to be doing the spanking, hair-pulling, bossing around stuff it really should be me- then sex became that existential floaty head space shit that we all imagine it's supposed to be.
So yeah, if you ask a bunch of women who have grown up in a patriarchy full of porny images where the average sex act involves female submission to the all powerful cock, then your study is going to be skewed that direction. That's not "hard-wired", that's social construction of a narrative to the benefit of the socially dominant class.
Are some women submissive? Yep. So are some men. Some people, both men and women, are a bit of both. And some people, both men and women, don't want sex at all. And some people, both men and women, like sex but are neutral on the power play shit. And some of us women have some rocking skills with a whip. I'm just sayin'.....
Keeping an Eye on Peru
Since spending 4 years saying "told ya so" regarding our own fucked up political system is boring, I'm much more interested in what other countries are doing (hello Spain, Greece, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, etc. etc. etc.) And I've had a big soft spot in my heart for Latin America since middle school Spanish classes.
Enter Peru, which just had an election Sunday and ballots are being counted.
Now my hard cynical eye is wondering, if Humala is ultimately declared the winner, is he a (not terribly)stealthy progressive who said toned it down during the election to get past the 50% post? Or is he more like Aristide, someone who started out truly progressive and won election(s) on the backs of the poor, only to become a great apologist for the wealthy elites once in office?
But hey, it's still way more interesting than the current 'Democrats suck but look over there it's a Republican they suck worse' politicking keeping us from doing anything real or important regarding fixing our broken system.
Enter Peru, which just had an election Sunday and ballots are being counted.
Now my hard cynical eye is wondering, if Humala is ultimately declared the winner, is he a (not terribly)stealthy progressive who said toned it down during the election to get past the 50% post? Or is he more like Aristide, someone who started out truly progressive and won election(s) on the backs of the poor, only to become a great apologist for the wealthy elites once in office?
But hey, it's still way more interesting than the current 'Democrats suck but look over there it's a Republican they suck worse' politicking keeping us from doing anything real or important regarding fixing our broken system.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
A Little Serious for a Sunday, But Let's Talk About Drugs
Drugs, the illegal kind, have been all over the news lately, from reports that The War on Drugs (or the war on some people who use drugs) has failed to reducing the discrepancy in sentencing between types of cocaine possession.
I'm gonna assume that most of y'all reading this are feminist/womanist and progressive, so when I say I believe in absolute bodily autonomy you might assume what I'm talking about is just reproductive freedom and the freedom from rape and gendered violence. But my commitment to bodily autonomy is much more than that. I believe that every single adult has the right to unrestricted liberty over their own person, and that children have damn near as much unrestricted liberty as well*. This means if you are an adult, I don't give a shit what you put in your own body. I don't care what you eat. I don't care what you drink. I don't care who you fuck (as long as enthusiastic consent is involved) or how you fuck. I don't care if you drink wine, smoke cigarettes, or shoot heroin. It's none of my business.
I do care that we are all fully informed on what we are putting in our bodies, whether it's prescription drugs and their side effects or ecoli-tainted spinach. Poisoning people, even unintentionally, for profit, is a violation of someone's bodily autonomy. Not providing someone with the full facts about things from potential drug interactions to stds is tantamount to lying. And lying removes a person's right to autonomy by altering their options for choice.
The most basic of freedoms is the right to control our own body, it every possible manner. It is not an accident that the bodies most likely to be punished for using drugs are brown (though rates of drug use are actually pretty even among different races). It's both a tool of the kyriarchy and one of those Gramscian hegemony/common sense of the elites things. It keeps certain people (women, poc, woc, lgbtqq, etc) from full freedom while positing these restrictions as "protections".
So end the war on drugs. End the illegality of drugs and the war on certain bodies. It's the most important freedom, and unfortunately it's not in our bill of rights.Changing how we think about bodies is one of the most critical acts of social justice and it turns the protectionist/charitable bullshit on it's head. Let people do to themselves what they want to do. Full stop. No ifs, ands or buts.
