Blogging.

June 25th, 2010 § 0

Hi all.

I doubt there are very many regular readers here anymore, if any. I’ve been shamefully neglecting this blog. I’m just too busy to put myself into regularly updating a project like this. I still write plenty, but it’s either for publication somewhere else or in much looser form, on Tumblr.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Tumblr is what blogs were when they started: a mishmash of things. Responses, links, pictures, personal stories and obsessions, portraits of the artist as an Internet Whatever. Sometimes I write things on Tumblr; I’ve written three today. Other times I just reblog pretty things that come across my dashboard.

Marisa Meltzer wrote about Tumblr for the Prospect; I loved a lot of what she had to say. Like this:

At its best, Tumblr is a sort of modern-day zinemaking. Zines, self-published do-it-yourself magazines (often featuring photos and text cut from other magazines and photocopied) with limited distribution, have always been a part of underground culture, both as a product and as a galvanizing part of the community. As in the zine world, activists and weirdos alike thrive in their Tumblr microcommunities, posting photos of signs that read “Feminism Is for Lovers” or collages of child stars. Blogs have been accused of killing off zines (though they are still being produced), and tumblelogs seem to channel the spirit of zines more so than any long-form blog.

I keep up with the Internet differently now; I get more links from social media than from RSS feeds. I read bits of things at a time; I get news reports on Twitter.

All this is to say that while Tumblr is in much looser form than this blog is, it’s where I do most of my less-formal Internetting at this point in time. I won’t delete this blog because I love a lot of what I’ve done here, even if I’ve changed a lot since I started this blog. I learned here, met people here, made friends here, started shit here.

I’m still hellraisin’, it’s just elsewhere. Come play.

Health Care Explainers

March 25th, 2010 § 0

I’m collecting here the best explainer posts, widgets, and videos on the health care legislation that just passed. Immediately after the bill made it through, I started getting questions from friends who are politically aware enough to know it was happening, but not nearly as hooked-in as I am–and I couldn’t even tell them what was in the bill. So, here’s my attempt to help with that problem. Above is a video from GRITtv (yes, my place of employment) with Maggie Mahar of HealthBeatBlog.org and Jacob Hacker, the inventor of the public option (that we didn’t get) explaining what’s in the bill and when it takes place.

The Washington Post made this really great interactive gadget that should tell you how the bill will affect you.

The New York Times also has a gadget, though not quite as cool to my mind as the WaPo’s, it is simpler.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has a handy subsidy calculator as well, just in case the last two widgets didn’t tell you enough about your personal finances.

From CNN, a rundown on when different provisions kick in.

Nick Baumann at Mother Jones with a plain-English rundown of what happens this year.

MoveOn.org has Ten Things Every American Should Know, though frankly it’s more like Ten Talking Points. Still, stats worth looking at.

CBS has a nice summary of the bill in bullet points.

Karoli at Crooks & Liars has ten immediate benefits of the bill and a rollout timetable.

**Not really an explainer of personal effects, but this David Leonhardt piece from the New York Times is a must-read for the general direction of the bill–and why Republicans and tea partiers are so angry about it.

This is just a start; I plan to keep collecting. Please leave your suggestions in comments, and feel free to steal this! Almost all of these suggestions came to me via Twitter, thanks to everyone who sent ‘em.

“I think this might be my masterpiece”

February 22nd, 2010 § 4

possible spoilers

These are the last words in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, and they’re so gloriously cocky spilling from the lips of Brad Pitt as Tarantino’s doppelganger, Lt. Aldo Raine: brash, foul-mouthed, scarred and uglied up and from an unsexy part of the USA and constantly smirking, unruffled by anything that happens to or around him, that I think he might be right. Tarantino, that is, speaking through Aldo Raine.

Despite the early trailers that made much of cartoonish violence and Pitt’s cartoonish accent, it’s certainly Tarantino’s most mature movie–despite those easy gags, it’s a mile away from the diatribes that revelled in tossing around taboos and dropping n-bombs in his earlier movies.

