sundries

[rm]

Last night we had a lovely dinner with friends of Patty's. Unfortunately, Patty now also has a terrible cold. Between that and being assailed by a mosquito last night, we're not as rested as we could be.

It also looks like much if not all of my upcoming corporate time in Europe may be resolved today, which is also good in terms of making plans and knowing what's going on.

Last night when I got out of the subway, Union Square was filled with sukkaths made by artists and there was a random band unrelated to that playing old time music. It was New York at its finest.

I know I'm supposed to be reading the Cyteen sequel right now, but Exciting Academic Film Text just arrived, so that's my subway reading first.

cleolinda is having a discussion about grief, mourning and character death at her journal. It is a bucket of spoilers.

Stories of the bacha posh, girls presented as boys in Afghanistan to increase a family's status and luck. Everyone knows they are girls presented as boys, but this is still better than having no boys at all. At puberty, their status reverts back to their female sex, and the change in social freedoms and expectations can be jarring.

yesthatjill is compiling a list of gluten-free products.

Offensive, but also mostly smart and very funny: stereotype-based maps of Europe from the perspective of different nations (and gay men). It mostly stays this side of taste (because it makes fun of everyone both the observer and the viewed) in each map. On the other hand, there were a few where I raised an eyebrow and said "you went there? Really?" Anyway, it is interesting.

Hey, watch out for the porny Twitter bug.

The return of the nutcracker. In this case, a drink in Harlem that's part of the underground economy. Article is both interesting and full of the New York Times being appalling in that way only the New York Times can be (sellers include "young and older women" -- er? how about "women"?)

The senate is having a vote on whether to discuss a bill that contains DADT repeal language. The outcome is unclear. The whole thing is depressing.

In reading this batch of letters in the New York Times I got thinking about how people get really freaked out by this idea of apologizing as a society or group for wrongs done. "I didn't own slaves, so why should I have to when I didn't do anything wrong?" or "I'm a guy, but I don't hate women, why should I have to deal with women mistrusting me?" Now, there's a lot of things at play in there, but aside from the obvious, one of them is about the nuance of words.

Collective apology is not the same thing as collective guilt is not the same thing as collective mandated self-hatred is not the same as individual expressing regret/remorse/apology for wrongs done by the society in which they live regardless of their level of personal complicity in them. And yet many of us, especially those of us in privileged positions tend to engage in the discussion in a way where we're obviously not seeing these distinctions. We talk a lot in these discussions about sitting down, shutting up and listening to what other people have to say; that's good stuff. Sitting down, shutting up and thinking about the nuances of words, however, can also be a big help.

Btw, when I post stuff like this it's because I've been thinking about my own impulses towards defensiveness and seeing the ways in which they don't make sense or aren't fair to other people or actively harm me as well.

Hey, can I ask you all to try to keep sizeism down in comments? It's an ongoing problem. Exercise won't make everyone thin; some skinny people just come that way; fat people aren't stupid; and a real woman isn't determined by her BMI or her genitalia. HAES, the evils of HFCS, dieting if that's your choice, eating better, our nation's increasingly sedentary lifestyle, beauty standards, etc. are, however, all welcome topics. But try to pause before you type it.

Comments

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

And re: the Senate and DADT: I think Reid's rather stupid decision to allow the immigration waiver is gonna kill it. I'm hoping he may be holding that in reserve as a bargaining chip, but I think his position of allowing any not-defense-related amendments at all was a bad one. Dang, I hate riders to bills. When I'm in charge I'd like to pass something saying that riders must at least be on the same darn topic as the bill in question, and/or allow the Prez to have a limited line-item veto that only applies to riders.

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

But the Dream Act is actually defense related, as those who are undocumented immigrants but were children when they got here (ie, not making the decision themselves) can apply to become citizens upon completing two years of college OR two years of military service, if this act passes. So it is related.

That said, I'm not sure they should have been combined, either. It's been an eye-opener to see supporters of DADT's repeal descend into racist anti-immigration rants, and supporters of the Dream Act get all homophobic as they each rant about having been inappropriately combined, in the same thread (not here, obviously; elsewhere)...

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

The Dream Act is only tangentially related to defense budgets, and with immigration even more screamingly insane on the Right these days than Teh Gay, it had even less chance of passing, IMO. Citizenship needs a serious overhaul anyway, not a feeble rider that only applies to a few cases. This is Harry Reid grandstanding to his pro-citizenship voter base as he clings to his job. (Don't get me wrong: I support the act, and Reid getting elected - just feel that it's sabotaging DADT and the budget in this instance.)

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

Not arguing very strenuously here; I just had a bit of a reflex given how many people keep painting the Dream Act as some kind of amnesty bill (which you did not do).

And boy do I hear you about wishing that riders didn't exist, that bills stayed on their one topic and didn't get weighed down with so much extra that congresscritters literally can't -- however much some of the might want to -- read and go thru the bills carefully before having to vote on them.