The Blame Game: The Pink Headband Edition

Do you remember that story that you read on your facebook feed about the woman was confronted in Wal-Mart over the fact her son was wearing a pink headband? Sure you do. Everyone was horrified and talked about bigotry and why Florida (where the story took place) was the worst.

Yeah, turns out it was probably all bullshit.

(A lot of the heavy lifting on this one goes to the website Get Off My Internets which smelled the story as bullshit from the moment it hit)

Of course the Mommyblogging world has reacted to this news by recognizing that by creating a career out of being judgmental and self-righteous they created the conditions for something like this to happen by encouraging outrageous stories instead of well written true to life takes on parenting.

JUST KIDDING.

Melissa Ford at BlogHer just posted a story about how this is the fault of the people like GOMI for expecting these blogs to be truthful.

Then last week, as often happens after the Internet is stirred, a second wave comprised of skeptics started calling bullshit on the story. Prove it, some people said. People started combing Katie's past posts, looking for anything that could be used to discount her veracity. She's a pathological liar, some people said. She was debated and discussed.
What happened to simply clicking away?

Yeah. If you think something is a pack of lies then don't talk about it. And when it shows up on your facebook feed don't correct it. Don't demand for truth from the media. Just accept things because it is mean otherwise.

Ford compares the blogger who (allegedly) created this story to the girls at camp who would make up shit.

My friends and I sometimes privately joked about the stories, which always ended with someone pulling the girl back from the brink of death, but we never confronted the girl, or publicly humiliated her, or called her mother to corroborate the story. Mostly because ... what if?

First of all, no. This was not the nicer thing to do. Being all catty behind the back of Junior Miss Baron von Munchhausen was not a form of kindness. It would have been much nicer to go to her Mom (or some other adult) and explain what she had said. And either be told "Yes, Suzy was kidnapped 5 times" and know that it's true or given the adult a heads up that Suzy has problems.

Because if Suzy was telling the truth you all didn't really believe her and were bitchy behind her back for nothing. And if she wasn't, then you didn't force her to learn the importance of telling the truth. Something that probably harmed her through other parts of her childhood.

In fact, this response is the worst of all possible ones. Believe everything would be better. Believe nothing would be better. This is believe nothing personally but then believe everything to their face.

But I do agree that the blame in this doesn't sit mostly with the original blogger (who has since removed her blog and is trying to make the story go away). So, who is to blame.

70% goes to Huffington Post and AOL and the other major media outlets that picked up the blog and made it go viral without doing any basic fact checking on the story. The fact that something is printed on a blog does not mean that it is confirmed as true. I had a friend who worked for a newspaper mailroom and he'd tell me about the weird letters that they'd get from people claiming that the CIA was stalking them or that someone was peeing in the lemonade at the grocery store. These things are common to news outlets and if the blogger had gone to HuffPo asking them to write the story of her incident they would have declined because it couldn't be confirmed. But as soon as it is written on a private blog then news aggregators feel that it's okay to share. They aren't reporting the story. They are reporting what someone else said.

Without Huff Post this story would have gone to a few thousand people who follow the mommy blogging community. They could have believed it or not. To use Ford's camp analogy, what Huff Post did was take what Suzy told her friends and broadcast it to the world. Then, when it turns out to be a lie, they take no responsibility.

20% goes to the mommyblogging community. The blogging community in general rewards stories and blogs that highlight the unusual. The truth is that the day-to-day thoughts and experiences of most mother's will never reach the audience that this story did. BlogHer and other sites act as if blogging is a viable stay-at-home business but they don't point out that very few people will ever be successful at it. They will either need to be very good writers or they need to have something like this post which causes them to be discovered.

And 10% goes to the blogger herself. This story didn't just harm her but harmed a lot of people. It means that if this does happen to somebody they may not be believed. It means that people walked away thinking Florida is terrible (which pisses me off as a native Floridian). And it means that maybe parents of a boy who might want to wear a pink headband will convince him not to, because they are afraid of being confronted in a Wal-Mart.

Why the UK Apprentice is SO Much Better than the US One

I've been getting over a cold, which means lots of movies and tv binge watching. While down the rabbit hole of YouTube I caught an episode of The Apprentice UK.

In the name of Batman, I'm in love.

OK, look, I like reality shows. Not really the "reality" shows where real fashion star wives of teen moms do stuff. But the competition shows. I love The Amazing Race. I adore MasterChef. And I even sort of like The Apprentice.

But my liking of the US Apprentice turns to love when talking about the UK counterpart (which just finished up its 9th Series). Here's why:

Better Boss

Donald "The Donald" Trump is easily the most annoying thing about The Apprentice US. He is smarmy, he talks down to everyone, his advisers consist of his talentless children, and he is a fraud. The fact that Donald Trump is a success story only shows how the current system favors the already wealthy over new innovators. The man has filed for bankruptcy four times, used courts to bully people who dare to cross him, and even responded to a lawsuit against his shady Trump University by suing the woman who brought the claim.

(In fact, daring to state that Donald Trump is a tool could result in being sued or at least targeted in one of Trump's twitter wars. But since I am a poor law student with a blog that nobody reads, either of those things are not really a worry for me. Characterizing him as smarmy, that his children are talentless, and his status as a fraud are opinions protected by the 1st Amendment. The other allegations are repeating facts culled from other sources or stating my own opinion on those facts. Also, I'm supposed to get legal clinic hours before graduation so I guess handling my own suit against Trump would count.)

Donald Trump is the worst part of The Apprentice. So by replacing him with British tycoon Lord Alan Sugar the show is already better than the Yankee version. Lord Sugar is a self made man who started out selling electronics out of a van, moved on to computers and technology, and is now just plain hella rich. He's connected to the Labour Party and an advisor of the British Government on matter of business.

But he also isn't a pushover. He's strict but funny. He's everything that The Donald isn't.

Better Advisors

In Apprentice US, Trump has previous winners, his children, or other associates go check in on the team to report back to him. The problem is that there is so much stuff that happens when they aren't there watching the final product that never make their way back to Trump. As a result, someone can make a terrible mistake but never be called out for it because it is only seen by the cameras and the viewer at home.

Apprentice UK sends out one of Lord Sugar's associates to follow each team for the entire time the challenge is going on. They offer commentary to the audience about mistakes they are seeing and report back problems to Lord Sugar. As a result, there are fewer wrong firings on Apprentice UK. It also means that the other people in the boardroom can do more than give the vapid commentary that the Trump children do when they are asked to sit in on Apprentice US.

As this clip shows, these guys know what happened because they were there!

No Product Placement

While an episode of Apprentice US seems like an infomercial for whatever product they are pitching that week (Office Depot! Walgreens! Trump's Wife Makeup Company!) the UK Apprentice can't use such blatant product placement since the BBC is a part of the government. In fact, the complaints against product placement on UK Apprentice has centered on lingering shots of cell phones. Which seems an adorable complaint next to what goes on during an episode of Apprentice US.

More Realistic Contestants

The candidates on US Apprentice seem hyper aware of the nature of reality fame. After all, Omarosa is still living off the reputation she got from her appearance on the show. Meanwhile, the cast of each Apprentice UK seem to not actually realize that they are on television or that people will hear the shit they are saying. This results in some amazingly crazy moments that would not happen in the more savvy US version.

Also, they can say shit. Sometimes you just need to say shit.

The Apprentice UK is pretty much all available on YouTube. Find a playlist for each season and enjoy your Trumpless Reality Television Gold.

Why is "The Butler" called "Lee Daniels' The Butler"?