Pitt,  though he gets the last word, isn’t even the star of the movie–that would be Melanie Laurent as Shoshana, a Jewish cinema owner who saw her family killed at the orders of Oscar-nominated Christoph Waltz’s Col. Hans Landa, after betrayal by the man who hid them. The garish revenge of Raine and the Basterds is nothing compared to her steely resolve, and she gives the movie emotional heft that sneaks up on you and only hits you when you realize how far she’s willing to go.

Really at its heart this isn’t a movie about revenge–Tarantino already did that, glorifying and personifying revenge in The Bride in Kill Bill–but about movies, about the power and the joy of movies, but mostly the power. The way cinema can destroy, can inspire, can write and rewrite history. It’s not enough to kill Nazis–Shoshana must make a movie and splice it into one of Goebbels’ propaganda pieces, asserting her self, her freedom through cinema.

Tarantino’s greatest strength as a filmmaker has always been that he’s a film junkie: he can reference layer upon layer of high and low art. But the strongest references here are to his own movies–a closeup on Shoshana’s lips nearly identical to one from Pulp Fiction but with stakes much higher, and a drop-in grindhouse title on top of a German Basterd (who despite his cartoonish intro also lends weight–Til Schweiger is dangerously, broodingly dominant onscreen, emanating as palpable hatred as Shoshana’s every time he’s onscreen with the Nazis).

Even the Basterds, who start off as Jewish revenge porn (a crew of Jewish soldiers from the USA dropped in behind enemy lines to destroy as many Nazis as possible?), remind you where the film is really going. Eli Roth, nicknamed “The Bear Jew” and lovingly shot (never thought I’d find the man responsible for Hostel sexy) evokes a remark from Raine that watching him beat Nazis to death “is the closest we get to going to the movies.”

They strike back through spectacle, if not explicitly through cinema. They don’t just kill Nazis; they scalp them (how American-cinematic!) and leave mutilated bodies to be found, and carve swastikas onto the foreheads of those they let live–in a way, a nod toward what he owes to real victims of the Holocaust–a reminder that all this happened and no one should forget, and a picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words gesture both of mercy (and the word “merci” is never translated in the subtitles, a move that I can’t help but think was intentional, particularly in the intro scene between Landa and LaPadite) and of continuing revenge. The story of the Basterds is their real strength, making them outsize cinema-villains. Storytelling is power.

The film cartoonizes Hitler, defanging him not just through violence but by making you laugh at him. It humanizes other Nazis, though, while not forgiving them–Daniel Bruhl as the young soldier who crosses over into cinema and stars in his own life story is almost likable in his flirtation with Shoshana and his need to flee the larger-than-life sight of himself on the movie screen, the dramatized version of his real-life exploits.

Bruhl’s character isn’t the only one that crosses the borders there–Diane Kruger also does as an actress turned double agent: film into politics into film again. The lines of reality and cinema, for Tarantino, are suddenly more porous, while the rest of his work has always been hyperconscious that it is film.  Basterds rockets from the improbable–Mike Myers in heavy makeup recruiting a plummy-accented film critic to go behind enemy lines to meet the Basterds–to the poignantly real, but here it’s not just celebrating the fun that movies are, it’s making a stronger point about them.

Tarantino’s political statement here is that cinema is political. Indeed, the movie wouldn’t have to be about Nazis at all but for the fact that no other regime in history so successfully embraced and used film to create and tell its own story.

I had sworn off Nazi movies before this one hit, but I am also a sworn Tarantino fan. So I may say instead that I hope this is the Nazi movie to end all Nazi movies. After all, it’s so conclusively rewritten history–something perhaps only safe to do with history both as well-known and as disputed as that of Hitler’s Germany.  Just the fact that he can make this movie leaves you wondering what kind of movies we’d have had the Nazis won. You get the feeling that for Tarantino, one of the most poignant scenes in the film is Shoshana’s statement that she has no choice but to play German films.

There are a million tiny perfect moments here–a montage set to David Bowie’s “Cat People/Putting Out Fire” with Shoshana putting on her makeup-as-war-paint, a cigarette flying in slow motion through the air to set a pile of film on fire, a request by Landa for a house on Nantucket that I can’t help but interpret as a dig at the Bush family’s own connections to the Reich, Roth’s exuberant outburst after bashing in a Nazi skull complete with Ted Williams references.

