I posted last week in response to some fauxpert on AOL news calling post-partum depression a "crock" and then further claiming in response to criticism that all depression is just "people who don't want to cope with life". As a survivor of depression for more than half my life, and specifically a survivor who resisted antidepressant medication for far longer than was safe for me precisely *because* of attitudes like that, I was furious and jumped on her statements about depression as a whole. But in my anti-ableist fervor and my anger over the generalized stigma against viewing mental illnesses as real illnesses, I missed a seriously huge (and very feministly-relevant) aspect that I'd like to go back and revisit now.
Because while I focused on the "depression as a whole is bullshit" part of her statement, that was actually only in her response to the controversy, when she "clarified" her position. The original dustup was over her statements regarding post-partum depression specifically, and so in the grand scheme of responses to her, I am an odd childfree voice arguing about depression amidst a sea of mothers arguing about post-partum depression. I am kind of feeling like I missed the forest for the trees, or the trees for the forest perhaps, and I just wanted to clarify, because I feel like I focused on my own experience and the ableism against that, to the exclusion of a discussion of the misogyny in Pat Brown's position. .
See, the thing is, when a person talks shit about survivors of depression, that's a feminist issue because of intersectionality, and because women suffer depression at higher rates than men, and because of the way women are portrayed as overemotional, blah blah blah...but it's also talking shit about male survivors of depression, so it's more than just a women's issue. Post-partum depression, on the other hand, is a women's issue in a way general clinical depression is not, because PPD is a thing which happens to childbearing persons. While not all women are childbearing persons, all childbearing persons (with the exception of a scant few rare transmen who chose to exercise their gestational capability post-transition) are women. Thus, talking shit about PPD survivors is talking shit about an experience which happens specifically to women.
And in that context, the stigma against survivors of PPD is just another facet of Women Can't Win. Be thin, because fat is ugly and you don't want to be ugly, after all, your primary value is your beauty...but eww, too skinny, you're all skin and bones, go eat a cheeseburger! If you're a virgin (past a certain age), you're a pathetic prude, but have sex in any context other than your first time on your wedding night with the only husband you will ever have and you're a slut, a whore, dirty, used... If you work, you'd better be totally devoted to your career because you'll have to be twice as good to get half as far as the men in your field, but if you're devoted to your career at the expense of dating or having children, you're a selfish bitch and probably also a lesbian (and remember, lesbians are Bad). If you don't have or don't want children, you're sick and selfish and not a real woman, but if you have children, you are unequivocally NOT ALLOWED at any point to be anything other than happy and grateful for EVERY SINGLE MOMENT of your child-raising life, and if you fail that in ANY WAY AT ALL, including pregnancy-related mental illness like PPD, you are RUINING YOUR CHILDREN and you are a BAD MOTHER.
Stigma against depression is ableist and privileges a neurotypical experience of mood and happiness. But stigma against post-partum depression is both ableist and uniquely misogynist. It is deeply sexist to dismiss the experiences and suffering of thousands of women by telling them that their specific form of a debilitating mental illness is bullshit and doesn't exist. It's a diagnosis of "hysteria" for the modern age, and it is. not. okay.
8.19.2010
Sarah Palin Has Left The Building (In Which Reality Resides)
I normally don't read @SarahPalinUSA's tweetstream. First of all, why the hell is it @SarahPalinUSA, not just @SarahPalin? There can't be that many Sarah Palins in the world that she needs to differentiate herself from, and it strikes me as childish conservative posturing - "Real Amurricans" and all that. All she needs now is an American flag and a bald eagle in the back window of her pickup truck... And second, reading it gives me a headache, and I have yet to figure out if it's the bizarre use of txtspeak (yes, I realize 140 characters is short, but Roger Ebert and I manage to be grammatical within that constraint; why can't you, Sarah?), the breathtakingly unabashed conserva-bizarro-world "logic", or simply the repeated thudding of my head on the desk that's the cause. But today, someone RT'd a genius satire account into my timeline, @SP_Translator. SP_Translator's twitterstream consists of RT's of a Palin tweet, followed by a "translation". For example, this morning:
...So you've been following the Dr. Laura thing, right? She went off at a black woman on her radio show, who had called in asking for advice in dealing with her white husband and his white family and friends who were sometimes racist around her, including using the n-word (which I will not type out in full for any reason, period the end. You know which word I'm talking about). Dr. Laura yelled at her about hearing black people use the word themselves and by god if you people can use it, so can us white people! Basically. But it included Dr. Laura actually saying the n-word something like eleven times at the woman, to prove her point. Many many people were very very angry about this, complained, Tweeted, blogged, called her advertisers, and she announced today that she's ending her show. Good fucking riddance to her homophobic, transphobic, fauxminist, gender-essentialist bullshit.
Of course, what controversy with a conservative woman at its center would be complete without the Palinator weighing in? Sure enough, on Twitter this afternoon, she said...