The weekend the number one movie in America was the verbosely titled "Lee Daniels' The Butler" aka that Oprah movie with Snape as Ronald Reagan. Of course the big question that everyone has been asking is WTF is up with that title.

Above the title naming is often used when a popular filmmaker is involved. With the exception of "For Colored Girls" all of Tyler Perry's projects as director have started with his name (i.e.Tyler Perry's Temptation: If You Cheat on your Husband You'll get AIDS). This way even people who may not know anything about the movie know that the popular Tyler Perry is involved. In the days of video stores, above the title naming also insured that your films would all be grouped together which increased sales.

But Lee Daniels doesn't have the box office drawing power of Tyler Perry. His only previous directing work of note was the acclaimed "Precious" and the roundly mocked "The Paperboy". So, what's with the naming?

The story you will find most places is a variation of this one from BET saying that Warner Brothers contested the use of the title "The Butler" because they own the copyright to a 1916 short film of the same title.

But to anyone with some film history, this excuse doesn't make any sense. There have been tons of movies with the same name. "Crash" could refer to the Oscar winning movie about racism in LA or the NC-17 James Spader film about people jerking off to car crashes. "Bad Boys" is the title of both a 1980s Sean Penn movie and a 1990s Will Smith flick. And don't forget the ultimate sadness experienced by anyone who turned on "The Avengers" only to find the craptacular remake of the TV series instead of the Joss Whedon Marvel movie mash-up.

The copyright excuse doesn't fly from a legal perspective either since, to quote the US Copyright Office, "copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." Similarly titled films could run afoul of trademark law if the names could create consumer confusion, but that seems unlikely when one of the movies has Cyclops doing a Boston accent and the other is silent. 

Turns out that this is a contract law issue, not intellectual property. Filmmakers who want their work to be shown in theaters must have MPAA approval. These are the people who give out film ratings (a process detailed in the must see documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated"). They also run the Title Registration Bureau. Registering your film title with the bureau is voluntary but all of the major studios take part in it because they don't want to have to risk delaying a film over a last minute lawsuit from someone claiming that you are violating their trademark. By using the Bureau you agree that you will use the MPAA arbitration process in any title disputes. 

So, WB, who own the rights to the Uma Thurman "The Avengers" didn't challenge the Marvel movie title. The same thing with all those other examples of same name titles. If nobody complains then it is no issue. This time someone complained. 

According to this article from The Hollywood Reporter, the name issue only came up when the studio behind "Lee Daniel's The Butle"r and the studio that owns Silent Movie "The Butle"r were having issues negotiating a different deal. The Butler naming got caught up in that. Since everyone in Hollywood is an asshole now the movie has a stupid name and Lee Daniels looks like a Tyler Perry knockoff. 

So, there you go. Why is "The Butler" called "Lee Daniels' The Butler"? Because people are assholes. 

This does remind me of the one other interesting MPAA naming issue that I recall. The MPAA tried to revoke their approval of South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut's title after first granting clearance. The reason? Someone explained that it was a penis joke. But it was too late to take renounce their approval.

The Problematic Good of Adoption

A friend from England asked me to explain adoption to them. They were writing a story set in the US involving a couple adopting a child and wanted to know how these things were done. I explained the legal outline (agency vs. private vs. foster/adopt and so on) but I didn't tell her the rest of the story. The story about why I feel so weird about adoption.

My Grandmother placed a child for adoption. It was an inter-family adoption and I've known him my whole life since he reunited with her when he was an adult. So, I certainly know that adoption is a good thing in theory. But there is certainly a problem with the way that it is often used in the United States.

In a perfect world women would place children for adoption because they did not want to parent them. But too often the reality is that a woman does want to parent but opts for adoption because they want to give the child a better life. That is where I start to feel icky about the entire process. This concept of adoption being a way to give a child a better life.

It's problematic because of what better often means in this context. Better means a two parent home. Better means parents who have gone to college or work in white collar jobs. Better means money. Better means opportunities.

This concept of better has two sides: shaming people who don't have those things and respecting people who do have them. There shouldn't be shame from being a single parent or respect for being in a marriage. It's the quality of those relationships that deserve praise and not simply having them. A woman placing a child for adoption because she is single is rarely reminded that marriage is not a permanent state.  Her child could end up being raised in a single parent home if the couple divorces or one parent dies.

The fact that an adoptive couple has more education is hardly a reason to expect them to give a child a better life. A degree doesn't mean that someone is particularly clever or gifted. And money is also no indicator of an ability to provide for a child. We've seen that many people who seem to be living large are actually just deeply in debt. A lost job or turn in the market may leave them in the same financial state as the woman placing a child into adoption.

As for adoptive families being able to provide better opportunities, that is hardly guaranteed. Barack Obama was the child of a single mother who was able to become President. Reality television it littered with the offspring of rich and powerful people who are barely able to function.

As a society, I don't want women to think that the best hope for their child is in giving it to someone else to raise. If they don't want to parent then adoption is fine. But it is the women who would parent if only they had a shift in circumstances who worry me. I want to have a society where women who want to parent are given the resources to do so. Be that monetary support, or child care, or a community where women are nurtured and supported.

I think that community will also benefit families who are interested in adoption.  Currently, adoption is framed as a war over resources. Birthparents have children. Adoptive parents want children. The language treats children as commodities. A child is given in adoption. If a birthparent revokes consent they are taking the baby back. But children are not things. They belong to themselves and not to parents. A more communal approach to childrearing may help alleviate the stigma of infertility.

(I can only speak for myself as a woman who has been told that I am at high risk for fertility problems should I ever decide to try to become pregnant, but such a communal society would help me feel better about my infertility. It means that I have a part to play in raising a child as an Aunt, a mentor, and a friend. It doesn't fully eliminate any maternal need, but it does give me more respect than a culture that views motherhood as a zero-sum game.)

There is something exploitative about the way adoption is practiced in America. The narrative of adoptive parents rescuing children and that adoptees should feel grateful is all wrong. The moral element needs to be eliminated from the practice. Until that time, there are still children who are in need. Adoption may be the way we address these issues currently but I still hope that one day we can make it a better practice for all parties involved.

Cosmo Hate Read: September 2013

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Letter to the Writer of A Letter to the Wife of my Boyfriend

Dear Writer of "A Letter to the Wife of my Boyfriend",

Life is all about deciding how to give a narrative to the things that happen to us. Some people think that everything is a sign. Others believe it is all random. You, apparently, like turning your life into a tragic romance. That's fine, I guess.

But it isn't reality.

He didn't stop the affair because he couldn't hurt you any longer. If your feelings were his primary concern he would have left the wife to be with you. Actually, he would have left his wife before being with you because he wouldn't want to place you in the position of having to keep your love a secret.

Men don't cheat because they are madly in love with the other woman. They cheat because they want to feel appreciated. You gave him something his wife couldn't. You turned his drunken kisses on the front stoop into grand romantic gestures. You made him feel like the Byronic Hero of a great tale. You appreciated every little bit of attention he gave you from the flirting over a double date to some unspecified sex act to make him stay longer. Of course he wanted to be with you. His wife didn't treat him falling asleep in her bed as a great triumph. But you did.

But all of that attention and appreciation wasn't enough for him to want to be with you full time. Maybe he realized that you were in it for the adventure. If he did leave his wife for you eventually you'd come to take him for granted the way she does. Maybe he got tired of you. Maybe he decided that the life he had with his wife was more important than the constant affirmation you gave to him.

