Disqus - Latest Comments for kliofem

Re: Echidne Makes...

kliofem — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:51:52 -0000

This morning on Good Morning America, they had a report (complete with Tammy Wynette singing "Stand By Your Man") freaking out that men's unemployment rate was rising faster than women's. (Which, if I recall correctly, is the historical pattern with recessions - the first thing that happens is that construction slows, and those workers are laid off because there's no work.)

They interviewed a guy who had lost his job. We were supposed to feel bad for him - not because he got laid off, but because his wife was working, and he was no longer the "breadwinner."

Equality, bitchez.

Re: You Can All Relax, Shakers

kliofem — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:44:25 -0000

Remember about 2 years ago, when the Repugs were all wanting to amend that part of the Constitution, so that Arnold Schwartzenegger would be eligible to be President?

Hey Repugs: Your hypocrisy is showing.

Re: Prop 8: The Musical

kliofem — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:19:14 -0000

Yay for the funny.

Less yay for the black woman saying "Obama-nation" (ie, abomination) - feeds into the whole debunked "black people lost Prop 8" meme.

Re: California to Investigate Mormons' Political Activity Re: Prop 8

kliofem — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:38:52 -0000

The Unitarian Universalist Association outlines the tax-exempt rules this way:
In order to qualify for tax exemption, an organization must meet the following requirements:

1. the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes,
2. net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
3. no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
4. the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
5. the organization's purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

http://www.uua.org/leaders/...

While it would seem that the Mormons clearly broke rules #3 and #4, I wonder where this puts other churches. (My understanding of the current interpretation #4 is that churches can campaign all they want regarding issues, but they can't campaign for parties or candidates.) Individual UU churches have campaigned against legislation like Prop 8, in many different states. (Not hard enough, clearly.)

I guess the Mormon issue is one of degree - that necessary difference between "some" and "substantial" effort.

Personally, I don't think any churches should be tax-exempt. But that's me.

Re: Shaker Gourmet: Thanksgiving 2008!

kliofem — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:56:57 -0000

Roast on lowest level of the oven at 500 degrees F. for 30 minutes. Remove from oven and cover breast with double layer of aluminum foil, insert probe thermometer into thickest part of the breast and return to oven, reducing temperature to 350 degrees F. Set thermometer alarm (if available) to 161 degrees. A 14 to 16 pound bird should require a total of 2 to 2 1/2 hours of roasting. Let turkey rest, loosely covered for 15 minutes before carving.

The key to Alton Brown's genius lies in this section of his turkey recipe. And it's in what he doesn't say, not what he does say.

Note no reference to basting. GENIUS!!! Leave the thing in the oven and don't open the door. The oven retains its temperature and the turkey cooks faster, and is therefore juicier.

Even if you don't do the whole brining thing - follow those instructions for the roasting part. Not least because it's way less frigging work.

Re: Tom Daschle to Head HHS

kliofem — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:45:25 -0000

Stupid tags.

Re: Tom Daschle to Head HHS

kliofem — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:44:15 -0000

[i] There will be more pressure for these things to be funded than there is now when it's a direct democracy, i.e. each single payer demanding the services they want directly from their healthcare providers. [/i]

I hope you're right, Melissa. And the fact that all of the anti-choice propositions failed this year certainly helps.

I need to work on being a better democrat (small "d") - I'm not sure how much I trust "the people" to protect those rights.

Sorry for the derail.

Re: Tom Daschle to Head HHS

kliofem — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:47:44 -0000

Derail:

I have a very specific fear regarding true single-payer health care. Could people educate me on this? (Or, in Rachel Maddow parlance, talk me down?)

It seems to me that medicine is increasingly a space where some of the biggest "debates" (for lack of a better term) exist regarding women and gender equality. Abortion. Contraception. Gender reassignment surgery. (Etc. Etc. Etc.)

Would single-payer health care guarantee access to these things? Or, would pre-existing laws like the Hyde Amendment mean that with single-payer health care, we essentially lose abortion rights in one fell swoop (because the Hyde Amendment forbids spending federal $$$ on abortion)?

Even if single-payer health care was passed during an administration friendly to women's health issues, who's to say that the next administration wouldn't rescind those rights with the stroke of a pen?