I did long for a comeback moment, a la Kill Bill or True Romance, a gesture of personal physical violence from one of the film’s female characters. But perhaps the lack of it is an odd gesture for some sort of peace, at least for Shoshana.

Peace. It’s not really a theme here, but neither is war. Violence certainly is, but for all the vicarious thrills (and heck, I’m Jewish, I enjoy them as much as anyone) the feeling given is less that violence is good and more that those thrills SHOULD be vicarious. Bashing people’s heads in with a baseball bat isn’t actually a solution to a problem, and if you want to burn down the theater to take your enemies out, you may well go out with it.

Still, I haven’t left a movie theater with a wicked grin like I did tonight in a while, and that’s the pleasure Tarantino has always given–lines to quote, laughs to remember later, visuals that stick with you, and stories, always stories.

It’s just that here, his story actually says something.

do you know what it means to miss new orleans?

February 19th, 2010 § 2

Maybe you do, I don’t know.

I do.

It means that every time you hear it mentioned you miss something different—a sight, a smell, a sound—like beads dangling from trees as far uptown as Loyola, that special lower Decatur street aroma of beer, sweat, vomit, Irish coffee and the Mississippi, the far-off sounds of a brass band letting you know that a parade or a second line or just a marching band for the hell of it is heading your way.

But those are the cliches.

To miss it now is to look for people you know in every New Orleans story you read or hear, and to still wonder what happened to your neighbor whose name you could never tell—was it Ron or Rob or Rod? His accent too thick but his smile always real for you as he made his way over on his one leg and crutch to ask how you are. It’s sometimes to forget to look for people and then trip over a name of someone you knew.

Yesterday I was reading a book called Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans, full of first-person stories of The Storm and What Came After, on the subway in Brooklyn a million miles from New Orleans in some ways and so similar it stings a bit in its pleasure in others. And I flipped to a new story and a name jumped out at me, a professor who taught me to call myself a feminist and drank Harp with us in Ireland and wrote my recommendations for grad school five years after I’d graduated.

Of course I’d spoken to her since Katrina—grad school applications were in 2007, so I knew a bit about her evacuation story and where her family and her Perfect Grandchild were. She knew I did my master’s in journalism in Philly and was still afraid to see New Orleans again.

But reading her story in her husband’s words felt like a ghost—felt like those days after The Storm when I was sitting in front of the television in my parents’ house in South Carolina, waiting to see faces I knew crying at the convention center or the Superdome or walking through Kenner to escape.

I never did.

Instead those faces pop up in my mind when I read stories of the storm, and I still read them all the time.

I haven’t been back, it’s true. I’ve said so many times that it’s like seeing an ex-love after years and some horrible trauma—what’s that person going to be like now? Should you just remember them the way they were?

But if you love them, really love them after all those years and all that’s happened to them, you should go. You smile bravely at the scars and tell them they’re beautiful still and drink a toast.

I just bought plane tickets to London but I’m not using up all my vacation time on that trip.

I think I’ll go to New Orleans this year for Halloween. I need to see old friends and dance in the streets, take cliche pictures of beads in trees along parade routes and remember that smell on Lower Decatur.

The last time I was planning a Halloween trip to New Orleans was 2005. Then Katrina hit.

I need to go back.

Uteruses Aren’t Political Footballs

February 7th, 2010 § 0

Watching the Super Bowl today? Think women have the right to control their own damn bodies? Or just hate Focus on the Family and James Dobson?

Join the Super Bowl Tailgate for Choice party.

Donate at least $5 to a prochoice organization today in honor of the Focus on the Family anti-abortion ad and stick it to Dobson.