Whatever his reasons they didn't have anything to do with you.

Queerbaiting or Shipkilling?

At ComicCon the Exec Producer of Once Upon a Time caused an uproar when he announced the show has plans for a gay relationship on the series. The angry mob wasn't the religious right, but fans of the show who ship Swan Queen (a relationship between the Evil Queen and Snow White's adult daughter Emma Swan) because along with the announcement of this future character was an official statement that Swan Queen was never going to happen and that any romantic interest between them was not intentionally written this way.

On Tumblr and Twitter Swan Queen fans are very upset, tweeting messages to the shows creators saying "I'm not intentionally saying this. Fuck You." The Swan Queen ship is one of the most vocal in the Once fandom, and have accused non-shippers of homophobia. This post, resulting from when one of the show actors stated that SQ wasn't going to happen, is a good example of some of the things the fandom says.

As a Once fan, I do NOT get Swan Queen as a couple. Both characters have had exclusively heterosexual relationships, they are constantly at odds, and the Queen tried to kill Emma at least once. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't get together. Spike and Buffy happened so anything is possible! But I never saw the obvious signs that the SQ shippers did.

What I did see was the potential for a different show. Emma is the biological mother of Henry, a child she placed for adoption. Regina is Henry's adoptive mother. Emma and Regina both are emotionally damaged people. Emma was separated from her parents and believed she was abandoned. Regina's mother killed her fiance and forced her to marry a man she didn't love. A lot of the fandom stories stripped away the fairytale background of the series to focus on a modern world where two mothers try to find a family with each other. That's what SQ fans want.

It's just that they are trying to find it in a series that is all about the fairytale background.
 
I can't speak about the difficulty of not being represented in the media. I'm a cis, white, straight, female. I have plenty of characters that represent me. I might hate what that representation is much of the time (like in rom coms) but I have Kitty Pryde and Veronica Mars, and the cat lady from The Simpsons. My grandmother was the daughter of Polish immigrants in a poor Chicago neighborhood. She used to tell me that she was so excited to see any movie where the brunette wasn't the bad girl. She wasn't going to see someone who looked like her or lived like her, but she took her media representations where she could. Some GLBT have told me of similar things in their own life. They didn't have shows that really represented their lives so they'd watch Saved by the Bell viewing Zach as being gay and hooking up with AC Slater.

And even though there is more queer characters in the media now, they still are not representative to the whole community. Finding representation where you can still happens. Sometimes shows take advantage of it and intentionally play up the subtext in order to get LBGT fans to tune in. This is called Queerbaiting.

That Feminist Dyke has a great overview of Queer baiting, although I disagree about the idea that Sherlock started Queer baiting in the first episode. I felt that the "we aren't a couple" was an attempt to make it clear to fans that they weren't going to be a couple. This is because many of the modern readings have included the homosexual context (such as The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes). I do believe that by the second series the show was queerbaiting, possibly because the talk about them not being a couple didn't stop the world from shipping it anyway.

Anyway, Queer baiting is a thing. It's a real thing and a real problem. Rizzoli and Isles admits that they play up the lesbian subtext even though they don't plan to ever have the girls set together. This was their promo poster for a news season.

The Once statement at SDCC seems to be the opposite of Queer baiting.  It's officially not happening. To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to not think it was going to happen before now (like the statement of other writers and actors on the show and the fact that they keep trying to murder one another). And yet people are furious with the series in a way that I haven't seen people angry with Rizzoli and Isles. They are hurt that the show has ruined their ship. I shipped Marian/Guy from Robin Hood. I know about shows killing your ship (literally). But I just didn't watch the final season of the show and went into fanfiction world where they lived happily ever after. I didn't tweet threats to the producers.

But then again, Marian and Guy were a ship for me, not a representation of me. It's natural for SQ fans to be more upset. Still, I don't know what shows are supposed to do when they find out about GBLT fans who are finding unintentional subtext in their work. If they play it up they or continue they are Queer baiting. If they come out and say that it isn't going to happen then they are accused of being homophobic (because they don't come out and state that other non-canon ships aren't real) or killing the ship. 

The answer, of course, if to have more representations of GLBT characters and relationships so that people didn't need to search subtext for characters that they relate with. Of course, that comes with its own set of issues I'll have to write about one day. I will point out that it is hard for me to agree with the charges of Buffy playing into the dead lesbian cliche when EVERY couple on the series met an unhappy ending. If they allowed Willow/Tara to be the only couple to be together it would be awfully paternalistic and pandering of the series.

Upon Emergent Occasions: GOP Edition

 Meditation 17:



PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him. Well that is what he gets for not planning in advance to have someone legally obligated to tell him that information. That could never happen to me. The church is limited to only the chosen few REAL TRUE CHRISTIANS. The ones who come every week to services, but not all of them because some of them might be divorced or gay or something. When the church baptizes a child, that action doesn't concern me unless I know the people. I don't have time to care for every random kid that gets baptized. And when the church buries a man, I don't care unless it is someone I know or the death somehow benefits me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; and if that author wanted me to care about other people then he'd have those people somehow involved in my life. When one man dies, we can rip out that chapter because the book is too long if we have chapters for everyone. I mean, if it was me or someone I liked we should keep the chapter. But not random people who aren't us. The torn out chapters liter the floor to be stepped on by people coming to read the books about us important people.




There was a contention as far as a suit (in which, piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled) which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that had the least money, resources, or fortune. They don't deserve to stay in bed if they don't have some money. In fact, why should we ring the bell at all? Bell ringing should be done by the poor and unfortunate so that they can be motivated to make better lives for themselves so that don't have to ring it anymore.




Great men are islands all alone in the world. Some lesser man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe should be happy. It is better off without that worthless clod. Any clod worthy of being Europe wouldn't be able to be washed away be the sea. No man's death diminishes me, because I believe that life is some zero-sum Highlander style game. When someone else loses then I must win! And I know that the bell isn't tolling for me. I'm way past that bell tolling stuff.

The People Meant to Be Alone Forever

I want to be happy for the happiness of other people. And yet, I find that hard to do. I am the person who reads through my Facebook Newsfeed and the stories of people getting married, pictures of their children, and news of their happy events with growing resentment.

It isn't that I don't WANT them to be happy. It is envy. Purse and simple. I want those things too. I want to be able to point to people who love me and things that I'm good at. Alas, my skills fall under areas that are not very skillful. I read 5 newspapers a day. I'm quite good at remembering details of old movies.

I am not lovely nor charming nor interesting, at least not in any positive sense. I am interesting in the way you may use the word to describe the short story a friend made you read, one where all the characters are actually dead the whole time.

I just want to feel like I have some type of direction in my life. Be it a partner or a family or a career. Something with the gravity to keep me from floating away through the emptiness of space as I currently do.

"There's someone for EVERYONE," the old saying goes. Even Hitler had a girlfriend! And so I go drifting in the hope that eventually I will find the thing that is meant for me.

Yeah. Well, I realized that it doesn't exist.

Have you read Aristophanes section of Plato's Symposium. Go read it. It's great. Here's the wiki-synopses.