I know that this is a huge derail. And y'all can ignore it if that's deemed appropriate. (FWIW, I've been wondering about this for ages, and truly trust Shakers to help me think it through!)

Re: On Labors of Love, Hope, Growing Pains, Gratitude, and Teaspoons

kliofem — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:11:09 -0000

So glad for you, Melissa, that you feel ready to come back. That's a huge decision, and I appreciate being one of the many beneficiaries of it.

I haven't commented much lately - partly because of work demands. And partly because the comments on the political posts (the posts I read first, after the "News from Shakes Manor" posts, which come firsty-first because they are the bestest) had become so toxic. I had gotten caught in a few dust-ups early on, and just decided it was no good for me.

Thanks for keeping this place alive as wimps like me ducked out.

Re: Great Expectations

kliofem — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:54:03 -0000

I was never a frequent commenter, but FWIW:

I've read this thread since it started. When Melissa posted it originally, I cried, because it so perfectly encapsulated the feelings I had. And what I loved about it - and, really, all of Melissa's work - is that it is about praxis: finding ways of living in the world while maintaining (and even honing) a critical stance.

Honestly, I think Melissa is not just a blogmistress supreme, QCoFM - she's one of the most amazing feminist thinkers I've ever come across, in any wave, and in any media. She has shown, in the past year, a remarkable flexibility of thinking (her new focus on inclusion of womanist thinking comes to mind) and real commitment to feminist and progressive change.

So the threads lately - especially this one - have broken my heart. I am frankly shocked at the tone-deafness of the comments on this thread. To have Melissa literally beg for some consideration and an effort by all at peacemaking - and then see continued belligerent, petulant, self-centered responses shows a fundamental lack of caring not only about Melissa, but about what it means to create community.

I haven't commented in a while; I doubt if I'll comment again.

But (to use a McEwenism), for Maude's sake - listen to yourselves. Think about how people will hear what you're saying. Do you honestly need written point-by-point instructions for posting? What about common courtesy, and making an attempt to consider others' feelings (especially when those others are your hosts and your allies)?

Melissa - I understand burnout. But, to overdo a metaphor - you have an amazing light inside you. Reading over the comments of support in this thread, it's clear that that light has had an incredible impact. Nurture it. And even if it means leaving this digital space - please, don't let that light burn out.

Re: Palin's Daughter is Currently Pregnant

kliofem — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:48:34 -0000

[i] Oh, please. There's no way McCain didn't know about this. [/i]

I think you're absolutely right - but it certainly seems like the McCain camp is handling this pick by the seat of its proverbial pants. The last thing a campaign wants is a potentially embarassing personal story taking up airtime - It seems to me that this is further evidence that the Palin pick was a last-minute decision.

Re: Palin's Daughter is Currently Pregnant

kliofem — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:44:44 -0000

Oh - and by "failure to fully vet": I don't mean that this should have disqualified Palin - not at all.

What I do mean is that there must have been knowledge that this would dominate the news cycle. If anything, the McCain camp got what it wanted with the Palin pick - the total attention of the MSM. But now, the story will spin out of their control. They should have known that.

Re: Palin's Daughter is Currently Pregnant

kliofem — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:38:26 -0000

The only thing that this pregnancy is evidence of is the utter failure on the part of the McCain campaign to fully vet their VP candidate. All the rest is none of our business. None.

Best of luck to Bristol - she's got a tough row to hoe, but it looks like she has a very loving family supporting her.

(PS - I've been laying low lately - started a new gig and can't keep up w/ 300 comment threads - but I got in early on this one!)

Re: Michelle Obama at The Democratic National Convention

kliofem — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:05:58 -0000

Yeah - the line is from Clinton's concession speech:

"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling, thanks to you it's got about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before," she said.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour...

Re: Michelle Obama at The Democratic National Convention

kliofem — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:58:40 -0000

IIRC, the "18 million cracks" line is from one of Clinton's own speeches (her concession speech maybe?). I heard Michelle Obama's use of that line as a geniune recognition of the work Clinton has done.

Re: Today in Disembodied Things

kliofem — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:56:36 -0000

***in "my" town.

Re: Today in Disembodied Things

kliofem — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:54:22 -0000

I've heard rumors that there's a place in town that will photo-transfer your very own sonogram images (including full color!) onto a cake.

