Delaware legalizes gay marriage
Minnesota governor signs same-sex marriage bill
[Rhode Island governor] Chafee signs gay marriage into law
French gay marriage law gets constitutional all-clear
In all three US states, gay marriage was passed thought the legislature. What I find amazing is how little news this has made. Marriage equality is well on the way to being no big deal.
I am trying to remember the first time I understood, really understood, that sex was nothing but touch, that I wanted the sex I had to be about finding ways to touch people that would leave them feeling fully and deeply and irrevocably known inside and out, recognized, validated, appreciated as a human body, a being in a body, a person with a physical presence, with a stake in material existence that could not be denied; which meant that having sex was also about learning what I needed to feel touched in that way, about finding a vocabulary for it, a grammar and a syntax, a semantics, a language, in other words, that bespoke who I was and what I wanted/needed and why I wanted/needed it in a way that did not alienate me from myself and/or my partner(s); because once I understood this, even though I cannot remember when I understood this, I understood that sex was an ongoing exploration, a way of knowing–both a path and a methodology–something that did not have a discrete beginning and ending, that inhered in every aspect of my life, not because everything is about sex per se, but because sex is, ultimately, about everything. We bring all of who we are, everything we have lived, good and bad, to the bodies of the people we make love with, as they bring all of who they are to us; and I use the phrase “make love with” here because even though the moment when I understood that sex was all about touch was also the moment that I fully understood that sex was not love, that love was not sex, I do believe that when people have sex openly and honestly, with respect and care and attention, in whatever combination, in whatever roles, with whatever ancillary equipment, they are, quite literally, making love, creating in this world a space in which one person accepts and honors and celebrates the entirely independent, physically embodied existence of another person; and it does not matter if they are in love with each other or not; it does not matter if they know each other’s names or not; or if they will see each other again. What matters is that when they touch each other, they understand that they are touching a living, breathing, feeling, fully human being, and that even if they don’t know a damned thing about that person except that he or she is compelling enough to want to have sex with, what matters is that when they touch, they each know that they are also touching the entirety of that person’s life and that they are giving the entirety of their own lives over to that person to be touched. I am trying to remember the first time I understood this, but I can’t.
In North Carolina, a senate committee has unanimously passed a law which would prevent Tesla, a manufacturer of high-end electric autos, from selling to any North Carolina resident. The bill still has to pass the full Senate and the House, but given that not one Senator on the committee voted against this protectionist nonsense, I’m not optimistic that this bill will be stopped.
The proposal cuts at the heart of Tesla’s business model: selling luxury cars over the phone or Internet and then delivering them to the front door of high-net-worth customers.[...]
It’s not Tesla per se, that worries the dealers. It’s the precedent. The prospect threatens the livelihood of North Carolina’s 7,000 licensed dealers, who invest millions in building big lots and showrooms to efficiently move product, say supporters of the bill.
But if they were really that efficient, then they wouldn’t have to be afraid of a new business model coming along.
Will Aremus at Slate points out that the sponsor of this law, GOP Senator Tom Apodaca, has taken $8000 (the legal maximum) from the car dealers association, and I suspect has taken thousands more from individual dealers and their friends and relatives.
Robert Glaser, president of the dealers association, told the News & Observer that the law prohibiting Tesla sales isn’t just about his industry’s self-interest. Pointing to the Tesla representatives at a recent hearing, he said, “You tell me they’re gonna support the little leagues and the YMCA?”
If that’s the real issue, then I may have some good news for all concerned: I asked O’Connell, and he assured me Tesla would be happy to support the little leagues and the YMCA, if that’s what North Carolina requires in order to do business there. Problem solved! Right, Mr. Glaser?
If this law passes, North Carolina will be the first state to actually forbid its citizens from buying a Tesla, but not the first to pass an anti-Tesla law. In GOP-controlled Texas, employees of Tesla showrooms are legally forbidden from selling a car, offering a test drive, or even telling interested consumers how much one costs.
Is all this just because the GOP hates electric cars, not to mention fancy new colors that crayons didn’t come in when I was a kid, dagnammit? No, not entirely. Although it’s more hypocritical when the GOP does it (because they pretend to care so much about the free market), both parties engage in this anti-competitive nonsense, especially at a local level.
Some points about this:
1) It’s not just about high-end cars for rich people. New business models sometimes start by targeting wealthy consumers, for obvious reasons, but if they’re successful they can eventually become something benefiting small businesses and ordinary consumers. But not if existing businesses can bribe the legislature to outlaw competition and innovation.
2) Localism is nonsense. Local governments are, if anything, more liable to being bribed and captured by business interests than the national government is. (Ever wonder why it costs $40-$60 to hire a taxi or shuttle to get you home from the airport? Thank your local government.)
