lavendertook

My mom died one year ago tonight. I think she did well to go then and not now--I do not think she would have liked experiencing this past year of the world. A year ago, Trump was still a joke candidate, and a total long shot. And yesterday, not to mention the past month, would have been a terrible send off for her. So it was a mercy.

More massacres. And Republicans running around without their masks on anymore. It is backlash culture--the masks off are the last ditch effort, and hopefully, November will prove that more people in the US are moving onward from there, but it's so not a sure thing that the spawn of the Koch Brothers won't prevail. I hope we can rally and get out the Democratic vote--and I hope Sanders' movement keeps momentum for pushing all branches of government to the left--if it fizzles then nothing will have been salvaged of this year.

It's unconscionable that the President has not been allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice and I can't blame Ginsberg for losing her cool in light of this hijacking of our government by Republican thugs set on destroying our nation--she must be so demoralized by that empty seat that at the very least should have been under debate several times over by now, and the media has just buried the issue under.

My mom and I shared political views and, with all our personal differences, I rant to honor her. But today I am just really sad.

The killing of the five police officers in Dallas was horrible. The killing of the two black men two days in a row by police officers was also horrible, an everyday horror for black people, only now getting the focus it should have gotten for decades due to the spread of ready video technology, and I don't want the focus shifted from that ongoing injustice by the Dallas killings.

Over 500 people have been killed by police in this country this past year and almost half have been black and (with overlap) hispanic people. I am glad protests are still ongoing and thank the bravery of the people getting out there in the streets in peaceful protest.

For those of us who can't get out there for various reasons, here's at least a petition to sign from an established organization seeking justice for Philando and Alton

I am so angry at the media right now, including NPR framing the attack in Orlando as a terrorist act. This slaughter was primarily a hate crime against the LGBTIQ community. As yet there has been no direct connection found between the shooter and ISIS except as inspiration--a group for the killer to claim association with to frame his killing as a political act beyond personal religious belief. Islamic fundamentalist hate for same sex love is no different than Christian fundamentalist or any fundamentalist groups' hatred of queer folk.

And the people in Orlando shot are no more dead than the children and adults shot in the non-ISIS inspired Newtown massacre. The scope of the slaughter is due to the easy obtaining of a military assault rifle, pure and simple.

And yes, a bomb would also create such widespread slaughter, as in the Boston Marathon bombing, but bombs take a lot more planning and ingenuity to assemble and thus allow more avenues for discovery--they are harder to pull off. The killer yesterday would have had to have done a lot more work and planning, that would have had a good chance of being discovered as he was already watched. But the assault rifle he obtained lawfully could not be taken away because anyone can buy one.

By calling this act a terrorist act, rather than primarily a hate crime, politicians can deflect from the weapon used and banning assault weapons, and focus on discriminatory crap against Muslims like expanding watch lists--which would have done NOTHING to prevent this already watched killer from obtaining his arms legally like any other violent hate-filled individual out there who doesn't fit an Islamic terrorist profile. It is not only the ISIS inspired who use assault rifles for mass killing and the people in Orlando would have been just as dead if their killer was a Christian fundamentalist or neo-Nazi homophobe. And targeting the mentally ill will do nothing good. No one should have an assault weapon. Rage is all too human and we do not take the hate crimes of domestic violence seriously enough, and that was clue for what this killer was capable of.

But not even the Democrats, let alone the Republicans want to take on the NRA, and we give them outs to not do so by making terrorism the issue here rather than the weapons available to the enraged.

No enraged person should have access to a trigger they can pull for mass killing, whatever ideology or lack thereof inspires them. (I'm not too crazy about access to individual targeted guns as well, and military use is another argument, but let's just start here with assault weapons to enact some laws against mass slaughter.) The second amendment was designed with flintlock rifles in mind, not automatic weapons with hundreds of rounds. By framing the act as terrorism, we deflect from the insanity of allowing these weapons for mass slaughter to be legal and easily obtained.