Anyway, eleventy-billionth verse, same as the first, a whole lot louder and a whole lot more fucking annoying because ye gods, do you people not get it yet? What have you got in place of your brain pieces, spent brass and a copy of Atlas Shrugged? Sing it with me, progressives: The 1st Amendment guarantees that the government will not censor you for reasons of content suppression. It has NOT ONE FUCKING THING to do with what OTHER PEOPLE think of you and how they express that opinion. We are well within our rights to criticize an out-and-proud bigot for her bigotry. If she weren't saying something that is completely unac-fucking-ceptable according to polite society (and her advertisers) there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do to her. It's not us that's the problem, it's her racism that's gotten her in trouble.
The other thing that gets me about that pair of tweets is the whole "unshackled=more powerful!" crap. It strikes me as trying to turn a frown upside down, only it's totally bizarre (I use that word a lot when I'm talking about Palin, don't I? Heh.) because, um, without her radio, sure, she's not "shackled" by the need to be marginally polite and not (too much of) a raging bigot...but she also has no platform. Which was kinda where that power came from, yes? How is a woman willing to yell the n-word at a black woman to make a point going to be "powerful and effective", cut off from the major platform for her message?
Well, she might try getting a job at the AFA. If they're willing to give Bryan Fischer a platform, Dr. Laura should fit right in.
PS: What's a "Constitutional Obstructionist" anyway? The only way I can make that work out, semantically, is that she means people who obstruct her agenda by following/using the Constitution. Which is hilariously, and probably unintentionally, accurate. I think I'm taking that for my new title. "[MyLegalName], retail wage slave by day, blogger and Constitutional Obstructionist by night!" ^_^
SarahPalinUSA: Now headed to ANWR; 20,000,000 remote acres of US oil & gas;we'll show you what it really looks like,unlike extreme enviro's fundraiser pics
SP_Translator: I'm heading to the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. I might kill something. And, if I'm really lucky, I'll kill everything! @SarahPalinUSAIt made me laugh, so I followed. The "translations" dilute the stupid enough that it's not a toxic dose, so even seeing the original Palin tweets only makes me roll my eyes, because I know something funny will shortly follow. With a couple of exceptions, of course...
...So you've been following the Dr. Laura thing, right? She went off at a black woman on her radio show, who had called in asking for advice in dealing with her white husband and his white family and friends who were sometimes racist around her, including using the n-word (which I will not type out in full for any reason, period the end. You know which word I'm talking about). Dr. Laura yelled at her about hearing black people use the word themselves and by god if you people can use it, so can us white people! Basically. But it included Dr. Laura actually saying the n-word something like eleven times at the woman, to prove her point. Many many people were very very angry about this, complained, Tweeted, blogged, called her advertisers, and she announced today that she's ending her show. Good fucking riddance to her homophobic, transphobic, fauxminist, gender-essentialist bullshit.
Of course, what controversy with a conservative woman at its center would be complete without the Palinator weighing in? Sure enough, on Twitter this afternoon, she said...
Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!
Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")Head, meet desk. Again. Not least because of the odd use of quotes in the second tweet. See what I mean about her fucking bizarre txtspeak? Worse than a 12-yr-old on sugar, that woman is, with a phone's keyboard in her hands.
Anyway, eleventy-billionth verse, same as the first, a whole lot louder and a whole lot more fucking annoying because ye gods, do you people not get it yet? What have you got in place of your brain pieces, spent brass and a copy of Atlas Shrugged? Sing it with me, progressives: The 1st Amendment guarantees that the government will not censor you for reasons of content suppression. It has NOT ONE FUCKING THING to do with what OTHER PEOPLE think of you and how they express that opinion. We are well within our rights to criticize an out-and-proud bigot for her bigotry. If she weren't saying something that is completely unac-fucking-ceptable according to polite society (and her advertisers) there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do to her. It's not us that's the problem, it's her racism that's gotten her in trouble.
The other thing that gets me about that pair of tweets is the whole "unshackled=more powerful!" crap. It strikes me as trying to turn a frown upside down, only it's totally bizarre (I use that word a lot when I'm talking about Palin, don't I? Heh.) because, um, without her radio, sure, she's not "shackled" by the need to be marginally polite and not (too much of) a raging bigot...but she also has no platform. Which was kinda where that power came from, yes? How is a woman willing to yell the n-word at a black woman to make a point going to be "powerful and effective", cut off from the major platform for her message?
Well, she might try getting a job at the AFA. If they're willing to give Bryan Fischer a platform, Dr. Laura should fit right in.
PS: What's a "Constitutional Obstructionist" anyway? The only way I can make that work out, semantically, is that she means people who obstruct her agenda by following/using the Constitution. Which is hilariously, and probably unintentionally, accurate. I think I'm taking that for my new title. "[MyLegalName], retail wage slave by day, blogger and Constitutional Obstructionist by night!" ^_^
8.18.2010
This Is Why I Resisted Medication (And Could Have Died From It)
[Trigger warning: descriptions of depression and suicidal ideation] [TMI warning: family who would rather not hear the raw details of my suicidal periods, turn back now]
First: holy shit, AOL still exists? I thought that ancient behemoth died off by the time I'd graduated from high school. Apparently not, given that the customers at work give me @aol.com email addresses fully half the time.