3) GOP legislators, although they talk a good game, aren’t actually that interested in protecting the free market or competition. (Neither are Democratic party legislators, to be fair.)
4) When I think of all the car dealerships in Portland – hundreds of them – and how many people they employ, I do understand the fear of a business model that cuts dealerships out. It is always easier to imagine what we now have, which could be lost, then to imagine what new thing will replace them. But this really does seem like an area where its best to let the marketplace sort itself out. I’m sure that it was painful for typewriter manufacturers and repair technicians when computers came along, but passing laws against innovation is not the solution.
5) I expect that a conservative may be tempted to respond “Democrats won’t let us buy whatever car we want either, just look at all the green regulations Democrats favor, naaah nah.” But it’s not the same. There is a legitimate theory of governance under which the market is limited by a democratically elected government in order to address concerns like protecting the environment, which happens to be the theory that most Democrats openly advocate, and tell voters they favor.
In contrast, there is no legitimate theory of government in which the government should outlaw innovative business models because local car dealerships have paid off legislators – nor is that a system that legislators ever openly advocate. It is only by lying to voters about how they intend to govern, that legislators can act this way.
(And again, this isn’t a GOP-only problem. Legislators of both parties supported this anti-market bill in North Carolina, and similar bills elsewhere.)
6) As the Slate article notes, this is far from the most ridiculous stance the North Carolina legislature has taken. Last year, they banned the use of science to predict how fast coastlines will rise. Unsurprisingly, the sponsor of this legislation – which I think it’s reasonable to describe as not only anti-science and anti-good-government, but at a very basic level anti-thought itself – is a climate change denier.
To celebrate Merida of the Pixar film Brave “officially” joining the Disney Princess line, Disney released some new illustrations of her. In the new illustrations, Merida is even thinner than her already-thin movie version (as Alyssa put it, “what appears to be rib-removal surgery”); her dress has been redesigned into an off-the-shoulder number; she has much thicker eyelashes (and in general, her face seems much more stereotypically feminine); her hair has been changed from out-of-control curls to waves; and her attitude is much, well, flirtier.
I’m not sure that Disney’s Merida makeover represents a conscious strategy on their part. At the, er, official coronation ceremony at Disneyworld, Merida’s appearance seemed modeled on the movie version, not on the new illustrations. (See this photo, for instance – note the covered shoulders, and curly wig.) Nor did Disney seem to shy away from Merida’s tomboy aspects – she made her entrance on horseback, and finished the ceremony by posing with her bow and arrow.
But because it (probably) wasn’t conscious doesn’t mean that it’s not bad. It suggests that Disney subconsciously and reflexively turns their female characters into the same dull and predictable flirty, glittery pin-ups without any thought even being required. (Ever notice how impossible it is to find any Mulan merchandise showing her dressed up for war?)
Put another way, for the folks in Disney marketing, the path of least resistance appears to be a very sexist path.
Except that this time, they’ve encountered a lot of resistance. A petition started by girl-power website A Mighty Girl has gathered 130,000 signers (and counting). The petition says:
The redesign of Merida in advance of her official induction to the Disney Princess collection does a tremendous disservice to the millions of children for whom Merida is an empowering role model who speaks to girls’ capacity to be change agents in the world rather than just trophies to be admired. Moreover, by making her skinnier, sexier and more mature in appearance, you are sending a message to girls that the original, realistic, teenage-appearing version of Merida is inferior; that for girls and women to have value — to be recognized as true princesses — they must conform to a narrow definition of beauty.
Disney seems to be taking note: As InsideTheMagic notes, the new Merida design has disappeared from the Disney Princess website, replaced by images of Merida as she appeared in the movie.
One really unusual thing about this is that Merida’s creator, “Brave” writer and co-director Brenda Chapman has gone public with her unhappiness about the makeover, calling it “a blatantly sexist marketing move based on money.”
I think it’s atrocious what they have done to Merida. When little girls say they like it because it’s more sparkly, that’s all fine and good but, subconsciously, they are soaking in the sexy ‘come hither’ look and the skinny aspect of the new version. It’s horrible! Merida was created to break that mold — to give young girls a better, stronger role model, a more attainable role model, something of substance, not just a pretty face that waits around for romance.
They have been handed an opportunity on a silver platter to give their consumers something of more substance and quality — THAT WILL STILL SELL — and they have a total disregard for it in the name of their narrow minded view of what will make money. I forget that Disney’s goal is to make money without concern for integrity. Silly me.
* * *
Alyssa writes:
To a certain extent, Disney’s attempts to democratize what it means to be a princess are admirable. You don’t actually have to be born into a royal title, or obtain one by marriage. [...] You don’t have to be white, or European, or in the case of Ariel, the star of The Little Mermaid, necessarily based on land.