*regarding children, yes they absolutely deserve status as full human beings and the right to control their own bodies. But as they are children and their little neurological pathways aren't yet formed all the way, it is our job as adults to guide them towards things like eating vegetables and taking baths or needed medicine. It is also our job to punish those who would violate their autonomy via rape or abuse, specifically because children are not as equipped as adults to recognize those violations.
I'm gonna assume that most of y'all reading this are feminist/womanist and progressive, so when I say I believe in absolute bodily autonomy you might assume what I'm talking about is just reproductive freedom and the freedom from rape and gendered violence. But my commitment to bodily autonomy is much more than that. I believe that every single adult has the right to unrestricted liberty over their own person, and that children have damn near as much unrestricted liberty as well*. This means if you are an adult, I don't give a shit what you put in your own body. I don't care what you eat. I don't care what you drink. I don't care who you fuck (as long as enthusiastic consent is involved) or how you fuck. I don't care if you drink wine, smoke cigarettes, or shoot heroin. It's none of my business.
I do care that we are all fully informed on what we are putting in our bodies, whether it's prescription drugs and their side effects or ecoli-tainted spinach. Poisoning people, even unintentionally, for profit, is a violation of someone's bodily autonomy. Not providing someone with the full facts about things from potential drug interactions to stds is tantamount to lying. And lying removes a person's right to autonomy by altering their options for choice.
The most basic of freedoms is the right to control our own body, it every possible manner. It is not an accident that the bodies most likely to be punished for using drugs are brown (though rates of drug use are actually pretty even among different races). It's both a tool of the kyriarchy and one of those Gramscian hegemony/common sense of the elites things. It keeps certain people (women, poc, woc, lgbtqq, etc) from full freedom while positing these restrictions as "protections".
So end the war on drugs. End the illegality of drugs and the war on certain bodies. It's the most important freedom, and unfortunately it's not in our bill of rights.Changing how we think about bodies is one of the most critical acts of social justice and it turns the protectionist/charitable bullshit on it's head. Let people do to themselves what they want to do. Full stop. No ifs, ands or buts.
*regarding children, yes they absolutely deserve status as full human beings and the right to control their own bodies. But as they are children and their little neurological pathways aren't yet formed all the way, it is our job as adults to guide them towards things like eating vegetables and taking baths or needed medicine. It is also our job to punish those who would violate their autonomy via rape or abuse, specifically because children are not as equipped as adults to recognize those violations.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
I'm Pro-Choice For Dudes Too
Meaning that they should have more options than condoms or vasectomies, not that they get veto power on abortions or baby having. (Obvs, in a healthy relationship these things would be discussed by a couple, but every woman should get to decide what she wants done to her body).
So male birth control. What's the hold-up? Why don't dudes get the option of a long-term, more reliable form of birth control than just condoms. Aside from the obvious no-baby benefits, there is a hidden benefit for us ladies. Fewer MRA douchenoodles could claim that women were tricking them intofatherhood not paying child support.
On that note, an Indian scientist has developed a reversible method for killing sperm before they are ejaculated. (fair warning, link is to Jezebel)Longer term and less fallible than condoms, reversible and fewer side effects than vasectomies, I think we all need to signal boost this idea asap.
So male birth control. What's the hold-up? Why don't dudes get the option of a long-term, more reliable form of birth control than just condoms. Aside from the obvious no-baby benefits, there is a hidden benefit for us ladies. Fewer MRA douchenoodles could claim that women were tricking them into
On that note, an Indian scientist has developed a reversible method for killing sperm before they are ejaculated. (fair warning, link is to Jezebel)Longer term and less fallible than condoms, reversible and fewer side effects than vasectomies, I think we all need to signal boost this idea asap.
It's Friday, I Got Nuthin.