The people who kill people cannot easily kill SO MANY people without assault guns. It doesn't matter whether this hate-filled act was inspired with a terrorist group's agenda in mind. The slaughter is still the same. The issue is not international terrorism but the need to ban these weapons of mass killing from the hands of anyone harboring any homegrown hatred, which means banning them from the U.S. public, period.

Also posted at http://lavendertook.dreamwidth.org/198148.html with comments

I got an email from President Obama in response to a petition I signed a number of weeks ago about accepting Syrian refugees, and it's a really great statement, so I'm posting it here:

( Exposition and assurance of vetting process )

This is a crisis we cannot ignore and it will worsen over time. If we do nothing, we risk letting an entire disaffected generation grow up in refugee camps or grow up displaced and threatened by terrorists. That is why part of keeping this country safe requires forcefully affirming to the rest of the world that we will not close our hearts or our borders to those in need. Helping those who have been pushed to the margins of our world makes us safer, and turning our backs on them would be a betrayal of our values.

We, as Americans, have always been a people who ask what we can do to help. We will continue to protect ourselves while welcoming those desperately seeking the protection we can provide. That is why the United States of America has stepped up as the largest donor of humanitarian assistance and has committed to the resettlement of at least 100,000 refugees this year—including 10,000 Syrians.

As long as I’'m President, I will do everything in my power to keep the American people safe and to ensure our country remains what it has always been—a beacon of hope to all who seek it.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama


Visit WhiteHouse.gov

I'm proud the US has a president who is encouraging compassion and taking in Syrian refugees. The governor of my little blue state is not doing Maryland proud.

Here's a petition from moveon.org for stating your support for Syrian Resettlement:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/syrian-refugee-resettlement-1

My favorite comment on the subject is by Oliver Willis, as reblogged by supergee:

“If only we had a seasonally appropriate story about Middle Eastern people seeking refuge being turned away by the heartless.”

Yup.

I'm so glad that in his state of the union speech on Tuesday President Obama is going to be calling for raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing leave time to better the conditions of US workers, so we can tend to more than just our jobs. I'm still grateful for his part in getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusions for health care and setting up my nation's baby steps toward universal healthcare. Of course it's messy as hell--having no health insurance when you're sick is so much more messy and fatal. This was a momentous accomplishment that has made so many lives better in the US.

Sure, I disagree with many of his choices and policies--his failure to revoke bank execs giving themselves bonuses during the banking crisis, embracing of the Patriot Act that infringes too far on civil liberties in the name of security and his use of drones, and toleration of Guantanamo.

I don't know enough to say he shouldn't have bailed the banks, because the rebounding of the economy may owe some of its source to this. He could do more to address climate change and supporting alternative energies, but he's done some good in that direction. He's done some good for indigenous peoples and immigrants. He has slowed the damage done our nation by years of Reagan and Bushes, and now he's working to reverse the Bush tax cuts. That would give us a better chance of keeping bridges, overpasses, and buildings from collapsing and killing more people than terrorism will ever accomplish, pull more women raising children out of poverty, and give more kids who might create something that makes a difference a chance at an education.

And he's done all this while even the liberal press has declared his unpopularity. They cry he is so unpopular when he has only 40% approval. But in a nation when far less of that public even bothers to vote, that is actually a sign of vast approval.

He's been the best president in my life time. I hated the whole hope and change garbage of his first campaign, but he accomplished much more than I expected, and for that I'm grateful. If we can do as well with our next president and not go backwards, better times could be ahead.

Tuxie, on a Froday, needing a stiff drink:


Please go on. I'd love to hear more about how awful it would be to raise taxes on the top 2%, Mr. Brooks . . .

I'm still cackling over David Brooks' statement during The News Hour:

First, we have -- they have given a lot on revenue already. We can't continue to raise taxes again and again on the top two percent, because once you push people above where more than 50 or 60 percent of their income is going to tax, they start behaving in counterproductive ways.