But two restrictions remain. You have to be young. You have to have a very particular body type and long, perfect hair. The edits to Merida reflect those priorities.[...]
If it’s important that girls of color and girls of different economic classes be able to recognize themselves and find aspirational stories in the Disney Princess line, why shouldn’t it also matter that girls with wild hair and variable body types see themselves there too?
Although I agree with Alyssa, it’s important to note that Merida’s body type, as seen in the movie, represents only the smallest of small departures from the Disney standard. Don’t get me wrong – I love the movie Brave, and I love the work Pixar did to present Merida as someone who delights in the things her body can do, rather than the way she looks.
But the range between Merida’s body and face type, and that of the typical Disney princess, is pretty darn small. The top of my wish list for Disney princesses – even higher than my wish for a Jewish princess, already! – is that Disney, or Pixar, add a fat character to the princess line.
More reading:
Seriously, Disney, I’m Trying to Take a Little Break Here– MUST YOU? Peggy Orenstein points out that Merida’s makeover is actually part of what seems to be an ongoing project to make all the Disney princess characters more vapid than their movie versions.
Disney’s makeover of its Brave princess is cowardly | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett | Comment is free
I find the politics of this poem fascinating. For Attar to show this much respect for a religious tradition he describes in such barbaric terms, suggests a willingness to grant a certain level of validity to other beliefs that I would not have expected. At the same time, though, the fact that he calls the tradition described in this poem Christian suggests that he had all kinds of hateful misconceptions about Christianity.
Do The Latter
When Abolqasem Hamadani
left Hamadan on a sudden journey,
he came upon a crowd of people
gathered outside an idol’s temple.
On a fire, an oil-filled cauldron
bubbled like a windswept ocean.
Some minutes passed and then a Christian
entered and bowed before the idol.
When he stood, they asked him this: “Humble
servant, what are you to God?”
“A slave,” he answered. They responded,
“Then quickly make your offering.”
He did and left, like smoke rising.
Another person did the same,
then another, and ten more came,
and each was similarly dismissed.
At last, a man who could’ve passed
for dead, shriveled and weak, pale,
emaciated, lean, feeble—
he was a walking shadow. They asked,
“And what are you? A man, a corpse,
or both?” He said, “I am a piece
of skin. I love my God.” At this
they told him, “Sit down.” He did, at ease
on the golden throne they showed him. Then,
they carried over the boiling cauldron
and poured the oil onto his head.
The man’s skin melted from the heat;
his skull landed at his feet.
When it had been removed, they set
the rest of him ablaze. “These ashes,”
they said, “cure every pain there is.”The shaikh observed this from a distance,
and when they finished ran at once
to ponder what he’d seen. “You fool,”
he said to himself, “that Christian, full
with false love, gave his life to it.
If you’re truly an initiate,
for love of your God do the same.
Otherwise, go make your home
with catamites. If you are sure
of your love for God, then choose: abjure
your life or forsake your faith. The former
you have not done; so do the latter.”
Cross-posted on my blog.
Multnomah Education Service District
Patrick Lasswell versus Nels Johnson. I voted for Johnson.
I read both of the candidates’ official statements (pdf file), and wasn’t all that impressed with what either one wrote. But Lasswell seems to be a sky-is-falling type, and although I admire his outspoken opinion on how swell his mother is, I wasn’t convinced that the sky is, in fact, falling. So I voted for Johnson, who seems a nice and mainstream fellow.
Portland School District #1JT
Director, Zone 4.
Martin Gonzalez versus Steve Buel. I voted for Buel.
Candidate statements are here (pdf link). Both candidates seemed decent. Gonzalez is the more mainstream, experienced candidate, but I think Buel’s activist stand against testing-driven education is badly needed.
Director, Zone 6.
Tom Koehler versus David Morrison. I voted for Koehler.
Candidate statements are here (pdf link). Morrison is basically a one-issue candidate, and his one issue is the malicious wi-fi waves that are attacking our children. I am not persuaded that this is should be the primary issue of the school board. Koehler seems like a nice, mainstream candidate, and is unafraid of the wi-fi.
City of Portland, Ballot Measure 26-150, Renewing the five-year levy to prevent child abuse, child hunger.
This will do a little good and raise my property taxes a tad. I voted yes.
City of Portland, Ballot Measure 26-152, Local option to improve natural areas, and water quality so fishies can thrive.
This will do a little good and raise my property taxes a tad. I voted yes.
City of Portland, Ballot Measure 26-151. Add fluoride to Portland’s tap water. I voted yes.
This was the hardest issue for me to decide my vote on. Both sides are extremely passionate and one-sided, and I had a hard time feeling I could trust what either side says. The City Club of Portland’s report on the issue was invaluable.