His speech is an explanation of why people in love say they feel "whole" when they have found their love partner. He begins by explaining that people must understand human nature before they can interpret the origins of love and how it affects the then present time. It is, he says, because in primal times people had doubled bodies, with faces and limbs turned away from one another. As somewhat spherical creatures who wheeled around like clowns doing cartwheels, these original people were very powerful. There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the "androgynous," who was half male, half female. The males were said to have descended from the sun, the females from the earth and the androgynous couples from the moon. The creatures tried to scale the heights of heaven and planned to set upon the gods. Zeus thought about blasting them to death with thunderbolts, but did not want to deprive himself of their devotions and offerings, so he decided to cripple them by chopping them in half, in effect separating the two bodies.
Zeus then commanded Apollo to turn their faces around and pulled the skin tight and stitched it up to form the navel which he chose not to heal so Man would always be reminded of this event. Ever since that time, people run around saying they are looking for their other half because they are really trying to recover their primal nature...Aristophanes then claims that when two people who were separated from each other find each other, they never again want to be separated.

Sweet, right?

But I feel like he leaves out one group. A people who didn't come from these groups. Men and women born singular and without any partner. They did not threaten the Gods and so they were left alone, ignored and forgotten. I know that this group exists because I am one of them. I do not feel that I am not whole as I am, I just feel that I am directionless and powerless. Just as the primal singletons would have felt in a world filled with these joined creatures that took on the Gods.

I'm convinced that there are those of us who really are meant to be alone forever. There is not another person who can fulfill us. And we certainly are unable to make them whole. Those looking for their missing piece may stay with use for a time. We may be fun and fabulous and amazing people, be we are not their lost piece. We can't even make them happy.

The sad part is that we of the single group may find happiness with the halflings. We can find happiness with anyone, really. We aren't missing a piece of our soul and so do not understand the call of chemistry and connection. We just wish to find someone to help pass the time and entertain us. The halflings can do that. Sometimes we may hold on to them because they bring us such joy. They may hold on to use because they are afraid to be alone. But in the end we can never make them happy because we are not what they are seeking.

The world understands the lament of the halfling looking to be complete. I'm never going to be able to understand the pain that they experience as they try to find their other half. But there is a pain that comes from being one of the singletons; knowing that you're never going to be one of the majestic pairs that could take on the Gods. Yes, you are complete and whole as you are, but you are also all you are ever going to be. Stop trying to strive for more or greatness. Those things are reserved for others.

That's a painful message, but a hopeful one. It means all the energy you are putting into trying to find someone else is no longer needed. Cancel your online dating profiles and use the money to pay for a trip you always wanted to take. Stop getting up an hour early to look perfect before you leave the house (unless you enjoy it). Sleep in and know that you aren't going to scare away your soulmate. They don't exist! Stop fretting about what you are missing out on. You aren't missing it at all. It was never meant for you. Find joy in the joy of others without wondering what it means for you. It means nothing. You are COMPLETE. You are WHOLE. You are exactly who you were always meant to be.

The Why of Suicide

Last week Paris Jackson, the teenage daughter of Michael Jackson we all fell in love with when she bravely spoke at her father's memorial, attempted suicide. The details are available on every gossip and news site, but it isn't important to our conversation. What is important is how the story was covered by the media.

"Paris Jackson 'wanted attention not death'" the headline at News.com.au says.
And then there was this little piece of reporting from TMZ:

Law enforcement sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ ... based on the information the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. has gathered ... "She wanted attention."  One source involved in the case tells us ... her call to a suicide hotline is compelling evidence "she wanted to be saved."  The source added, "It makes no sense if you really want to die to call a hotline, where the person on the other end will get an ambulance over to your house."

The wiser parts of the internet (and Perez Hilton) took people to task for turning this into a story about fame and attention whores. All too often female depression and suicidal thoughts are dismissed as being something less than lethal. It's a need for attention. Or a cry for help. My own experience with depression and suicidal thinking makes me doubt the idea that it is a warning sign. It's not a symptom that there's a problem. It's the problem. In the moment that you are there you aren't hoping to be found.

But you are really happy when you aren't dead.

This is a truth about those who attempt suicide and live: they are happy to be alive. That doesn't mean that in that moment of attempt they were not serious about being dead. Nobody would doubt that leaping from the Golden Gate Bridge represents a serious attempt to end your life. Yet most of the people  who survive the experience report being happy they did. They regret the decision before they hit the water and are glad to be alive. Yet nobody would classify someone jumping from a bridge as just wanting attention or making a cry for help.

The Jackson story is made more interesting by the fact that around the same time, Stephen Fry was opening up about his own suicide attempt last year. Fry has been open about living with bi-polar disorder and his past suicide attempt. He also gives one of the best explanations of the suicidal state I've ever read.

"There is no 'why', it's not the right question. There's no reason. If there were a reason for it, you could reason someone out of it, and you could tell them why they shouldn't take their own life."

Interestingly enough there is someone who thinks that there actually is a reason to suicide and they've figured it out. In a Newsweek story that not enough people are going to read, FSU Professor Thomas Joiner shares his universal theory of suicide. His research shows that suicide is driven by three conditions happening at the same time. A sense of not belonging, the feeling of being a burden to others, and overcoming the fear of death. If you have the first two you will have suicidal attempts or thoughts, but when you add the third factor you get the success.

Even if this is the "why", Fry is correct that it can't be reasoned. If you feel like you don't belong or that you are a burden then just being told by someone you do won't help. Feelings are not overcome by facts.

Joiner's theory also explains why female suicide attempts often looks like attention seeking behavior. Women aren't socialized to be as comfortable with violence as men. While boys play war or die repeatedly playing video game, girls are socialized to be nurturing and caring. The fratboys of Jackass have no trouble placing themselves in physical harm while the ladies of Teen Mom only place their psyches on the line. It's very likely that Paris Jackson was feeling as if she did not belong and burdensome. The far of dying (and of putting her family through another funeral) placed her on the phone for help.

If anything, we should be lauding the girl for that call. She should be given a medal for going and getting help instead of dying. Instead she's labeled as attention seeking and her pain is dismissed as not real.

This is a big deal. It's a big deal because this year more people will die from suicide than from any other cause of death. And I don't want someone to not pick up the phone and ask for help out of fear of being charged with seeking attention.

Hey, Cathy Ruse, you are a parent

Cathy Ruse is angry because the government is calling her a parent.

I mean, she is a parent. She has children. It is not an inaccurate term. But what she's bugging out about is the fact that on federal government forms they eliminated the terms "mother" and "father" for "parent 1" and "parent 2".

As a mother, I find that deeply offensive. I carried my children for 9 months in my womb, I endured the pain (and joy) of birth, I nursed them for many months after they were born, and every morning they jump into my bed screaming, “Mommy!”
But the federal government says I’m Mommy no more.
I am Parent 1.
Or maybe Parent 2.
Kind of like Thing One and Thing Two. But Dr. Seuss was being ironic.
Mr. President, I dare you to tell my daughters I’m not their mother.

For the love of Batman.

Look.This is clearly one of the dumbest rants ever. Just because you are called a parent on a form instead of mother it does not mean that your daughters are not allowed to call you Mommy. Is this a thing you actually believe? That a change on federal forms means that you no longer can have that title? I am serious,because if this is what you really think this will lead to then there is no point in arguing about it. It's like trying to convince the homeless guy in the park that he doesn't have a CIA implant in his head. You can't argue with crazy.

But I somehow doubt that Ruse believed this. She is expressing the righteous indignation of how terrible it is that the world is changing. You can file this in the same folder with people who bitch about how they shouldn't have to press one for English. It doesn't really make a difference for you and makes life easier for other people.

And that, really, is the problem. It isn't that Ruse cares about being parent instead of Mother. It's that this will make life better for same sex couples who have two Moms or two Dads. Or when a Grandparent is raising a child. Or those other many types of families that now exist where it is Dad and Step-Dad or Mom and Step-Dad or Jo and Mary instead of Mom and Dad.