And AOL is even around as an internet news service these days, publishing ridiculously offensive content like this article (it's been scrubbed of the offensive bits already; here's a response to it that quotes the bad parts before they were taken out) about a woman who killed her children in South Carolina. The short version is, a woman who may or may not have been suffering from post-partum depression (PPD) killed her children, and the police are looking at PPD as a potential motive. The AOL article included quotes from a so-called "expert" - an expert in criminal profiling, mind you, not a doctor or anyone who would know two shits about how chemical imbalances in the brain *actually work* - basically saying that PPD is "a crock" and it's just an "excuse" for women who are whining about how they don't like their new babyified life.
Several mommybloggers got righteously outraged and called the "expert" on her shit, including an open letter posted here, which cited the author's own experience of PPD and describing the environmental, psychological, and physiological causes/triggers of PPD as best understood by current science. She ended her letter by saying:
You know what? Fuck you, you sanctimonious meat nugget. I desperately wanted to deal with my real life issues. I WANTED to be able to go to class, to keep my house clean, to have friends and a social life, keep up with my homework and get my degree. I WANTED those things with a desperate hunger. But I COULDN'T. I wanted to deal, I tried to deal, but my brain kept getting in my way, dousing my efforts in fear and hurting until I could do nothing more strenuous than curl up under the covers and cry and wish I were dead. You think that's fun? You think fantasizing about one's own death in meticulous detail is preferable to dealing with real life issues? What the fucking fuck.
I wrote my first suicide note when I was 11. I started self-injuring when I was 13. I received some (ineffective) counseling when I was 15, then some better therapy when I was 17. I didn't get onto medication, despite having very good insurance coverage that could have gotten it for me for free/low copay, until I was fucking TWENTY, nearly a DECADE after the first onset of depression. You know why? That stigma right there, that attitude the "expert" is showing. Because I bought that shit wholesale, in Costco-sized quantities. Medication was a sign of weakness. There was nothing wrong with me except that I wanted there to be something wrong with me. If I tried hard enough, I could just "snap out of it" and be ok. I just had to think positive, buy a day planner, do my homework, and everything would be ok. It was all in my head. I just wasn't trying hard enough. Antidepressants are just happy pills for people who can't cope with life. You don't want to be the kind of person who relies on happy pills instead of her own strength, do you? Be strong. Be tough. Suck it up and keep going. Smile, even if you don't feel like it. You thought yourself into this, you can think yourself back out.
Finally, finally, my therapist talked me into giving meds a try. It took a therapist that I trusted and liked THREE FUCKING YEARS to talk me into trying meds for my depression, that's how strong the stigma against depression-as-illness had me in its grip. I contacted a psychiatrist through the campus health center and began Lexapro. It lessened the suicidal thoughts and made them easier to cope with, except it completely blocked my ability to orgasm, and after three weeks of that I stormed into my appointment and said "Find. Me. Something. Else. NOW." Me - orgasms = REALLY REALLY UNHAPPY. So we tried Wellbutrin instead. And something happened.
Three or four weeks into taking it, I was walking home from class (a hell of a thing in and of itself; I was going to class more or less regularly!) and I realized I was smiling up at the sun for no particular reason, and I hadn't thought longingly about suicide once all day! I was afraid to trust this sudden thing called happiness. What if it was just a fluke? What if it disappeared again? I enrolled in a cognitive-behavioral therapy group - me, who was terrified of being around people! - and made friends. One of my favorite memories of college was planning a day out together with three other women in the group, where we went to breakfast in town, then to the campus art department's Open Studios day together. I was having a social life! With other people! It was amazing to me.
So I have a question for this unmitigated fuckwit: if you "don't buy" that depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain - ie, you don't believe that it's a real mental illness (and why the fuck is it any of your business to buy or not buy the categorization of depression as a mental illness anyway?) - how do you explain my experience, and the hundreds of others who could tell you similar stories? If we don't have an illness, what good could medication possibly do? And yet medication has clearly helped many, many people. So how do you explain that?
I wonder if she, and those who hold similar views, realize the very real damage they do by perpetuating that stigma? It is purely by the grace of a few very, very good friends that I am still alive today. Friends who talked me down from the ledge over and over again, once or twice a month, like clockwork, when the desire for death became too much to stave off again. Friends who, at times, literally physically restrained me from attempting suicide. Friends who helped keep these episodes a secret from the rest of the world, because I didn't want anyone else to know how broken I was. I could have died, several times over, because I refused to accept medical treatment for my illness. Because of the stigma. Because of that "I don't buy it" attitude.
To Pat Brown, and those who believe as this fauxpert does, who would dismiss all depression as people who "just don't want to deal with life":
YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO A SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE THAT QUITE LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE. PLEASE FUCKING STOP.
No love,
A depressive in remission
First: holy shit, AOL still exists? I thought that ancient behemoth died off by the time I'd graduated from high school. Apparently not, given that the customers at work give me @aol.com email addresses fully half the time.
