Let’s start the weekend with a giggle with this slice of Gina Yashere‘s hilarious set at London’s Comedy Store. It may be a bit opaque for non UKians, what with some of the names and stuff, but I’ll happily provide explanations for those who want them.
Read more: Women, Comedy, Video, YouTube,Gina Yashere
Pandagon reports that apparently Christopher Hitchens, the lesser-talented and drink-soused sibling of that well-known cheap demagogue Peter, reckons in the latest Vanity Fair ( why do they keep employing him? Has he got compromising pictures?) that there’re no funny women and in fact we are just incapable of being funny, ever.
Oh yeah?
I love travelling but hate it at the same time, can’t stand the disruption. Go away 2 days, spend another 3 just catching up on the news and blogs you missed while you were away. Then there’s the sorting out of all that verbiage in your head to make some kind of coherent synthesis of the whole, then there’s the writing about it and trying to make it amusing and informative at the same time; but then there’s also the self-referential metablogging pleasure of complaining about all this on your blog, so it’s not all negative.
Anyway, I feel all caught up now, I’ve got ibuprofen for the horrible Sinterklaas gift of a virus (hot on the heels of the last one) that I’ve come back with and a whole pot of coffee, so on with the motley.
It’s nice to see that for once it’s Prizes for the Girls Week, what with Pam Spaulding of Pandagon & Pam’s House Blend getting Monette-Horwitz Trust Award, for blogging in support of GLBT rights, Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise getting a front page exclusive in a NY paper, and both they, Bitch Phd. and Feministe being nominated as finalists for the 2006 Weblog Awards.
Remember we blogrolled you when….
Blogging awards bother me a lot though and not just because we never get any. Is it sour grapes? Well, other than the natural tendency of anybody to be sad to be left out of anything, no. It’s not really an issue for us: Martin and I have been blogging for a long time a] because we’ve always been early-adopter types within our practical and financial constraints and b] because we’re both deeply and loudly political. Awards never even came into it.
I think the online world is the last and best home of free speech between individuals of different nationalities and physical locations, which is still (at least for the moment) relatively unmoderated by completely commercial interests and unencumbered by state apparatus. Bringing careers and money into it sullies the discourse, if that doesn’t sound too precious.
That’s why we’ve never bothered trying to make ad revenue, welcome as any small addition to our income would be – how much does it actually cost to run a blog after all, especially a small scale one like this that’s hosted, as so many (even high-traffic) blogs are, for nothing at Blogger? It’s a privilege to be able to speak to the world at large like this and I’m very aware of just how many people don’t have that opportunity. I certainly don’t expect to be paid for it.
Because of that fund drives are another thing I’m very ambivalent about: I can see wanting to defray your expenses if you have a high traffic blog and not much of your own money, but expecting to make a living at what is little more than pontification on reporting or research that’s already been done by others, well if you want to do that, go get a job on a paper or in a thinktank, if there are any left. Or ask for subscriptions. Be a business, if that’s what you want, but recognise that, you are no longer a private citizen.
Blog awards seem to be a way of establishing a hierarchy: if you look at previous nominees the same names come up over and over again, yet there are over a million blogs out there. Even the Koufaxes fall into this trap as the pool from which nomionations are chosen seems very small. It’s not the promoters of the awards’ fault necessarily: rather it seems to be a tendency in the nominators to draw their nominations from the familiar and from friends.
Blog awards and the desire to be a paid, professional blogger are both symptomatic of what’s happening in the larger US left blogosphere: it appears a self-chosen, vaguely alternative Establishment is being set up, though perhaps set up is the wrong expression – too organised, and it’s much more amorphous than that. The process is more crystallisation than orgenisation, there’s no grand conspiracy: but as this New Establishment’s component bloggers and pundits become more popular and get more hits their internet real estate also becomes more attractive to volume advertisers; before you know it they’re a full-fledged profit-making business enterprise, a very different beast than the original platform for personal opinion and discussion that their blog was.
So far this has only happened to a limited extent, but the right conditions are there and as the political winds shift more and more US liberal opinion-formers are likely to be co-opted by the media and corporate establishment in this way. It’s that whole pissing from inside the tent thing.