When she sees Parent 1 instead of Mother it reminds Ruse that there are other types of families in the world. and those families are just as legitimate as her family. That's what pisses her off. Not that she is a parent (because, technically speaking, she was always a parent, Mother is just what we call the female parent) but that her status as parent is no greater than a same-sex parent or any other non-traditional parent.

I'm appalled at how many rants against GBLT issues come down to someone being upset that the fact they were born straight and cisgendered will no longer gain them some type of special place in society.

Gosnell is about Medicine not Morals

The National Review has a click bait article about how the truly harrowing of Kermit Gosnell is the expected results of a land where abortion is legal.

Gosnell’s human abattoir is the logical endpoint of our morally fraudulent national approach to abortion, the proponents of which maintain that they wish the procedure to remain “safe, legal, and rare,” in Bill Clinton’s cynically triangulating formulation, while at the same time resisting any and all restrictions upon the procedure. Gosnell’s murders are not an aberrant abuse of the abortion license but an inevitable result of it...

 His crimes differed from the usual practice of abortion in that his practices made them more visible. That we recoil in horror from the images of Gosnell’s crimes is evidence that the casual practice of abortion, and all of the political rhetoric deployed on its behalf, have not yet entirely extinguished the moral sense of those who are confronted with these bloody scenes.

This is a fundemental misunderstanding of what the abortion decisions really mean. It isn't about the right to kill an unborn child, but the right to gain medical care. Abortion is, at the core, a medical procedure.

If I take a saw and chop off your arm I have clearly committed a crime. If I am a doctor and I do it within an operating room then it isn't. Do you think that the National Review will start complaining about how the fact that we allow amputation in a hospital setting is the cause of people cutting off others limbs?  Of course not. But the National Review wants you the believe that is abortion was illegal then Gosnell could not exist.

In reality, Gosnell's exist not because abortion is legal but because it is hard to obtain. If abortion was easily available to women early in pregnancy (with no waiting periods and covered by federal funds) then they wouldn't go to a Gosnell. In the same way you wouldn't choose Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons if you can get Dr. Hibbert.

Look, abortion was outlawed for many years. And Gosnell's existed in back allys. The illegality didn't stop the practice, it just made it unsafe. It created places like Gosnell's.


               

And Then There's This Asshole

Newt Gingrich said something either stupid or disingenuous on a Sunday news show!

You know, when he ran for President, my Dad asked me who would be running for his seat if he won.

"Dad, he hasn't been in office since I was in size 6 jeans."

My father was confused because why would all the news programs invite on a guy who failed at politics 15 years ago? He must be someone important because they kept putting him on TV.

Oh, if only the TV was filled with important people.

Anyway, Newt was on Meet the Press where he said this stupid thing (memorialized by Crooks and Liars).

"But what I'm struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights," Gingrich continued. "There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts, they're outlawed. There are no rights in D.C. for Catholics to have adoption services, they're outlawed. This passing reference to religion -- 'We sort of respect religion.' Well, sure. As long as you don't practice it."
"I think it will be good to have a debate over -- beyond this question of are you able to be gay in America, what does it mean? Does it mean that you actually have to affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that?"

Catholics can't adopt in Massachusetts? That is terrible. That is a total violation of equal protection. I'm offended by that. Or I would be if it was true.

It isn't.

Catholic Charities ceased adoption services in Massachusetts because of anti-discrimination laws. Given the option of allowing gays to adopt (something they had done before but which the Vatican had told them to stop doing) or shutting down shop, they picked the latter.

Catholics can continue to adopt. In fact the same anti-discrimination law that protects gay couples also means that a Catholic couple can't be denied the opportunity to adopt by an Evangelical or Atheist adoption agency.

So, do you all think that Newt didn't know that fact? Or that he intentionally misrepresented the truth because he is just a hamster on the wingnut welfare wheel?

Niall Ferguson's Thoughts on Keynes are Telling

Harvard economic historian and conservative quote machine Niall Ferguson told a conference that the reason that Keynes' economic theories don't work is because he was gay.

He's since apologized for the remark, but what is interesting is what it means that he said it in the first place. Ferguson isn't a dumb man. This wasn't Jeremy Irons suddenly discussing incest and gay marriage because some guy with a camera asked an actor his views on the topic. This is a guy who was scheduled to talk and did so. He was asked a question and came out with a statement that one witness said seemed thought out and not off the cuff.

But what is interesting is what this means for the larger austerity movement (Keynes believed that in times of economic downturn large spending by the government could kickstart recovery). After the Excel Error heard round the world showed that the one large study supporting austerity was wrong, it seems like there is no science left to support the idea.


So,what do you turn to when you don't have numbers on your side? Name calling and false dichotomies. Keynes didn't understand about why debt is bad because he didn't have kids since he was gay. And gay people can't care about the future of the world.

Even better is the banker in the audience who agreed with the sentiment because his outlook on the world changed when he had a kid.

Seriously. You didn't care about the future until you had some genetic skin in the game? I'm pretty sure that makes you a sociopath. The fact you work for an investment bank is supporting evidence.

I don't have kids. I do have a nephew I love. And the friends of my children who I adore. I care about their futures. I cut out the boxtops for their schools. I vote to have more funding for school because my life is better when I live in a place with well educated people.

In fact, maybe I'm better because I don't have kids. I can support a future where everyone can benefit instead of just my kid.

Ferguson's statements go to show how little he has on his side. It also shows that people aren't going to accept that type of gay bashing anymore. 10 years ago his comments might have gotten attention on some social justice blogs, but this was everywhere. And Ferguson did a real apology. Not a "I'm sorry that you want me to be sorry" thing. So, that's good.

But seriously, when your strongest argument is "but he's gay" then you don't have any argument at all.

Princeton Mom is my Superego Made Flesh

In the movie Forbidden Planet, Leslie Nielsen (disarmingly sexy, especially if you only know his comedy work) and some non-Leslie Nielsen astronauts land on a planet where your thoughts come to life. But they are terrorized by the monsters created by the Id.

Well, here in real world, I am haunted by the monster created by my Superego. Princeton Mom. You know, the lady who wrote the article to the school paper telling the ladies that they needed to lock down a husband before they graduated. And then gave that sad follow up interview to The Cut saying that her marriage failed because her husband wasn't from Princeton.

Well, she's back. And this time giving a speech at Princeton. And continuing to say terrible things that I'm used to my subconscious saying to me in the shower.

“If we do want to marry men who are our intellectual equal, we’ve almost priced ourselves out of the market,” she said. “Finding a husband as smart as you is going to be hard if you don’t find him at school.”

 Sometimes I worry about this. I'm technically a genius. I could join mensa. But I know how useless IQ is as a predictor of social ability or interestingness (because I am neither of those things). Still, I am technically in the 98th percentile of intelligence. Maybe I should marry someone dumber than me. But guys don't want to marry someone smarter than them. So, maybe I should pretend to be dumb to find a husband.

And so I talk to myself in circles until I remember that 1) there are many different types of intelligence and 2) smart people don't always end up in the best schools. Or any schools. Why limit myself to the guys who are at Princeton at the same time I am when I could choose men of greater intellect who didn't go to college?

Patton also said women should not wait until their 30s to get married because of potential difficulties in finding a spouse and bearing children at that age.
“A woman looking for a husband in her 30s gives off total desperation,” Patton said, likening the effect to a “man repellent.”