So you can have fetus cake along with your pregnant torso cake.

Not equivalent - but certainly both squicky.

Re: Focus on the Family: Praying for rain and heading to Hell

kliofem — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:23:10 -0000

Adoring fans?

Re: From the Mailbag

kliofem — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:49:10 -0000

On Queen Victoria's underwear:

I don't know a whole heckuva lot about elite women's clothing of that period, but these two phrases jumped out at me:

"the 50-inch-waist knickers"
"open-crotch style, with separate legs joined by a drawstring at the waist"

IOW, she didn't have a 50-inch waist (and who the fuck cares if she did?). Her drawstring drawers were 50 inches at their widest point, meant to be drawn in (thus, the drawstring).

This is just our blooming lack of historical memory at work - yes, those underwear look pretty big, if you compare them to my cotton Hanes briefs, or make some teenager stand in them like those before-and-after pics for diet pills. Because underwear looks different now.

But instead, we get: "OMFG!!!! Look at the gynormous underpants!!!!" without ever considering what underpants looked like then.

Re: The Contender

kliofem — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:09:44 -0000

Tal -
Like I said, I haven't seen the movie in a long time - so I didn't remember exactly what my concern was.

But your explanation helps me to remember: My question was, why did they have to show the audience that it wasn't her in the pictures? In a way, the movie has 2 audiences:

1. The internal audience is the one that Joan Allen's character is playing to - the fictionalized "American public", who is told that her sexual history shouldn't matter.
2. The external audience is the one that the movie is playing to - us, the viewers. And by showing us in the last scene of the movie (IIRC) that "she didn't do it", the film actually renegs on its argument. With a wink, it says, "Look - she really didn't do it, so not only are her principles great, but she's not a whore at all! You can love her without any question now!"

What I would have preferred is if the film left out the reveal entirely. Actually illustrated in the narrative the principle it's trying to espouse - the sexual history of the character shouldn't matter.

By reassuring the audience of her "cleanness," the film takes the easy way out. And trusts its real audience less than it trusts the fictionalized "American public".

Re: The Contender

kliofem — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:56:07 -0000

I remember seeing the movie when it came out, and Mr. K and I talked for hours about it. IIRC, there was something about it, narrative-wise, that bugged me.

(Bear with me - it's been years since I've seen the movie.) Isn't there some whole question about whether or not she did the "awful slutty thing"? (I can't remember what exactly happened... so that's my shorthand.) And they show her doing the "awful slutty thing"? But then she's exonerated for doing the "awful slutty thing"?

Anyways - I remember feeling that the movie wanted to have it both ways - it wanted to show her doing the "awful slutty thing", but also wanted to reassure us that she was still as pure as the driven snow. Either way, the "awful slutty thing" becomes a qualifier for office. And either way, the audience participates in the pornifying of this woman.

I may be recalling it incorrectly. But I think that was my analysis years ago...

Re: lol your fat skinny

kliofem — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:42:46 -0000

Enomis' comment made me think of this:

Ostensibly, these presidential dudez are in chronological order - with Obama after McCain. This plays into the idea that Obama is too young/inexperienced/presumptuous to be Prez yet . It's McCain's Turn , doncha know.

Re: lol your fat skinny

kliofem — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:03:05 -0000

Bald Soprano,
It's the OBESITY EPIDEMIC. It's not supposed to make sense - it's supposed to be SCAAARRRRYYYYY.

Re: lol your fat skinny

kliofem — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:56:59 -0000

Um, there's a reason why Madison is in there.

US presidents have, historically, been pretty tall. (Some people see causation there - I think it's a coincidence - kind of like how Jefferson, Washington, and Henry were all redheads.)

Check out this height chart of US presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

At 5'7", McCain would be damn near the bottom of the list - 2 notches above 5'4" James Madison - and one notch above Harrison and Van Buren (both 5'6").

Seems to me that Madison's in there just to say, "look - there's another short guy! Really!"

But they ain't convinced me! I ain't votin' for no short guy!!!!11!1!!!!!

Re: lol your fat skinny

kliofem — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:25:08 -0000

Nancy & Astraea, you beat me to it. Washington was famously tall. Madison was famously short. And Jefferson had a famously whiny speaking voice.