D'awwwwwwww poor widdle rich peeples gonna start stamping their widdle feet? And like, *start*, *start behaving in counterproductive ways* like hoarding the wealth of the world while cutting jobs and making everyone else who isn't in their demographic do the work of 3 people for meager pay while they jet around to their multiple homes? Gosh, it would be awful if that happened . . . .

And I'm still elated that the President admitted he is a Jedi today. :-D

I'm going to try to post pics at least every other day on this, my birth month, if not every day. We'll see how it goes.

President Obama won! I am so relieved. Also, my little blue state is awesome.

It's not just Readercon and it's not only sexual harassment and the sexism that creates the environment for it. It's not just men in sf&f/nerd/geek spaces and the casual acceptance of sexual harassment that has made those spaces uncomfortable for me, and makes staying at home with the cats and talking with my friends online the better social option. Earlier this summer, I went to a local meet up for geek women, and "geek" here does seem to mean "fandom". It was a nice enough group, the organizer was fun, and I wanted to go again.

Then a couple of weeks ago, the organizer, who appears to be white (as did all the group at the meetup I attended, though there are a few women of color on the meetup list who weren't in attendance) made a racist and ableist comment meant to be a joke on the group mailing list/message board. And I've been debating whether to say something, which my hunch says will not be well received, or if I should just save the energy and walk away from the group, which would be the easier thing to do. I already skipped the last meet up.

I decided to give sociability and communicating about my discomfort with the racist/ableist comment a go, though I did focus more on the racist part of it. Below is the email I sent the organizer yesterday afternoon. I took a note from Jay Smooth and decided to leave out the "r'" word. If you think there's a gentler way I could have gotten my point across, and want to share to help me in future situations, please let me know. I've been in this position many times in the past in plenty of places and will be in it again many times in the future. And I don't always have the choice to stay home with the cats when it's not an optional social space like fandom, but instead a place of employment, for instance. So here's what I sent her, sans greeting, quote of the comment, and closure:
( My email, kvetching about white sf/f fan spaces, and the reply that then came below . . . )

No toleration of sexual harassment and the mandating of a permanent ban on harassers is NOT about punishment of the harasser. It's about protecting and supporting the harassed.

No one knows in advance if they will ever feel completely safe again in the presence of their sexual harasser or relive the humiliating feeling of being treated as prey any time they are in the harasser's presence, or worse levels of trauma. Many of us, like Kate Kligman who actively worked on several con commitees, have a tendency to drift away from places and situations where we have been treated badly, and effectively ban ourselves.

This Readercon policy should be in place to keep sufferers of sexual harassment from being lost to that community. Again, it's NOT about punishing the harasser; it IS about rallying around the harassed.

Might those who have been sexually harassed be afraid to come forward if the result is a permanent ban of the harasser? Yes--IF people keep acting like a permanent ban from one con is a damned jail sentence!

The ban does not even involve being required to perform community service or make any kind of amends whatsoever. It's not the loss of rights--it's the earned loss of a privilege, one that the harasser obviously took for granted. It does not prevent him from attending any number of other cons.

What the ban provides for the harassed is some measure of peace of mind for future con attendance, affirmation that her safety is important, and assurance that she is a valued member of the community, so that after what may have been an uncomfortable, anxiety inducing, frightening, or painful experience for her, she will actually want to come back again and participate in the community.

When people wring their hands over what a terrible punishment being permanently banned from a con for sexual harassment is, what does get minimized in the consciousness of the harassed is her place in the community. Whether she is a valued member there or is at all welcome comes into question for her. Is your safety and well-being considered less important than the harasser's continued presence? Can you ever feel at home in a place where you have been marked as territory and called upon to fight for your autonomy just to be in a space that others can walk in freely without having to fight?