I will have you know I was giving off that desperation starting at age 16! I have gotten less desperate over time. But I'm still repelling to men. That is my constant.

“The fallacy of gender equality is that men can take a lifetime to marry and have children, and women cannot,” she said. “That is a hard and cold bulletproof fact.” 

Well, okay. That's true. What can I do with that fact? I wanted to get married and have children. I wanted that as long as I could remember. I was in relationships. They didn't work out. Now I'm 33. Have I ruined my entire life?

There is a narrative in the world about the woman who ignores romance for her career and then it is too late. It's a story that has been around for a LONG time. The Hepburn/Tracy movie "Woman of the Year" talks about it. It isn't the creation of feminism or hippies. And, sure, if you want to have a family then you should probably avoid following that narrative path.

But there is another story that doesn't get told. It is my story. It's the story of 9% of women who never marry and have children even though they wanted to.  I'm not 33, single, and childless because I didn't accept biological reality. I'm here because nobody wanted to marry me, and I've yet to figure out how to pull off a wedding by estoppel. I want to have a child with someone I am in love with. And so do lots of other women. But it didn't happen.

And Princeton Mom's assertions that I'm now repelling to men, or that I was ignoring biological truth, or that I could have done something to prevent it hurts. It hurts because those are the things I tell myself when I see a family at brunch looking adorable.

I did not choose this. I haven't really ever chosen anything in my life. All I can do is make the best with what I end up with.

That's what Princeton Mom doesn't get. Maybe her life was a series of choices that she got wrong at some point. But that isn't typical. I think far more people are like me. We end up in places because the things we planned didn't work out or because other people let us down. I'd much rather tell young women to learn how to make the best with what life hands them than to tell them that they have to force things to happen. If Princeton Mom had learned that lesson then maybe she'd be doing something with her post-divorce life other than telling 20 year old women how to avoid her mistakes.

Pride

I spent the afternoon at Tallahassee Pridefest today with the school's GSA. It was great music, good food, and just a wonderful sense of community.

I was thinking about how it is interesting that the celebrations use the term "pride". Traditionally, pride is not just one of the seven deadly sins, but the original and most serious of the sins. It is the sin that caused Satan to be cast into hell. But it's funny because the pride that the religious accounts talk about don't sound much like what I saw today.

From wikipedia:

pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour"

 The people I met today don't want to be more important than other people. They just want to exist safely outside of the closet. They want to walk down the street with their partner holding hands and not afraid of being attacked. They want to have a picture of their significant other on their desk without being afraid that it will get them fired. That isn't being more important.

Failing to acknowledge good work of others? Gay pride festivals still feature drag queens prominently because they were the ones who fought back at Stonewall. The community is welcoming to allies. Many in the community are concerned about other social issues and work to bring attention to these issues. They aren't perfect, of course. And there has been a lot of conversations about the treatment of transgender issues within the larger gay community (mostly, a feeling that the issues of transgender rights are on the backburner), but those conversations are happening. I don't think that the gay community is guilty of this type of pride.

Excessive love of self? Not as a group. Oh, there may be people guilty of this (in any group) but the gay community is not selfish. They love their partners. Their families. Their community. Every volunteer group I've been a part of has had a larger percentage of GLBT folk than statistics would suggest. They are a community that is very involved with giving back.

Now, I know that Pride was a term adopted to help convey that people should not be ashamed of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Have pride in yourself for who you are. But that pride was just trying to replace the shame and condemnation that society heaped on the community for so long. Much like "Black Power" was a way to give back the power taken away by society "Gay Pride" was about saying that it was okay to be yourself. You know, all those thing Lady Ga Ga sings about.

The strange thing is that you still occasionally hear homophobes who will, in their own way, accuse the GLBT community of being prideful. They say that being able to marry your partner is a shoving your lifestyle in their face. Or that not being fired because your sex and gender are different is a special right. They say that the gay community should just go back in the closet so that some small minded straight people don't have to deal with it.

And yet, it is those very people who seem to best meet Dante's definition of pride: "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". The bigots and hypocrites of the right aren't the perfect example of that definition. They are so in love with their faith, in their interpretation of the bible, and with their heterosexuality that it has made them hate their neighbors who don't conform to those things.

The gays may have the pride, but it is their detractors who are being prideful.

Judges Don't Know How the Internet Works

Let's just call this an ongoing series, because it is going to be.

I wrote about a year ago about the Judge who didn't understand how video games worked. Well now we have one who doesn't understand how facebook works.

From the ABAJournal:

A federal appeals court is citing a trial judge’s apparent dislike of Facebook in a decision to vacate an eight-year sentence for a defendant accused of producing child pornography.
During the sentencing, Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton of Connecticut stated he would have sentenced the defendant to six years in prison if not for his concerns about Facebook and the need for general deterrence, according to the March 19 summary order by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal sentencing laws are a mess. Years ago there weren't any guidelines and so there was no consistency. One judge would give 10 years for drug possession. One would give 2 years for distribution of drugs. The Congress started setting strict sentencing terms, but these were ruled unconstitutional in US v Booker. So, now there is a weird middle ground. There is a recommended range for sentencing based on the type of crime and factors like the use of a weapon. You run the formula for sentencing adding up the factors and it spits out a sentence. The judge doesn't have to accept the sentence but they need to have a compelling reason to go outside of them. The health of the defendant, or the specific circumstances of the case, might all be reasons.

Another reason is if the judge thinks that the sentence should be harsher to serve as a deterrent to other people. If the crime has been around forever then general deterrence probably isn't a reasonable argument, but if this case brings a twist on it (like internet stalking or selling drugs on silk road) judges may want to punish it more harshly to prevent people from catching on the the new crime trends.

This case involved a woman and man who produced child pornography involving an 8 year old child. She got a slight sentence reduction for testifying against him. We don't know the details of the case (because children are involved) but we know that the internet was not involved in this case, because the Appeals court specifically says so.

(Total speculation, but from the cases I've seen involving couples molesting a child together, the child is usually related to the woman. A daughter or niece or someone else. It is easier for women to have access to children since people are wary of men, but female sexual abuse is wildly under reported. In part, this under reporting is because people believe the narrative of the woman not being the active abuser. The man is the abuser, and the woman is just going along with it because she is abused or is desperate to make him happy. People think the man is sick and the woman must just be desperate. Another weird bit of patriarchy being pro-women, we're too pure and good to ever do something like abuse a child for sexual pleasure)

Anyway, this case didn't involve the internet yet the judge goes on about facebook and society and...oh, just read it yourself in a Grandpa Simpson voice

In justifying its decision to impose a sentence of eight years instead of six, the district court referenced “Facebook, and things like it, and society has changed.” ... The court speculated that the proliferation of Facebook would facilitate an increase in child pornography cases. The court said it hoped Mark Zuckerberg (who founded Facebook) was “enjoying all his money because . . . he’s going to hurt a lot of people . . . .”

Well, somebody saw the Social Network!

Don't worry though. The case is going back for re-sentencing and the judge at that point could still impose the 8 years, as long as they give an actual reason based on the facts of the case instead of one about facebook.

In this particular case there isn't much harm in the fact that this 90 year old judge doesn't understand how the internet works. So, child molester lady gets 2 more years in jail. Big deal.

What is scary is that this same judge could be sitting on a case next week involving deciding if a piece of evidence found on a hard drive is admissible.  Or if a case belongs in federal court when the parties did business online. More and more cases involve elements of technology and judges are not known for being early adopters of technology. The Supreme Court still does not allow cameras in oral arguments or live broadcasts of hearings. So, how can they be expected to properly understand cases about doxxing and iPhone apps.