I almost voted “no” on this one because I’d rather let controversial issues be decided by individuals, not the city government. It was almost a coin flip.
But in the end, the primary people this issue effects – children – have no say either way. And I suspect the number of children who would significantly benefit from fluoridated water, but have parents who just don’t care about this issue either way, vastly outnumber the number of children whose parents are strongly anti-fluoridation.
Furthermore, although I found neither side completely trustworthy, on the whole the science I kept hearing from the anti-fluoridation folks held up less well on examination, which gave me a bias against them.
In another thread, JutGory writes:
What often gets left out of this discussion are the minimum wage workers who don’t need to pay for rent: unskilled teenagers with no work history. As some have suggested, there are people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage and I would contend that teenagers looking for an after-school job and some extra spending money make up a large percentage of that group.
The food and rent argument does not work for that group.
But, hiking the minimum wage may price them out of the labor market, as the unemployment rate for teenagers was reported to be close to 25% last summer (and was probably even higher for minorities).
First, let’s remember that teenagers are only about 16% of the workers who’d be directly effected by Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase. Natalie Sabadish and Doug Hall used Current Population Survey numbers to look at the demographics of workers earning between the current minimum wage and Obama’s proposed $9 an hour minimum.
It is a common misconception that the minimum wage workforce is comprised mostly of teenagers working part-time to make a little extra spending money. This is decidedly not the case; rather, the vast majority – 84.1 percent – of those benefitting from the proposed increase to $9.00 are at least 20 years old. This means that less than 16 percent of the workers impacted by the President’s proposal are teenagers. Additionally, about half (47.3 percent) of the 18 million affected workers are full-time employees, working at least 35 hours per week. Another 35.8 percent work between 20 and 34 hours per week, and only 16.9 percent work less than 20 hours a week. It is clear that the bulk of minimum wage workers are mid- or full-time adult employees, not teenagers or part-timers. [...]
Nearly three-fifths (57.4 percent) of those affected by the President’s proposal would be women. The proposed minimum wage hike would also help workers across all races and ethnicities. Just over half (53.1 percent) of those impacted are white, non-Hispanic workers. A quarter (25.2 percent) are Hispanic, 14.8 percent are non-Hispanic African Americans, and 6.9 percent are Asian or another race.
A minimum wage increase to $9.00 would benefit mostly low- to middle-income families.
More importantly, the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that the minimum wage doesn’t increase teen unemployment.
Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley (2009) conducted a meta-study of 64 minimum-wage studies published between 1972 and 2007 measuring the impact of minimum wages on teenage employment in the United States. When they graphed every employment estimate contained in these studies (over 1,000 in total), weighting each estimate by its statistical precision, they found that the most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects.
As you can see, the overwhelming majority of results cluster around zero – that is, there is no measurable effect of the minimum wage on teenage unemployment rates. Those few that did find a noteworthy effect, are also the ones with the least statistical reliability.
So no, the minimum wage doesn’t increase unemployment among teens (or adults). And in any case, the large majority of workers who would be directly helped by a minimum wage increase are adults.
This is a story that has been told in several different versions. Here is my first pass at Attar’s take on it in Elahi Nameh. Izrail is the name of the Angel of Death:
I’ve heard that one day Izrail,
consumer of souls, entered the hall
where Solomon reigned. Seated there
was a young man. God’s soul collector
glanced quickly at the young man’s face,
turned around and left the palace.
Terrified, the young man ran
to Solomon for help. “You can,
I know, command the clouds. Choose one
to carry me away from here.
Death has sickened me with fear.”
Solomon did as the man asked.
A cloud carried him from Fars
to India. Three days passed
before Izrail came again.
“Swordless shedder of blood,” Solomon
addressed him, “why such a keen glance
when you saw that young man?” “I’d planned,”
the angel answered, “at God’s command,
to seize his soul in India
three days from when you saw me last;
but when I saw him in this room,
I did not understand how three days’ time
would be enough for him to get there.
When the cloud bore him off, I followed,
and took his soul to meet with God.”
Cross-posted on my blog.
If you’ve met me at a comic book convention, you may have noticed the little herd of toy pigs decorating my table. I bought those when I was drawing the first Hereville book, to help me draw the pig character! I took hundreds of photos of those plastic pigs, from every angle and height, and used them as reference while drawing the comic.
You can see a pattern on the pig in the photo above. This was contributed by one of the two small girls I live with, at some point when I wasn’t in the room to stop them. :-p
I didn’t use the models during book 2, since the pig only appeared in one panel. But I still have the little herd of pigs, and when they’re not appearing at cons they stand in my drawing area, near a Peppermint Patty figure.