And AOL is even around as an internet news service these days, publishing ridiculously offensive content like this article (it's been scrubbed of the offensive bits already; here's a response to it that quotes the bad parts before they were taken out) about a woman who killed her children in South Carolina. The short version is, a woman who may or may not have been suffering from post-partum depression (PPD) killed her children, and the police are looking at PPD as a potential motive. The AOL article included quotes from a so-called "expert" - an expert in criminal profiling, mind you, not a doctor or anyone who would know two shits about how chemical imbalances in the brain *actually work* - basically saying that PPD is "a crock" and it's just an "excuse" for women who are whining about how they don't like their new babyified life.
Several mommybloggers got righteously outraged and called the "expert" on her shit, including an open letter posted here, which cited the author's own experience of PPD and describing the environmental, psychological, and physiological causes/triggers of PPD as best understood by current science. She ended her letter by saying:
The women suffering from PPD/PAMD [Perinatal Anxiety and Mood Disorder], and those of us who have survived it, do not need any more blame and judgment. Believe me when I tell you that we blame and judge ourselves quite enough. We need compassion, help, and access to treatment. We do not need to be told that our disorder is "a crock."And lo and behold, a response appeared in the heavens...
Wow. Not content with dismissing PPD/PAMD survivors, she's upped the ante to include ALL depression. Let that sink in again...I am not ignorant of your argument for PPD and I am not saying in some rare case such a thing could exist based on chemical issues. Generally speaking, I don't buy the chemical imbalance theory for any depression; I believe people just don't want to deal with real life issues and the fact that sometimes life is simply depressing and damn difficult. It isn't about chemical imbalance but tough times and our own issues.Pat Brown
Investigative Criminal Profiler
I don't buy the chemical imbalance theory for any depression; I believe people just don't want to deal with real life issues...I guess I spent most of my college years hiding in my apartment, barely able to get out of bed and face the world at least one or two days out of every week, battling on a daily basis the tantalizing thoughts of suicide that floated around in my mind, hating myself and picking apart my every tiniest flaw, terrified to go to class and be around people, sinking ever further into a desperate spiral of emotional/psychological agony not because I have a diagnosed mental illness, but because I just didn't want to deal with real life issues.
You know what? Fuck you, you sanctimonious meat nugget. I desperately wanted to deal with my real life issues. I WANTED to be able to go to class, to keep my house clean, to have friends and a social life, keep up with my homework and get my degree. I WANTED those things with a desperate hunger. But I COULDN'T. I wanted to deal, I tried to deal, but my brain kept getting in my way, dousing my efforts in fear and hurting until I could do nothing more strenuous than curl up under the covers and cry and wish I were dead. You think that's fun? You think fantasizing about one's own death in meticulous detail is preferable to dealing with real life issues? What the fucking fuck.
I wrote my first suicide note when I was 11. I started self-injuring when I was 13. I received some (ineffective) counseling when I was 15, then some better therapy when I was 17. I didn't get onto medication, despite having very good insurance coverage that could have gotten it for me for free/low copay, until I was fucking TWENTY, nearly a DECADE after the first onset of depression. You know why? That stigma right there, that attitude the "expert" is showing. Because I bought that shit wholesale, in Costco-sized quantities. Medication was a sign of weakness. There was nothing wrong with me except that I wanted there to be something wrong with me. If I tried hard enough, I could just "snap out of it" and be ok. I just had to think positive, buy a day planner, do my homework, and everything would be ok. It was all in my head. I just wasn't trying hard enough. Antidepressants are just happy pills for people who can't cope with life. You don't want to be the kind of person who relies on happy pills instead of her own strength, do you? Be strong. Be tough. Suck it up and keep going. Smile, even if you don't feel like it. You thought yourself into this, you can think yourself back out.
Finally, finally, my therapist talked me into giving meds a try. It took a therapist that I trusted and liked THREE FUCKING YEARS to talk me into trying meds for my depression, that's how strong the stigma against depression-as-illness had me in its grip. I contacted a psychiatrist through the campus health center and began Lexapro. It lessened the suicidal thoughts and made them easier to cope with, except it completely blocked my ability to orgasm, and after three weeks of that I stormed into my appointment and said "Find. Me. Something. Else. NOW." Me - orgasms = REALLY REALLY UNHAPPY. So we tried Wellbutrin instead. And something happened.
Three or four weeks into taking it, I was walking home from class (a hell of a thing in and of itself; I was going to class more or less regularly!) and I realized I was smiling up at the sun for no particular reason, and I hadn't thought longingly about suicide once all day! I was afraid to trust this sudden thing called happiness. What if it was just a fluke? What if it disappeared again? I enrolled in a cognitive-behavioral therapy group - me, who was terrified of being around people! - and made friends. One of my favorite memories of college was planning a day out together with three other women in the group, where we went to breakfast in town, then to the campus art department's Open Studios day together. I was having a social life! With other people! It was amazing to me.