The lesson to lawyers is to explain, explain, explain. Better to write an over detailed explanation than assume the have knowledge and then lose out.

Gary Busey on Celebrity Apprentice: Laughing at Disability or Living with It

I watch Celebrity Apprentice.

Ugh. I know. I hate myself for it.

Almost as much as I hate Donald Trump.

HAAAAATE.

But I like the task element. I like Penn Jillette. But mostly the task element.

One thing I'm not sure about is how I feel about the inclusion of Gary Busey in the series.

Busey clearly is there for comic relief. The whole point of this week's episode, where Busey is Project Manager, is that it is going to be wacky! This ad for the show pretty much shows how the series treats the man.

Look, I love laughing at celebrities. The Justin Bieber/Anne Frank thing? Ah-Maz-Balls. I watch Celebrity Rehab. I watch Wife Swap. I have been watching the fever dream that is Splash.

But Busey on Celebrity Apprentice...it just strikes me as wrong.

It's because of my history watching marginal television that I know that Busey has a traumatic brain injury that causes his lack of impulse control.

As the far superior blog Videogum said:

Oh wait, does the entire Internet still get to laugh at him constantly? Is he still funny? What’s your favorite thing about him? The way that he continues to live with the devastating impact of traumatic brain injury the best he can while local car companies pay him to make absurdist commercials and people ostensibly free of traumatic brain injuries take two seconds out of their day to leave casually tossed off rude comments about him on blogs for no particular reason other than raw and persistent boredom before returning to masturbation? What is the funniest part though?! He’s so weird and crazy, right? Is that the funniest part? Hahahahahah!

And that is pretty much my problem with Busey's appearances on Celebrity Apprentice. This isn't a guy just being wacky because he is out of touch with real life as a result of being a celebrity. He has actual brain damage.

On the other hand, there is something weirdly powerful about how nobody talks about Busey's handicap directly. He's just Gary being Gary. His team members have to work around it but in the process they have to accept him and his limits.

And isn't that sort of how we want people with disability to be treated? Not locked away from sight. Not pitied. Just there and accepted. When a visually impaired home chef  won Masterchef it was great. The show didn't cut her slack because of her disability (they allowed her to have an assistant to describe visual things, such as what the dishes looked like that they had to emulate but she didn't have extra time to compensate for the fact that picking a ripe piece of fruit took longer since it involved having to have someone describe the color of it). It served as a great message to people who watch the show who may be concerned about how to treat someone with a disability in their workplace or social life.

And, sure, it is different than watching Gary Busey be laughed at because of his brain injury. But what is the solution? Busey's injury means that he acts in ways that are unexpected and funny, even though the reason for his actions is quite serious. But having lived with a Grandmother with dementia...the only way to live with it is humor. Laughing at the situation doesn't mean laughing at the person.

And I'm still not sure what to do about the Busey issue? Is the show laughing at Busey's disability and making it acceptable to mock what he can't control? Or is it helping to show that people with disabilities are still good people and can be very helpful in a workplace situation? Is the show laughing at the disability, or simply showing what it is like to live with it?

Classic Double Speak on Foreclosure Bill

Good News Everybody!

The awful new Foreclosure bill (Florida HB 87, Florida SB 1666) is finally getting more attention. I've written about it before, and now Orlando Senator Soto is speaking out against the bill.

From the Florida Current:

Sen. Darren Soto, R-Orlando, flanked at a press conference Monday by housing advocates and representatives of PICO United Florida, an advocacy group for low-income families, denounced a bill designed to expedite the foreclosure process and a plan to spend $200 million in foreclosure fraud settlement money.
Soto has filed amendments to SB 1666 that would add more time for due process and require more proof from banks and lenders of ownership of a mortgage before foreclosing on a home. Consumer advocate groups back the amendments but oppose the bill. The bill was scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday but was not heard.
The bill speeds up the show cause hearing in foreclosure proceedings and allows third-party lienholders such as apartment complexes to begin foreclosure cases.

The amendments help, but the bill is so fundamentally flawed that it is just condiments on a shit sandwich. But most annoying is that the bill sponsors are trying to pretend that this is a consumer friendly bill. Again, from the Current.

Bill sponsor Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, and Rep. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, the sponsor of the House companion bill HB 87, tout the consumer-friendly provisions of the bill requiring banks to prove ownership of the loan before foreclosing

This is the worst type of political double speak.  The bill does require banks to prove ownership of the loan. They have to do that NOW. Currently they must do it via the actual paperwork. Under the bill they would only need an affidavit. So, instead of needing to provide the paperwork they can just promise they have the paperwork.

Remember that it was the fact that Florida law demands the actual paperwork instead of the affidavit that allowed the Robo-signing scandal to be uncovered. That discovery eventually lead to banks paying $26 Billion to the feds.

Who knows what other things might be uncovered in the foreclosure mess? But if this bill passes we will never know. Consumer friendliness does not mean helping people who rip off consumers cover up their crimes.

 Email Senator Soto to thank him for bringing attention to the issue. And contact the bill sponsors to let them know that you do not think that we should be making it easier for banks to hide their crimes. You can tweet SB 1666 sponsor Jack Latvala and email HB 87 sponsor Kathleen Passidomo.

Pinellas Sheriff Says Civil Liberties Bill Protects Pedophiles, Undermines his Premise with his Evidence

Last year the Florida Supreme Court heard the case of Smallwood v. State which asked if police could look through arrestee's cellphone content without getting a search warrant. To get that warrant the police need to have probably cause to believe that there is some type of evidence to warrant the search, or have some other rational for the search to be conducted. That "other rational" is important and something that police have relied on to conduct searches of people under arrest. It is not uncommon for police departments to search the vehicle of a drunk driver. Not becaue drunk driving would necessariy give probably cause for a full search, but under the excuse of taking an inventory of the car contents before it is impounded to be sure that nothing is lost while it is in police custody. The inventory search is a recognized exception to the 4th amendment. The same way that police may search a suspect's person upon arrest to make sure that there are no weapons or other dangerous items.

The inventory and safety exceptions have allowed police to gather evidence for unrelated criminal activity without needing to get a warrant. But the arguments of safety and security that allow these searches can not logically extend to a search of a cellphone. Is the argument that the cell phone must be inventoried for security? Just shutting the phone off protects the contents on it better than taking a full inventory of it. And the personal safety of the officers isn't impacted by knowing who the person had text or taken pictures with. If there is a belief that there is important evidence on the phone it is the perfect opportunity to get a search warrant. You know, like the constitution says!

The Florida Supreme Court has yet to rule on Smallwood, but the Florida Legislature isn't taken any chances. Bills requiring search warrants before personal cell phones can be searched are in Florida's Senate and House. It makes sense to require a warrant. Especially since the modern cell phones are equal to small computers, and it has been established that laptops and other computers can't be looked at without a warrant (or, of course, consent of the owner...that will always allow a search without a warrant).

But Pinellas' Sheriff has come out against the bill (along with other law enforcement officials) saying that "This is a bill that really protects people engaged in child pornography, drug dealing and murders". Then again, the 4th Amendment itself really protects those same people, since those of us who don't commit crimes don't need to be worried about being arrested! But the founding father's put them there, and I sort of like not having to explain my phone's google search history anytime I'm stopped for speeding.

The best part is the long, and true!, story he uses to show why this bill is a bad thing (from the Miami Herald)

The sheriff cites the case of a man arrested in Gulfport for driving with a suspended license who had a 14-year-old runaway girl in his car. Police took the girl into custody, and a check of the man’s cellphone revealed pictures of them having sex — a felony because the girl was under age.