Nitpicking at the policy because you think all decrees should involve wiggle room, when there is already wiggle room in the Readercon board's determining whether or not the action is a case of outright harassment in the first place, further demeans the needs of the harassed. This minimizing effect makes the decision harder for those who experience harassment to come forward in the future. The minimization's effects can extend to everyone who has been subjected to sexual harassment. I know I feel it.

I know the sexual harasser may be a friend. Think less about him and focus on the harassed as the person whose continued presence in that community is now very much AT RISK, and must be ensured by the community taking action for her safety and peace of mind.

I greatly admire glvalentine and vschanoes for the magnificent fight they are waging in resistance to minimization of their worth and to make con culture better. They are demonstrating just how women backing each other up is truly done. I wish them their energy back for better things for themselves.

Roundup of links on the Readercon fail has been kindly provided by bcholmes here.

Addendum: vschanoes has written a petition to ask the board to resign, apologize to glvalentine, ban Rene Walling, and put people with a clue in place to make decisions. You can read it here and you can add you name to the petition here. Feel free to sign in anonymously so you can submit your given, rather than LJ/DW name.

One of the many reasons I will not be having a Supreme Court confirmation hearing:

Sen. Graham: Where were you on Christmas day?

Ms. Took: Drinking the blood of Christian babies. What do you think Jews do on Christmas, you stupid fucker? Which you would know if you were more aware of all internet tradishuns, instead of, you know, expecting everyone to be practicing yours.

Whut? Why aren't you laughing? Aren't I white enough to make you feel safe? Or would you like to make a shout out to all your white protestant male friends who are being asked to share, and sometimes giving up their seats overrun by the rest of us Others? You know, if you want to share in the quaint Jewish American tradition of eating Chinese food on Christmas, better do it quick before Pan-Asian people working those kitchens are represented on the SC, too, and, you know, you just might have to learn to cook it yourself.

Hey come back here! *bounce, bounce* I'll bite your leg off!!!!

Hat tip to acrimonyastraea for the link to this good post from another Not Ready for Borscht Belt Player.

Why "I'm sorry" and NOT "What I meant" is a good starting point:

It really isn't that hard to respond with a suitable apology to objections about your saying something insensitive or that could obviously be taken as insensitive, even if you didn't mean it that way in the context in which you said it, if you respect your audience. Trying to explain away or deny the original comment's possible implications, and not the original comment itself, always creates the fail scenario. If you don't make a clear and unequivocal apology demonstrating your respect for the objector, your friends or fans will burn and pillage to try to defend you and justify their own views.

Right here, Debbie Reese looks at a remark Neil Gaiman made and explains why she finds it troubling, and asks whether anyone ever publicly discussed that quote again with NG before she came across it.

Quite contrary to jumping to conclusions and accusations, she is offering NG an opportunity to clarify his statement in the context of why she finds it troubling, and to give an opportunity to anyone in his reading community who read the comment before to also discuss it and reflect on why they did not remark upon it before. She explains the cost of using the phrase "a few dead Indians" which reinforces the idea that there weren't thriving Native American civilizations for centuries before European encroachment, and aids the erasure of the continued existence of First Nations' cultures and peoples. Many education systems in the US and worldwide still fail to discuss this, and even contradict this fact. It doesn't matter that you may be better informed yourself--a great many more people are not.

For her reasonable query and explanation, within a few hours, Debbie Reese is accused of lacking reading skills by 8 commenters rushing to Neil Gaiman's defense. She is accused of looking for ridiculous reasons to be offended by 6, of bringing up an issue of little importance by 6, of being too emotional/over-sensitive by 3, and of being a self-involved jerk by 2. And I'm not even including the vitriol that was thrown at both Debbie Reese and kynn at Kynn's journal. None of this behavior is surprising or new, and keeps happening over and over again. The bingo card is full.

( Some suggestions on handling one's own fail . . . )

ithiliana posted a link round-up and good info on why the subject of graveyards and dead Indians might be a sensitive topic for many Native Americans.