So I have a question for this unmitigated fuckwit: if you "don't buy" that depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain - ie, you don't believe that it's a real mental illness (and why the fuck is it any of your business to buy or not buy the categorization of depression as a mental illness anyway?) - how do you explain my experience, and the hundreds of others who could tell you similar stories? If we don't have an illness, what good could medication possibly do? And yet medication has clearly helped many, many people. So how do you explain that?
I wonder if she, and those who hold similar views, realize the very real damage they do by perpetuating that stigma? It is purely by the grace of a few very, very good friends that I am still alive today. Friends who talked me down from the ledge over and over again, once or twice a month, like clockwork, when the desire for death became too much to stave off again. Friends who, at times, literally physically restrained me from attempting suicide. Friends who helped keep these episodes a secret from the rest of the world, because I didn't want anyone else to know how broken I was. I could have died, several times over, because I refused to accept medical treatment for my illness. Because of the stigma. Because of that "I don't buy it" attitude.
To Pat Brown, and those who believe as this fauxpert does, who would dismiss all depression as people who "just don't want to deal with life":
YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO A SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE THAT QUITE LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE. PLEASE FUCKING STOP.
No love,
A depressive in remission
8.13.2010
Committing To Vote, But Not For You!
I can't decide if I'm glad I'm still on Organizing for America's email list (OFA being the post-campaign continuation of Obama's campaign organization, now absorbed into and run by the DNC) because it gives me immediate access to all the condescension and emotionally-abusive patterns this administration so loves, or if I'd really rather this shit didn't show up in my inbox to annoy me anymore.
But I think, since it's giving me more to blog about, I'll be grateful for now. The latest missive is a get-out-the-base "Go vote in November!" type. Here you go:
*Yawn* More of the same. "Look at our historic [and toothless] reforms! Ooga booga REPUBLICANS IN POWER AGAIN!"
Okay, so you managed to make some adjustments to our health insurance system. But we never got the public option we were promised, and honestly? I'm still waiting for this to be of any use to me. Still uninsured, still waiting, still without my depression meds. Thanks a bunch, Obama administration. Yay historic reforms. Plus I'm super-pleased at how you threw me under the bus to get the DINOs in line on abortion. Love it. Can we please stop calling this health CARE reform, and start calling it what it is, health INSURANCE reform?
And with Press Secretary Gibbs' little rant the other day, about us drug-addled ingrates who are really pissing off the administration by not licking their ass in worship for the few crumbs they've seen fit to toss us, the Obama administration can go fuck itself. Hard.
But I do hereby promise to go vote this November. After all, I've got Carly Failorina trying to unseat Barbara Boxer, and I'm not going to stand idle and let that happen uncontested, and Meg Whitman the corporate shill up for governator. So rest assured, OFA, I will go vote.
I will not, however, pledge some kind of unthinking allegiance to the DNC's chosens. I will not commit to vote Democrat. I will commit to vote for those who support me, who do not start from the middle, compromise to the right, and call it historic reform, who do not sign proclamations further emphasizing the BadWrongImmoral nature of a medical procedure I have myself needed in the past, despite purporting to support the right and ability to access said procedure, who do not stubbornly insist on bipartisanly declaring their anti-marriage equality bigotry in the face of real progress. I will vote for actual progressives, no matter what the letter is before their name. And I flatly refuse to donate to or work with the DNC and their chosen corporate-friendly DINOs.
I'm committed to voting. But not the way the DNC wants. They want my vote back, it's time for them to damn well earn it.
But I think, since it's giving me more to blog about, I'll be grateful for now. The latest missive is a get-out-the-base "Go vote in November!" type. Here you go:
[personal anecdote here]
That's why one key part of our Vote 2010 plan this year is to get folks like you from across the country to commit to vote, to make sure we get as many people as we can to cast their ballots this fall.
But getting the commitments we need starts with your own promise to make it to the polls and cast your ballot.
Will you please commit to vote in the 2010 elections?
Over the next 82 days, volunteers across the country will spend countless hours calling voters and knocking on their doors, asking them the same question.
And you can bet that I am counting on you to join them in talking to voters in your community.
This election offers a stark choice. We Democrats are hard at work trying to move America forward, repairing a decade of damage and growing an economy based on the Main Street values of hard work and responsibility.
We've fought for and won historic reforms to our health care system, a victory 100 years in the making, and to Wall Street, the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression.
But after years of policies that landed us in the worst recession since the 1930's, the Republicans who got us there have not come up with anything different from the policies of George W. Bush.
We simply cannot afford to go backwards or let them repeal our reforms. And making sure we can continue moving forward starts with your own promise to cast your ballot in these elections.
Please commit to vote this fall:
http://my.barackobama.com/Commitment
*Yawn* More of the same. "Look at our historic [and toothless] reforms! Ooga booga REPUBLICANS IN POWER AGAIN!"