In addition to the big ones, there are some good smaller orgs that could use your cash: NLIRH and SisterSong, among others.

test

February 6th, 2010 § 0

More GRITtv

Free Abortion On Demand

January 22nd, 2010 § 2

It’s Blog for Choice Day. And this year, a year many of us thought might actually be a good one for sexual and reproductive rights, has turned out to be a very lousy one indeed. We saw Democrats force the Stupak amendment into an otherwise fairly decent House health care reform bill, and do nearly the same thing in the Senate onto an already-pretty-crappy health care reform bill.

We saw the murder of Dr. George Tiller, abortion provider, in cold blood.

We like to talk about choice. We fight over terminology. But what have we really done, in the years since Roe v. Wade, other than hold the line and nervously try not to lose what we’ve won?

We criticize Democrats for not supporting us, we who put them in office. But what are we pushing for? When my Democrat Congresswoman from my quite Democratic district (BROOKLYN, people) sends me a form letter in response to my calls and emails about Stupak, reassuring ME that there won’t be any federal money spent on abortion, what does that mean for us? Even the Democrats are more worried about antichoice arguments than they are about people like me bailing on them. Where are we going to go, after all, right?

Well, I’m tired of it. It’s 2010. We need to be fighting for more gains, not hiding in a defensive crouch and praying we get to hold on to what we’ve got. Rights are not granted, they are taken.

Right after Stupak, I wrote:

Not enough. I want positives. I want to use this moment to affirm our right to a healthy, joyful sexuality and to talk about how we can achieve that. A messy, unruly sexuality—hell, part of the beauty of it is that it’s not clean and neat. It is like eating a peach, in the last lines of Prufrock, juices running down your chin, sweet and tangy. Those decisions that happen in a minute are sometimes wrong, and sometimes unplanned things come out of them, but we don’t need to be saved from it, we need to have resources and support to deal with it, from a relationship gone sour to unfortunate STIs or Plan B for a birth control failure—or, whether Congress likes it or not, safe, legal, insurance-covered abortion.

I want to come out of the closet and say yes, we like sex, and we have the right to have it. To say that if the government spends millions of dollars every year on technologies that are only good for killing people, it can include abortion in a health care plan.

We didn’t get to the point of Roe v. Wade by having nice polite arguments. We got there by being angry, and demanding, and pushing. We got there by staking out a firm position: that our bodies are our own and we have the right to do what we want with them. We got there by calling for free abortion on demand.

So this year I don’t want to hear any sugarcoating. I don’t want any dancing around the words. Abortion. Sex. Pregnancy. There it is. “Choice” means a lot of things, it’s true. But this year we should all remember at bottom what it is we fought for.

I have a message from the ghost of Lyndon Johnson

January 21st, 2010 § 0

To Democrats:

GROW A PAIR

Seriously? At this time last year not only did we just have a new president that we were all excited about, we also had a brand-new super-exciting majority in the Senate. 58 votes! SO COOL!

Oh yeah, that’s right. We’ve had 60 votes for a couple of months, after Arlen Specter switched and Franken finally got his seat. While Franken’s made the most of that seat, the rest of the party has been mostly fucking spineless, undisciplined, and too busy worrying about the center.

The center didn’t elect Scott Brown. The tea party crowd elected Scott Brown with the help of a depressed Democratic base (gee, let me think, a boring law & order prosecutor type who doesn’t campaign and makes John Kerry look like a raging populist is gonna get them all fired up? Plus, um, Liebercare looks a lot like MassCare, which is not exactly popular with a lot of the Dem base either.)

Lesson we SHOULD learn from this shit? The teabaggers have the strategy right. Make a whole lot of noise, throw some money around, and bend the party to YOUR will instead of folding your hands and giving it the benefit of the doubt. (Also, candidates matter. A lot. Just ask that guy…what was his name again…Obama?)

But come the fuck on. With 60 votes we were going to get watered-down shitty health care reform that would mandate us giving our hard-earned cash to the people who’ve been fucking us for years. Can we stop pretending that we lost anything valuable Tuesday night? We lost the myth that any seats are safe. That’s GOOD news. Let’s have some real campaigns now.

it’s gonna be a happy new year

December 31st, 2009 § 2

I wrote something for Global Comment today—should be up tomorrow—about the decade, the politics of it all, and how it was the decade that Americans woke up and got involved again.