“Now you’ve got a pedophile,” Gualtieri said.

Well, it is a good thing that they were able to search that guys phone without a warrant because there would be no way to possibly have uncovered the crime other than  THE 14 YEAR OLD VICTIM IN THE CAR. I'm pretty sure driving around with a runaway young girl is the type of thing that might give you probable cause to search the guys phone.

But wait! He has another reason to be against the bill. Because "in the time it takes to get a warrant, a suspect could delete the evidence."

Um, look, you are currently only searching cell phones from people you arrest. I assume that you don't let the criminals play Angry Birds while in the cells and that the phones are in some type of custody where the images can't be deleted before you get the warrant.

You know who supports the bill? The ACLU. You know who else? The Cato institute. The conservatives and the liberals agree on something!  This is a sensible piece of legislation, a rare thing in Florida. Any sane member of law enforcement should be in favor of it so that the proper procedure is followed now, before the Smallwood case (or some future higher Supreme Court case on the topic) finds the searches to have been invalid. It is much easier to follow the proper, if heightened, procedure now than to do the bare minimum and get all those convictions overturned in a few years.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/05/3325454/pinellas-sheriff-says-civil-liberties.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/05/3325454/pinellas-sheriff-says-civil-liberties.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/05/3325454/pinellas-sheriff-says-civil-liberties.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Professional Dress is Hard for Women, Harder for Fat Women

I am fat.

I am okay with this fact. It is a combination of genetics (I have PCOS) and the fact that nachos are delicious. At various points in my life I was not fat, but I was starving myself and fainting in class. So...did I mention nachos are delicious?

My weight is normally not an issue for anyone other than my mother. But the one time that I hate my size is when I'm trying to shop for professional outfits.

The legal profession is comprised of awkward nerds who, while being quite smart, also lack any understanding of social interactions and compensate by creating a rigid group of rules that they expect everyone to follow. These rules replace the common sense that non-lawyers have, but allow the legal class to quickly decide if someone is good (aka rule follower) or bad (non-rule follower). One glance at Above the Law will show you exactly what I mean.

One area where this is especially tricky is in professional attire. Once you enter law school you will hear horror stories of people being passed over for an internship because of the color of the shirt they wear, or because of a tie not being straight. It happens. It is real. Especially at big firms. It's sort of the same reason why bands will have weird concert riders, like no green M&M's. It's a way to quickly discern if someone will be the right person for the job. Wearing a blue shirt to an interview instead of a white one is a clear sign that you haven't done enough research or don't have the personality that seeks to conform to arbitrary standards, which is something that they want from new associates.

But men have it pretty easy. Suit, white shirt, belt, tie. For women the professional dress edicts conflict with the equally arbitrary rules of current fashion. Hemlines might rise with the season, making it almost impossible to find something long. And judges notice. In an ABA discussion on the topic of clothing for women, the suggestion was made to follow blogs like Corporette where important issues like the appropriateness of braids in the office are discussed. That's right, lest you think that it's just about your clothes, how you style your hair is also essential to how you'll be judges by others. Maybe legal writing should be replaced with legal makeup and hairstyling.

The problem is even worse for us fat females. A quick look at Corporette just makes me depressed since the outfits they show as being essential for legal work are ones that just don't work on plus sized women. Even something as standard as a button up shirt is a nightmare when you have a DD+ breast size. Finding a shirt that doesn't gap at the bust is almost impossible. Shirts that do work tend to just look like tents instead of coming in at the waist, making the look sloppy and unprofessional. Pencil skirts, the kind preferred for professional female dress, can be too tight at the thigh or give the sausage casing effect. An a-line or full skirt looks better on many larger women, but then they are docked for not looking professional enough.

I'm not sure what the answer is either. I'd love to hear where people shop for their professional clothes, especially plus-sized women. I like One Stop Plus and Jessica London. Anyone have any other favorites?

The Incest Straw Man

Red State's Erik Erickson has written a compelling case against gay marriage called "Why Not Incest".

Did I write compelling. Sorry. It's late. I meant, completely asinine.

The inspiration for the article was noted sociologist and evil lion voice Jeremy Irons, who wrote an equally stupid interview in The Huffington Post where he ponders if the legalization of gay marriage would lead to father's and son's marrying for tax benefits.

(Brief note: isn't it weird how the right argues that actors shouldn't make political opinions when it is George Clooney or Matt Damon doing the talking, but when Simon fron Die Hard With a VEngence says something it suddenly is a compelling revelation)

I'm not angry at Irons, who was clearly just sort of babbling without thinking. This wasn't some well thought out position he was claiming. Just him trying to sound smart by pointing out a legal loophole that would develop. Irons is an actor, and a great one. But he's clearly no policy expert.

But Erickson...well he is paid to be a commentator on these things. So I expect something more (OK, not expect...hope, pray, wish) from him. Instead, he argues that Irons is right! Why Not Incest!

Shouldn’t that include committed incestuous relationships? If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this?
But … but … but what about the deformity of the kids, etc. Well, gay couples cannot have kids. Just as gay marriage advocates say the concerns about procreation are archaic when it comes to marriage, they are definitionally irrelevant if we move on to gay marriage.
So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the “ick” factor? Why should that preclude it?

The problem with Erickson's argument (and Irons' too) is that incest laws are not based on genetics. If it was just genetics then same-sex incest wouldn't be illegal, nor would adoptive parent incest, or step-parent. The problem with incest isn't genetic, but the fact that the parent-child relationship is one of unequal power where coercion can easily happen. Even with adult children (see MacKenzie Phillips for an example of this).

Erickson's incest argument actually already came before the courts, and failed, in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned state laws against sodomy. In State v. Lowe the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's incest statute was constitutional as applied to an adult child and step-parent, even in the wake of the Lawrence decision. The court said that the state had a rational basis in laws that protect the family unit including punishing consensual sex between step-parents and children.

The legalization of gay marriage wouldn't change the incest argument because incest laws are about protecting the family unit and preventing the abuse of children. Not just preventing procreation. Stop thinking everything is about procreation!

I know this is hard for some people to understand, but two men (or two women, or transgender people) who want to form a legally recognized union is not the same as incest, or statutory rape, or bestiality, or polygamy. When people of the same gender marry there is not concern about consent or about coercion the way there are with all those other things.

I don't know what to do with the fact that Erickson thinks that the only reason why we'd have problems with incest is the genetic problems. He is either being naive or disingenuous to argue that incest is the same as same-sex relationships. Either he doesn't realize the serious abuse of position that happens in incestuous relationships, or he is minimizing it in order to make a better rhetorical argument.

Gay people exist. They have long term relationships. They have children they raise with their partners. They do everything that hetrosexual couples do. What is the argument against allowing them the legal rights of marriage? Incest laws protect children from being taken advantage of because of the unequal relationship between parents and children...is this unequal relationship there in homosexual relationships?

Incest laws also protect the family unit, as discussed in the Lowe case, by criminalizing the act of sex with someone within the family other than a spouse. Lowe's relationship with his step-daughter not only ruined his marriage but also the mother-child relationship between his wife and her child. While I've heard many people SAY that gay marriage will undermine family values, I have yet to see an explanation of why.

Incest laws aren't just about genetics. They have solid logical reasons behind them. So, what about the case against gay marriage? What is the logical argument against that. Or, to quote Erickson, is it just the Ick factor?