People do have to eat so I’m not blaming anyone for wanting to support themselves or trying to do that by doing what they love, but if so they really should admit that they are a commercial enterprise and not just Joe Schmo from Wherever NJ. We can then treat what they say accordingly.
The other underlying danger is the lure of the in-group: circular linking, collective ego-stroking, the feeling you are part of a charmed circle whose opinions count. Lesser mortals can bugger off.
The recent backlash against Firedoglake was heartening because it shows that many liberal bloggers recognise the danger of that and are willing to self-police, but there’s still a lot of other self-congratulatory, ‘aren’t we clever’ commenting communities at any number of liberal blogs.
Rival camps are also forming over who has most influence in the Democratic party and this has become more intense since the Dems sweep at the Congressional elections. Political careers are being built and new connections made. Just go take a look at Kos: I haven’t contributed there for years, not since it became a stew of Democratic infighting, backstabbing and triangulation, making Markos’ fortuine in the process.
I don’t know, is it something about unresolved high-school popularity issues that leads to this forming of cliques? Is it that there’s an innate tendency in US society to want to form exclusionary groups and chains of influence whatever the venue? And why is there always money at the bottom of it? Sociology to the white courtesy phone please…
Now see, If I had any sense I could probably work this whole thing up into a Phd. research topic and get a nice grant for it. And then maybe some punditry on blogging , or something. Hmmm. I’d be an expert then and get all the good gigs… which is exactly how a developing establishment feeds its own growth and real democracy gets excluded from the blogosphere.
I can’t help thinking that this very process is exactly how we got the spoiled, insular, know-nothing self-interested US mass media we have today, so to see a similar nascent inside-the beltway mentality developing in the blogosphere is really quite disappointing.
On the other hand, when bloggers like Pam and Lindsay get recognised it’s very satisfying because so far outspoken progressive women’s voices have been lost in the conversation.
Although I do disapprove of the way this new US progressive political matrix is developing – meet the new K Street, same as the old K Street – at least because of their continued hard work there are some feminist voices actually being heard in the new political reality.
Read more: Internet, Blogs, Blogging, Metablogging, Liberal Blogosphere, Weblog Awards, New Establishment, Feminism
I’ve come across this item at a number of places now and I’m not quite sure whether to find this Vogue Italia fashion photospread, “State of Emergency’ by Steven Meisel, wryly amusing or a little sick.
I hope it’s meant to be transgressive, a satire on the current security theatre being staged by western governments and a protest against the contnuing erosion of human rights.
But think about where it’s published – Vogue is no samizdat rag. It’s a Conde Nast publication. Vogue exists to sell product for its intertainonal corporate advertisers – if it doesn’t make money, it’s gone.
I’d like to think Meisel’s intent was to comment on the increasing corporate invasion of aour personal and bodily privacy and particularly that of women’s bodies. But this photo-spread of degrading and humiliating images of women is also highly sexualised. It’s meant to be a turn-on and an homage to women’s prison porn, and ultimately to sell to as many consumers as possible.
My real problem with it is that if it’s in Vogue, it becomes an acceptable image, just as several of the Abu Ghraib pictures have. Even five years ago a major newspaper or news magazine would not have printed them, deeming them too extreme. Now such brutal images are common currency.
This is how, quietly, fascism becomes accepted as normality.
Read more: Fashion, Photography, Vogue Italia, Steven Meisel, Feminism, Fascism, Security Theatre, Agitprop, War on Terror.
.jpg)
The blogger known as D r i f t g l a s s on fundie interference in the science of the morning-after pill by the religious-bigot-controlled Food and Drug Administration :
Congratulations again, Moderates! I hope all of you that voted this Christopath junta into power are very happy.
And Mrs. Moderate Republican, remember that when that man of yours get his Wahabi Wang anywhere near you, he thinks of you as his property. His chattle. A Petri dish for breeding his whelplings…so why are you OK with that?
And little Moderate Republican Jimmy and Susie, remember that Daddy wants you raised up full of fear and ignorance and unable to compete in the 21st century…because Jesus wants you that way.
Well, he wants you reared that way, Jimmy. Unfortunately Susie, Daddy doesn’t think of you as fully human at all, but I’m sure he’ll arrange for a nice “marriage” for you to a kindly owner who will never beat you on a whim, but only beat you when you disobey and forget your place.