Tapped out, writer's blocked, you name it. So if you're floating around out there, what do you want to know/read about the world. I am open to suggestions. Or we can just have an open thread. Tell me a story. In the mean time, enjoy this song from Grizzly Bear
Thursday, June 02, 2011
You parasites can tap this
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
re: the Obots latest campaign donation email. I am sure you all got one too. Think they were trying to send this before the abysmal May disemployment numbers came out?
Just a reminder, a shit sandwich with pickle is still a shit sandwich.
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
re: the Obots latest campaign donation email. I am sure you all got one too. Think they were trying to send this before the abysmal May disemployment numbers came out?
Just a reminder, a shit sandwich with pickle is still a shit sandwich.
It's time for another post where I overshare info about my girly bits.
I went to get an ultrasound Tuesday to determine if I just have the world's most atrocious periods for fun or if there is some nefarious cause. Also, as a precursor to getting an IUD! Yay! I've had internal ultrasounds before, and have always gotten a "huhmm that's a unique shape" reaction from docs and techs. So I asked the lovely tech to explain. I have a kinky uterus. No, a literally kinky uterus. It tilts in one direction while the cervix tilts in the opposite direction, causing a kink where the two meet. I also, apparently, have a cyst on one of my ovaries. The cyst, and not the kink, is what is making my monthly communist invasion seem like the actual communist invasion.
So the IUD (Mirena, hormonal) will help with the cyst, hopefully. But getting it inserted will be tricky(straight stick, U shaped angle, tricky tricky). I am asking, begging, pleading, for an rx for valium to take prior because there is no way I'll be able to "relax and drop your knees" through that shit. No fucking way. And smart me, I scheduled the procedure for 4:30 in the afternoon. So I can go right from uterine torture to the bar across the street.
So the IUD (Mirena, hormonal) will help with the cyst, hopefully. But getting it inserted will be tricky(straight stick, U shaped angle, tricky tricky). I am asking, begging, pleading, for an rx for valium to take prior because there is no way I'll be able to "relax and drop your knees" through that shit. No fucking way. And smart me, I scheduled the procedure for 4:30 in the afternoon. So I can go right from uterine torture to the bar across the street.
This is a Blog Post About Scientific Article Writing
Actually it's just a link to an piece about how to write a scientific article. And awesome piece actually. Go read.
Sharing Netflix Now A Criminal Offense In Tennessee
Tennessee just past a law making it illegal to share your Netflix login.
It's not enough that entertainment companies vastly overstate the damages from downloading in court cases but now, at least in TN, I'd have to get the Kid his own Netflix account so he can watch anime.
And of course we can trust entertainment companies to not abuse the courts to nail us little people. I'm sure that there must be one actual song in the world where a digital copy is worth $2250. Like perhaps a version of I Feel Pretty sung by Little Richard. (No seriously, that shit is the bomb. Thank you Gidget!)
It's not enough that entertainment companies vastly overstate the damages from downloading in court cases but now, at least in TN, I'd have to get the Kid his own Netflix account so he can watch anime.
And of course we can trust entertainment companies to not abuse the courts to nail us little people. I'm sure that there must be one actual song in the world where a digital copy is worth $2250. Like perhaps a version of I Feel Pretty sung by Little Richard. (No seriously, that shit is the bomb. Thank you Gidget!)
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Finding Joy
I read a quote from bell hooks once about when dealing with such intensely crappy shit, day in and day out, you have to find something to be joyful about. Y'all know I'm bad with the exact quotes, but that was the gist. And I'm working really hard on the joyful lately. Yeah, money sucks, money always sucks. And yeah, our government is full of lying, hateful douchebags in tacky blue suits. And yeah, corporations won't be happy till we're paying them to let us work. And rapey rapists keep raping. And jerks keep being jerks.
But I have these lovely friends, both in meat space and cyberspace, who just keep being there when I need them. And I am sitting on my own couch, in my own apartment, listening to Joe Strummer on my own compy while staring out the window at an evening that is both grey and rainy and sunny all at the same time. And the Kid just keeps becoming more and more of this awesome person who I am so lucky to know. And there's a boy in the world who makes me giddy and mushy and toe-curlingly happy.