Okay, so you managed to make some adjustments to our health insurance system. But we never got the public option we were promised, and honestly? I'm still waiting for this to be of any use to me. Still uninsured, still waiting, still without my depression meds. Thanks a bunch, Obama administration. Yay historic reforms. Plus I'm super-pleased at how you threw me under the bus to get the DINOs in line on abortion. Love it. Can we please stop calling this health CARE reform, and start calling it what it is, health INSURANCE reform?
And with Press Secretary Gibbs' little rant the other day, about us drug-addled ingrates who are really pissing off the administration by not licking their ass in worship for the few crumbs they've seen fit to toss us, the Obama administration can go fuck itself. Hard.
But I do hereby promise to go vote this November. After all, I've got Carly Failorina trying to unseat Barbara Boxer, and I'm not going to stand idle and let that happen uncontested, and Meg Whitman the corporate shill up for governator. So rest assured, OFA, I will go vote.
I will not, however, pledge some kind of unthinking allegiance to the DNC's chosens. I will not commit to vote Democrat. I will commit to vote for those who support me, who do not start from the middle, compromise to the right, and call it historic reform, who do not sign proclamations further emphasizing the BadWrongImmoral nature of a medical procedure I have myself needed in the past, despite purporting to support the right and ability to access said procedure, who do not stubbornly insist on bipartisanly declaring their anti-marriage equality bigotry in the face of real progress. I will vote for actual progressives, no matter what the letter is before their name. And I flatly refuse to donate to or work with the DNC and their chosen corporate-friendly DINOs.
I'm committed to voting. But not the way the DNC wants. They want my vote back, it's time for them to damn well earn it.
8.09.2010
Dear OFA: I'm Not A Special Interest Group, Either
Last summer, I was (briefly) an Organizing for America (the post-election version of Obama's campaign organization, now an arm of the DNC) online-based intern, before The Great Lifesplosion. This has meant that, despite my growing disenchantment with the Obama administration, I'm still on the email list and get regular calls to action from the group. Today, an OFA email landed in my inbox, with the subject line:
Mind you, I do support this emergency jobs bill. Call me a socialist, w'ev. But I am really fucking annoyed by the OFA's approach on this. No, teachers are not a special interest. But neither am I, and until the Obama administration is ready to acknowledge that and get to work representing me as well as you, they can go suck a bag of dicks for all I care.
I am not a "special interest"I opened it, and it was an e-blast about the emergency jobs bill, purporting to be from a teacher named Wendy. Here's the relevant quote:
Democrats in Congress are trying to do the right thing, proposing emergency assistance for states to preserve more than 100,000 jobs like mine. They're racing back to the Capitol for an emergency session this week to pass this bill and save these jobs.You know what, Wendy? I'm not a special interest, either. I'm a woman, a person without medical insurance, and queer. The Obama administration has trampled right the hell over each of those facets of my identity, reasoning that we're "special interests" that they don't really have to listen to. Hell, in the case of the insurance "reform" fiasco, they *actively* pandered to the real special interests, the insurance companies, instead of supporting uninsured people and women! Why should I jump up and swing into action, calling my Congresspeople and spreading the word, to make sure you aren't treated like a "special interest", when the Obama administration all too clearly sees me and many others like me as "special interests" and is willing to treat us as such?
But Republicans are standing in the way. Minority Leader John Boehner is calling the bill a "payoff" to "special interests" and attacking every Democrat who is fighting for us.
But I'm not a special interest. I'm a teacher.
Mind you, I do support this emergency jobs bill. Call me a socialist, w'ev. But I am really fucking annoyed by the OFA's approach on this. No, teachers are not a special interest. But neither am I, and until the Obama administration is ready to acknowledge that and get to work representing me as well as you, they can go suck a bag of dicks for all I care.
8.06.2010
The Religious Reich: Without Lies, What Would They Be?
...Just a whole bunch of silence and trousers, that's what.* Via Right Wing Watch (what would I do without you?), comes a clip of some right-wing assholes talking about their strategy for getting SCOTUS to reinstate Prop H8. In essence, their belief is that if they just bring enough public opinion to bear on their side, the justices will capitulate to the tyranny will of the people. But really, the best bit is right at the beginning:
I mean, really. This is one of the stupider boldfaced lies I've seen come from the Religious Wrong. Someone please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the function of SCOTUS is to scrutinize contested laws through a Constitutional lens and decide if the law in question is permissible under the Constitution, yes? Not to have a popularity contest and say "Well, most people feel strongly against this, so we'll have to rule against it." The popularity-contest part is the voting which enacts the law; SCOTUS is supposed to stand independent of public opinion and decide pure questions of the Constitutionality of the laws. Sure, there's a "moral consensus" against same-gender marriage, although it's not such a strong one as they'd like to claim, and its hold has been diminishing considerably with the passage of time. And with that moral consensus, they won the popularity contest that is voting, and enacted their law. That part has already been decided. The question now is not whether it's popular or in step with a "moral consensus", but whether it abides by the strictures of the Constitution. Which Judge Walker held it did not, and which is the question the 9th Circuit Court and, eventually, SCOTUS will be deciding on, not whether or not there's a "moral consensus" about the issue.