After all, if this is not the future Hubby and Daddy dreams of, why in the fuck does he keep voting for it?
Why so angry, Drifty?
Well, this from the FDA, on their decision making process regarding Plan B, the post-coital contraceptive that prevents the implantation of fertilised eggs, might be part of it:
“The FDA?s drug center, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or CDER, completed its review of this application, as amended, and has concluded that the available scientific data are sufficient to support the safe use of Plan B as an over the counter product, but only for women who are 17 years of age and older.
What we are saying today is that the Agency is unable at this time to reach a decision on the approvability of the application because of these unresolved regulatory and policy issues that relate to the application we were asked to evaluate.
[…]
We are beginning a process that will address the regulatory questions today, but we believe we can only decide these issues in an open, public process.
Through this process, all interested parties can weigh in on the questions of whether a drug may be both prescription and over the counter based on uses by different subpopulations and whether the prescription and over the counter versions of the drug may be marketed in a single package.
[…]
Today I am making the commitment that we will work with our stakeholders to make sure that this process is expeditious and thorough.
So who are these stakeholders they’re so desperate to run US policy past for approval? Step forward(yet again) the fundies:
In August, the FDA said it was considering the over-the-counter sale of Plan B to women over 17. Then, in what critics say is a response to pressure from the Bush administration, the agency said it would launch a period of “public comment” on the drug that could delay its approval indefinitely.
The announcement infuriated activists such as Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the Washington-based National Women’s Health Network, who called it “denial couched in the bureaucratic language of delay.”
Before making the announcement, FDA officials alleged that girls under 16 would engage in riskier sex if they could obtain get the drug. Studies, however, show no increase in pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases when women have access to emergency contraception.
A similar struggle surrounds a newly-developed vaccine for cervical cancer. Pharmaceutical company Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., plans to ask the FDA to approve the vaccine for sale before the end of the year, according to the Washington Post.
But some conservative groups argue its release will condone premarital sex. In a retort to them, Congresswoman Lois Capps, D-Calif., circulated a letter to her colleagues this week urging them to overlook “ideological agendas” while reviewing public input about the vaccine.
The battle for access to Plan B goes beyond state laws and the FDA and extends to policymaking by pharmacies and hospitals.
Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the U.S., does not carry emergency contraception in any state, even those with collaborative practice agreements. Chains including Rite-Aid and Winn-Dixie allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.
We can add Target to that list now too. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog has the whole story:
“Thursday, October 20, 2005
Target now saying “screw you” if their pharmacist doesn’t want to fill your prescription because “you’re a sinner”
by John in DC – 10/20/2005 12:28:00 PMWell, Target has given its answer to customers who are concerned that Target pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions simply because they think you’re a sinner. Target’s answer? Go Cheney yourself.
An AMERICAblog reader just sent me this email they received from Target. I’ve spoken with Planned Parenthood and the email is legit. Target’s response to PPFA and to its customers is that they stand by their pharmacists – if the pharmacist thinks you’re a sinner they don’t have to fill your prescription and can send you elsewhere.
From: Target.Response Target.Response@target.com
Date: Oct 20, 2005
7:18 AMSubject: Filling Prescriptions at Target
Dear Target Guest,
Target places a high priority on our role as a community pharmacy and our obligation to meet the needs of the patients we serve. We expect all our team members, including our pharmacists, to provide respectful service to our guests, particularly when it comes to their health care needs.
Like many other retailers, Target has a policy that ensures a guest’s
prescription for emergency contraception is filled, whether at Target or at a different pharmacy, in a timely and respectful manner. This policy meets the health care needs of our guests while respecting the diversity of our team members.Your thoughts help us learn more about what our guests expect, so I’ll be
sure to share your feedback with our pharmacy executives.Thanks for taking the time to share your questions, thoughts and comments. I hope we’ll see you again soon at Target.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hanson, Target Executive Offices
Planned Parenthood has had other communications with Target. Target’s policy is that the customer can go to hell if their pharmacist thinks you’re a sinner. Target will let their pharmacist turn you away so that YOU have to go find another pharmacy, rather than their pharmacist getting another frigging job.”