It's so much good that I am teary-eyed happy thinking about it. (Or I am just pms-y, wevs). Sometimes the world sucks and blows at the same time and sometimes there are these little pockets of joyfulness that I can just curl up in. And that's where I am right now.
But I have these lovely friends, both in meat space and cyberspace, who just keep being there when I need them. And I am sitting on my own couch, in my own apartment, listening to Joe Strummer on my own compy while staring out the window at an evening that is both grey and rainy and sunny all at the same time. And the Kid just keeps becoming more and more of this awesome person who I am so lucky to know. And there's a boy in the world who makes me giddy and mushy and toe-curlingly happy.
It's so much good that I am teary-eyed happy thinking about it. (Or I am just pms-y, wevs). Sometimes the world sucks and blows at the same time and sometimes there are these little pockets of joyfulness that I can just curl up in. And that's where I am right now.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Unless You're Poor.
So the governor of fucking Florida (damn I hate that state with the passion of a thousand fiery furnaces) has decided that poor people are guilty of drug use and must be tested first before they can qualify for TANF (temporary aid to needy families, or welfare).
I've given this rant before, but let's do it once again for the newbies.
We don't require business owners to pee in a cup before receiving government welfare checks (in the form of tax credits). Nobody made TARP recipients line up to have bits of their hair cut out for drug testing (though I am pretty sure that Bolivian marching powder is a main part of many a bankster's day). But poor people, particularly poor, single mothers, are assumed to have committed a crime (probable cause for search needing to exist before the government gets to test you) and must pee in a cup so that their kids can be housed and fed.
Fuck that. No seriously, fuck that. The government has no fucking right to treat its citizens, ANY of its citizens, like criminals for simply applying for assistance. Do fucking lobbyists have to get drug tested? They are doing the same damn thing on a grand scale. How about the fucking Chamber of Commerce, are they peeing in a cup? No.
Requiring poor people to be drug tested is a GROSS violation of the constitution. What will the government do with the results? If you test positive, will those results be turned over to the police? What happens to people who've been self-medicating for depression (poverty is fucking depressing) or anxiety or bipolar or pain? What if they are applying for benefits specifically so they can receive medicaid and get actual medical relief? Will it be a hearty "fuck you" from the state. So sorry you've lived without healthcare and had to treat yourself, but because of that you can't qualify for healthcare and will have to treat yourself.
I've been pretty damn lucky that the things I use(d) to self-medicate (caffeine, nicotine, the occasional bottle of wine) are legal. But that doesn't mean it think it's okay to violate the constitutional rights of poor, mostly women, almost always parents just so Rick fucking Scott and the douchebags in tacky blue suits can feel superior.
I've given this rant before, but let's do it once again for the newbies.
We don't require business owners to pee in a cup before receiving government welfare checks (in the form of tax credits). Nobody made TARP recipients line up to have bits of their hair cut out for drug testing (though I am pretty sure that Bolivian marching powder is a main part of many a bankster's day). But poor people, particularly poor, single mothers, are assumed to have committed a crime (probable cause for search needing to exist before the government gets to test you) and must pee in a cup so that their kids can be housed and fed.
Fuck that. No seriously, fuck that. The government has no fucking right to treat its citizens, ANY of its citizens, like criminals for simply applying for assistance. Do fucking lobbyists have to get drug tested? They are doing the same damn thing on a grand scale. How about the fucking Chamber of Commerce, are they peeing in a cup? No.
Requiring poor people to be drug tested is a GROSS violation of the constitution. What will the government do with the results? If you test positive, will those results be turned over to the police? What happens to people who've been self-medicating for depression (poverty is fucking depressing) or anxiety or bipolar or pain? What if they are applying for benefits specifically so they can receive medicaid and get actual medical relief? Will it be a hearty "fuck you" from the state. So sorry you've lived without healthcare and had to treat yourself, but because of that you can't qualify for healthcare and will have to treat yourself.