Maybe that’s me projecting, though, because the arc of the last ten years for me more than anything else is the formation of my social conscience.

I don’t have any deep thoughts about that at the moment, though—I wore myself out on that.

Instead, 2009. It was a shit year for a lot of people I know, and a shit year sort of collectively, but for me it was an absolutely amazing year. I finished my master’s, saw Obama inaugurated, got my dream internship, moved to New York, met and worked with and befriended people whose work had helped shape me into the writer I am, found out who would have my back and who would go out on a limb for me, and got a job in my chosen career field that I absolutely love, working for a woman who is a constant inspiration. I got stories published in magazines I’ve been reading for years.

Not many people had this kind of a 2009, and it almost makes me sad to see it go because I fear that 2010 won’t be as good.

What didn’t I do in 2009? Pretty much have any sort of a love life. I went on a couple of dates that didn’t result in anything—nice guys that I just didn’t click with. I’m trying to remember if I even kissed anyone in 2009 and I don’t think so (that drunken moment does not count even if part of me did not want to stop it…long story that I’m not telling on the Internet, sorry). I had a series of crushes on absolutely wonderful men, some of whose friendship now I would never trade for a fleeting hookup. But as far as I know I won’t be kissing anyone at midnight, and that’s pretty much OK with me.

New Year’s resolutions? I don’t know if I have any. Maybe to take better care of my body—I eat too much crap and don’t exercise enough. I keep resolving to go dancing more, as it is good for body and soul (and is in fact magic), so maybe I’ll keep that one in 2010.

Tonight? I’m putting on a hot pink dress and I’ve painted my nails with purple glitter and I’m going out to the Lower East Side with some (new) friends. There will be booze. Hopefully champagne, because (hello blog title) it is like liquid happiness and also what is New Year’s Eve without bubbly?

Looking forward: I will keep writing, and keep fighting, and learn new things and meet more new people and love the ones I know better. I WILL kiss someone, and I hope as Mr. Gaiman wished for all of us, that it is someone who thinks I’m wonderful. I will work hard but I will play hard too.

I don’t know if those count as resolutions, or declarations.

2009 might have been good for me, but the past ten years were sort of shit. So let’s have a better decade, everyone.

A friend said on Twitter: 2010: Love, music, wine, and revolution. I think that’s a good plan.

Stupak and Sexism

November 12th, 2009 § 2

You know, over and over, lefties and liberals have told feminists that they have to look beyond sexism and abortion rights. Hell, I’ve been one of them. I criticized feminists during the primaries who seemed to excuse blatant racism from the Clinton campaign while freaking out about Obama calling a reporter “Sweetie.” I’ve noted that historical feminism was a white middle-class movement with white middle-class goals.

But right now, I’m really, really pissed about this Stupak amendment (as if you couldn’t tell). And yes, this is an issue that is personal for me: I’m a cisgender woman, heterosexual and of childbearing age, and I have no desire for kids.

And I’m sick and tired of hearing that I should look at the broader picture, that there are worse issues than sexism, blah blah blah.

I’ve heard this from well-meaning “liberal” men, but I’ve also heard it from activists I admire, who are usually RIGHT when they point out the myopia of much of the feminist movement (such as it is).

But this is the thing: millions of poor women, many of them women of color, will be hurt badly if this amendment stays in the bill. Shit, it’ll affect me, but I can probably still get an abortion if I need one. This isn’t a bourgeois issue and we’re not being myopic or selfish assholes to be righteously, ferociously angry and ready to fight this tooth and nail.

This is women’s lives. I care about race and class issues, poverty and health care and immigration and transgender people’s rights.

There are lots of lines in the sand that I’ll draw. One of them has been crossed right now, and yes, it’s personal. Because over and over again our issues get written off as things that should be compromised for the greater good, or we’re made to feel guilty because we’re worrying about something silly when there are worse oppressions out there.

I’m not going to play oppression olympics or other such bullshit. I’m just going to keep fighting this with every breath I’ve got, and I don’t care who you are, if you tell me I’m wrong for that, you can kiss my ass.