So who are these fundies who think they have thr ight to take control of womens’ uteri? Step up David Hager, religious nutter extraordinaire and Bush appointee:
Late last October Dr. W. David Hager, a prominent obstetrician-gynecologist and Bush Administration appointee to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), took to the pulpit as the featured speaker at a morning service. He stood in the campus chapel at Asbury College, a small evangelical Christian school nestled among picturesque horse farms in the small town of Wilmore in Kentucky’s bluegrass region. Hager is an Asburian nabob; his elderly father is a past president of the college, and Hager himself currently sits on his alma mater’s board of trustees. Even the school’s administrative building, Hager Hall, bears the family name.
That day, a mostly friendly audience of 1,500 students and faculty packed into the seats in front of him. With the autumn sunlight streaming through the stained-glass windows, Hager opened his Bible to the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel and looked out into the audience. “I want to share with you some information about how…God has called me to stand in the gap,” he declared. “Not only for others, but regarding ethical and moral issues in our country.”
For Hager, those moral and ethical issues all appear to revolve around sex: In both his medical practice and his advisory role at the FDA, his ardent evangelical piety anchors his staunch opposition to emergency contraception, abortion and premarital sex. Through his six books–which include such titles as Stress and the Woman’s Body and As Jesus Cared for Women, self-help tomes that interweave syrupy Christian spirituality with paternalistic advice on women’s health and relationships–he has established himself as a leading conservative Christian voice on women’s health and sexuality.
(My emphasis)
Lots more on Hager here.
And for those who are thinking “Oh, those loony Yanks” it’s not just them. We in Britain have our own fundy nutters (not to mention Opus Dei in government, and yes, I mean you, Ruth Kelly):
Pharmacist refuses morning-after-pill over religious beliefs
29 Nov 2004A UK pharmacist has refused to sell the morning-after-pill to a woman customer, citing his Catholic beliefs.
The woman, a 24-year-old mother of two, said she was furious and had been forced to attend an NHS walk-in-clinic to obtain the pill.
“Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I don’t want someone making a decision like this for me,” she told the Daily Mirror. “It is available to buy so I had the right to buy it. It’s irresponsible of the pharmacy not to have someone there who is able to serve it.”
Kerrie Gooch reportedly plans to sue if she falls pregnant after the condom she and her long-term partner, aged 22, were using split. Ms Gooch went to Lloyds Pharmacy in Abbey Meads, Swindon, where the pharmacist refused to dispense the pill because of his views on contraception. She then had to attend an NHS clinic as there was no other pharmacist on hand at that time to dispense the pill.
Lloyds, which has 1,363 outlets nationwide, has defended its employee, pointing out that the industry’s code of conduct states that he can refuse to dispense on religious grounds as long as he suggests an alternative pharmacist.
Andy Murdock, Lloyds’ pharmacy director, said: “He objected on religious grounds, which he is fully within his rights to do. Another member of staff, and a supervisor, had lengthy discussions with Ms Gooch and partner. They were given advice as to alternative sources.”
Please contact Lloyds Pharmacies and tell them what you think about their policy of allowing unproven superstitions to determine women’s health. What’s next? Jainists can refuse to dispense any medications because they might have been tested on animals? That would be an equally valid religious position. Or are Lloyds in the business of deciding whose religious views have validity and whose don’t, now?
If you wish to write a letter use the address below:
Customer Services Officer
LLoyds Pharmacy Limited,
Sapphire Court,
Walsgrave Triangle,
Coventry,CV2 2TX
Lloyds is owned by Unichem, who also own Moss’ pharmacies. They’re also considering taking over Boots the Chemist and they will then have a massive monopoly over prescriptions and OTC medications in the UK, including contraception.
Feel free to contact them too: write to their Head Offices at the following addresses:
UniChem Ltd,
UniChem House,
Cox Lane,
Chessington,
Surrey.
KT9 1SN
and
Alliance Pharmacies,
Fern House, 53-55 High St
Feltham, Middlesex
TW13 1HU
0208 890 9333
Or, you can call or fax on the following numbers:
Tel. 020 8391 2323,
Fax. 020 8974 1707
You can contact Boots The Chemist here or write to:
Boots Group PLC
1 Thane Road
Nottingham NG90 1BS
The main telephone number for all areas of Boots is: 0115 950 6111
Boots central Customer Service department can be contacted on: 0845 070 80 90