I've been pretty damn lucky that the things I use(d) to self-medicate (caffeine, nicotine, the occasional bottle of wine) are legal. But that doesn't mean it think it's okay to violate the constitutional rights of poor, mostly women, almost always parents just so Rick fucking Scott and the douchebags in tacky blue suits can feel superior.
Inefficient Systems
There is a lot of fancy talk among economists about efficiency and productivity. From a business standpoint, maximum efficiency means more profit, lower expenses and that is often achieved by increasing worker productivity and decreasing labor costs. There's some fucking irony there, work harder, better, faster so we can eliminate your job.
But as we can see from the current economic wreck, that's just straight up fucked. The more unemployed workers you have in a society's economic system, the less efficiently it runs. We have, as workers, increased productivity by 20% in the last 30 years. That's an entire day's worth of work every week. That's permanent Fridays off. Or it could be, if we were the ones benefiting from our own increase in productivity.
We have seen, over and over again, that our government that is supposed to work for us, chooses to side with the kleptocratic masters of the universe. There is a really simple way to fix our inefficient system of allotting jobs, and that's by decreasing the number of hours in a full time week to 32. That's the 20% we've gained in the last 30 years. That is part of the reason why there are so many part-time jobs compared to full-time jobs now. So why not consider that full time work? What would you do, full-time workers, with an entire extra day a week to yourselves? It seems only fair since we haven't seen wages keep up with inflation over the last 30 years. Health and welfare benefits have been cut and slashed so that we're lucky if we have full-time employment and an insurance plan that will only pay for basic emergency treatment and nothing else. What do we get for being better workers than our parents were?
If economists were honest (and let's face, most are not) then they would be looking at this massive surplus of labor and seeing the huge flaw in the system. I think it was in Mary Barton that Elizabeth Gaskell wrote "If the masters earn interest on their money, where is our interest on our labor?". If the idea is that the masters take a risk by plunging their cash into business (and with TARP, etc they really aren't taking much of a risk) and receiving interest and rents above their original investment as payoff, then where is our interest for the hours spent working? We aren't even guaranteed a basic living wage, yet it's still our labor that has improved the productivity more than the masters' money has. This system is inefficient. It has to change. And shortening the work week to modern productivity standards is the fastest way to fix that inefficiency.
But as we can see from the current economic wreck, that's just straight up fucked. The more unemployed workers you have in a society's economic system, the less efficiently it runs. We have, as workers, increased productivity by 20% in the last 30 years. That's an entire day's worth of work every week. That's permanent Fridays off. Or it could be, if we were the ones benefiting from our own increase in productivity.
We have seen, over and over again, that our government that is supposed to work for us, chooses to side with the kleptocratic masters of the universe. There is a really simple way to fix our inefficient system of allotting jobs, and that's by decreasing the number of hours in a full time week to 32. That's the 20% we've gained in the last 30 years. That is part of the reason why there are so many part-time jobs compared to full-time jobs now. So why not consider that full time work? What would you do, full-time workers, with an entire extra day a week to yourselves? It seems only fair since we haven't seen wages keep up with inflation over the last 30 years. Health and welfare benefits have been cut and slashed so that we're lucky if we have full-time employment and an insurance plan that will only pay for basic emergency treatment and nothing else. What do we get for being better workers than our parents were?
If economists were honest (and let's face, most are not) then they would be looking at this massive surplus of labor and seeing the huge flaw in the system. I think it was in Mary Barton that Elizabeth Gaskell wrote "If the masters earn interest on their money, where is our interest on our labor?". If the idea is that the masters take a risk by plunging their cash into business (and with TARP, etc they really aren't taking much of a risk) and receiving interest and rents above their original investment as payoff, then where is our interest for the hours spent working? We aren't even guaranteed a basic living wage, yet it's still our labor that has improved the productivity more than the masters' money has. This system is inefficient. It has to change. And shortening the work week to modern productivity standards is the fastest way to fix that inefficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)