No wonder they're getting all the wrong answers here. They're asking the wrong questions.
*Gamer joke; from a Zero Punctuation review for Dragon Age in which Yahtzee asked, "What would a Bioware RPG be without text? Just a whole bunch of silence and trousers, that's what."
The Supreme Court has not, ever, handed down a decision which flew into the face and teeth of a strong moral consensus against it.Wow, really? So Brown v Board of Education was totally uncontroversial, with massive public moral consensus on its side, and the National Guard was called in to escort the black students into newly-desegregated schools as an honor guard! Also, Roe v Wade was and has always been supported by a strong moral consensus, which is why certain segments keep on attacking it and trying to have it overturned. Oh, and Loving v Virginia was a total no-brainer, despite more than 40 states having anti-miscegenation laws on the books at the time. No moral consensus against interracial marriage there!
I mean, really. This is one of the stupider boldfaced lies I've seen come from the Religious Wrong. Someone please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the function of SCOTUS is to scrutinize contested laws through a Constitutional lens and decide if the law in question is permissible under the Constitution, yes? Not to have a popularity contest and say "Well, most people feel strongly against this, so we'll have to rule against it." The popularity-contest part is the voting which enacts the law; SCOTUS is supposed to stand independent of public opinion and decide pure questions of the Constitutionality of the laws. Sure, there's a "moral consensus" against same-gender marriage, although it's not such a strong one as they'd like to claim, and its hold has been diminishing considerably with the passage of time. And with that moral consensus, they won the popularity contest that is voting, and enacted their law. That part has already been decided. The question now is not whether it's popular or in step with a "moral consensus", but whether it abides by the strictures of the Constitution. Which Judge Walker held it did not, and which is the question the 9th Circuit Court and, eventually, SCOTUS will be deciding on, not whether or not there's a "moral consensus" about the issue.
No wonder they're getting all the wrong answers here. They're asking the wrong questions.
*Gamer joke; from a Zero Punctuation review for Dragon Age in which Yahtzee asked, "What would a Bioware RPG be without text? Just a whole bunch of silence and trousers, that's what."
8.04.2010
To Correct Some Misapprehensions The Right-Wing Seems To Be Laboring Under
PROP H8 HAS BEEN OVERTURNED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!
Judge Walker issued a 136-page ruling (available here) declaring that Prop H8 was a violation, separately, of BOTH the due process AND equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution, AND that the claims of the anti-equality side couldn't even stand up to the "rational basis" standard of review, which is the least stringent standard! Additionally, he set forth a wonderful list of "findings of fact" tearing apart the secular arguments against marriage equality ("findings of fact" in a case are given very heavy weight in appeals to a higher court, while "findings of law" are basically tossed and redone from scratch on appeal, so these findings are a lasting gift to our side). This is an absolute, unqualified win for the forces of equality in this state and the country. No word yet (that I've heard) as to whether or not Walker will issue a stay pending appeal, as requested by the anti-equality side. [EDIT: Walker has issued a temporary stay pending hearings on a longer-term stay] So far, it seems that Prop H8 has been overturned entirely. Next step is the 9th Circuit, then after that, SCOTUS.*
It's been highly entertaining, if a bit predictable, watching wingnut heads explode over the decision. I've been following the coverage on Right Wing Watch (available here; refresh for updates as they come available) and it is every bit as over-the-top and panicky and filled with hateful bile as you might expect. Some select quotes:
Focus on [Your Own Damn] Family:
Concerned [Self-Hating] Women for America:
As a Twiend of mine pointed out after seeing Walker's ruling, now is a good time to ruminate on the difference between a raw democracy and a constitutional republic. The USofA is a constitutional republic. Features of a constitutional republic include: a founding document which lays out a meta-framework of guidelines and principles for establishing the rules and laws of the land, and a limited type of democracy that allows the citizenry at large to elect representatives, who then go on to do the actual lawmaking independent of direct interference by the citizens who elected them. A raw or pure democracy, on the other hand, is characterized by every decision being made by general election, or "the will of the people is the law".
Since the US is a constitutional republic, the directly-expressed "will of the people" (mind you, that's the will of 52% of the people, not exactly a resounding majority; I wonder why they're not screaming about the will of the 6.5 million people who voted against Prop H8 in between shrieks about the 7 million who voted for it?) cannot overrule the meta-guidelines laid out in the foundational document. And I don't know what Constitution they're reading while they're having their little headsplosions, cause my copy has these nifty bits about the government not impeding citizens' rights without due process, and having an obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, and it seems like Walker's copy corresponds with mine.
I mean, really, when the judge's decision extensively cites not only the Constitution (with which conservatives seem determined to wipe their asses *coughBushAdministrationcough* right up until a progressive does something they don't like, at which point it's all THE!CONSTITUTION! YOU!CAN'T!DO!THAT! whether or not the document in question supports their freakout) but a not-insignificant body of established case law as precedent, the whiny bile of right-wingers is pretty clearly exposed for what it is: petty bigotry trying to cover itself with the flimsy shield of deliberate misinterpretation of and selective inattention to the Constitution under which all our other laws fall.
So here it is, right-wingers: Go and reread the fucking Constitution. Nowhere in there is there a right, either explicit or implied (and no, you cannot pull the 10th amendment on this one, because due process and equal protection are in the federal Constitution, and the 10th says all powers/responsibilities not enumerated herein go to the states), of the people to vote to deprive other citizens of their rights in violation of the Constitution. Period, the end, that is all, THE GENTLEMAN WILL SIT!
*According to a legal-issues reporter who's been following the Prop H8 trial and who I've been following on Twitter, @FedcourtJunkie, the State of CA is not going to appeal this decision, and the 9th Circuit may decide that the pro-H8 campaign doesn't have standing to appeal, saying: "Btw, Yes on #prop8 has serious standing problems for an appeal. This will become a huge issue very shortly- they might not be able to appeal". So we may or may not see this go any further.
Judge Walker issued a 136-page ruling (available here) declaring that Prop H8 was a violation, separately, of BOTH the due process AND equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution, AND that the claims of the anti-equality side couldn't even stand up to the "rational basis" standard of review, which is the least stringent standard! Additionally, he set forth a wonderful list of "findings of fact" tearing apart the secular arguments against marriage equality ("findings of fact" in a case are given very heavy weight in appeals to a higher court, while "findings of law" are basically tossed and redone from scratch on appeal, so these findings are a lasting gift to our side). This is an absolute, unqualified win for the forces of equality in this state and the country. No word yet (that I've heard) as to whether or not Walker will issue a stay pending appeal, as requested by the anti-equality side. [EDIT: Walker has issued a temporary stay pending hearings on a longer-term stay] So far, it seems that Prop H8 has been overturned entirely. Next step is the 9th Circuit, then after that, SCOTUS.*
It's been highly entertaining, if a bit predictable, watching wingnut heads explode over the decision. I've been following the coverage on Right Wing Watch (available here; refresh for updates as they come available) and it is every bit as over-the-top and panicky and filled with hateful bile as you might expect. Some select quotes:
Focus on [Your Own Damn] Family:
Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.
Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves.CWA CA Chapter:
Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.Family [Discredited] Research Council:
It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.Alliance [of Hateful Heteros] Defense Fund:
It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.American [Hetero, Monogamous, Childbearing] Family Association:
This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’ “It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters.Notice a pattern here? It's all variations on one theme: the Activist! Judge! overturning the Will! Of! The! People! And after reading these, it becomes quite clear that this wingers need a remedial course in American gov't and various types of governing systems.
As a Twiend of mine pointed out after seeing Walker's ruling, now is a good time to ruminate on the difference between a raw democracy and a constitutional republic. The USofA is a constitutional republic. Features of a constitutional republic include: a founding document which lays out a meta-framework of guidelines and principles for establishing the rules and laws of the land, and a limited type of democracy that allows the citizenry at large to elect representatives, who then go on to do the actual lawmaking independent of direct interference by the citizens who elected them. A raw or pure democracy, on the other hand, is characterized by every decision being made by general election, or "the will of the people is the law".
Since the US is a constitutional republic, the directly-expressed "will of the people" (mind you, that's the will of 52% of the people, not exactly a resounding majority; I wonder why they're not screaming about the will of the 6.5 million people who voted against Prop H8 in between shrieks about the 7 million who voted for it?) cannot overrule the meta-guidelines laid out in the foundational document. And I don't know what Constitution they're reading while they're having their little headsplosions, cause my copy has these nifty bits about the government not impeding citizens' rights without due process, and having an obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, and it seems like Walker's copy corresponds with mine.
I mean, really, when the judge's decision extensively cites not only the Constitution (with which conservatives seem determined to wipe their asses *coughBushAdministrationcough* right up until a progressive does something they don't like, at which point it's all THE!CONSTITUTION! YOU!CAN'T!DO!THAT! whether or not the document in question supports their freakout) but a not-insignificant body of established case law as precedent, the whiny bile of right-wingers is pretty clearly exposed for what it is: petty bigotry trying to cover itself with the flimsy shield of deliberate misinterpretation of and selective inattention to the Constitution under which all our other laws fall.
So here it is, right-wingers: Go and reread the fucking Constitution. Nowhere in there is there a right, either explicit or implied (and no, you cannot pull the 10th amendment on this one, because due process and equal protection are in the federal Constitution, and the 10th says all powers/responsibilities not enumerated herein go to the states), of the people to vote to deprive other citizens of their rights in violation of the Constitution. Period, the end, that is all, THE GENTLEMAN WILL SIT!
*According to a legal-issues reporter who's been following the Prop H8 trial and who I've been following on Twitter, @FedcourtJunkie, the State of CA is not going to appeal this decision, and the 9th Circuit may decide that the pro-H8 campaign doesn't have standing to appeal, saying: "Btw, Yes on #prop8 has serious standing problems for an appeal. This will become a huge issue very shortly- they might not be able to appeal". So we may or may not see this go any further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
