Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Okay, Now Al-Qaeda Totally Lost Me Previous entry: Chuck Norris on gay anger over Prop 8

In case there was any doubt, we did learn that he enjoys setting kittens on fire

Ezra has a post up about the Bush administration’s last minute reign of destruction on America, specifically the process of “burrowing”, where political appointees are moved to career positions.  It doesn’t seem out of the norm for this to happen, but what’s different in this case is they’re burrowing a bunch of people who ideologically oppose the very existence of their own jobs.  Firing them because they refuse to do the jobs assigned to them seems to be common sense, but the Obama administration probably best avoid that because it’ll come off as a political firing, even though the incompetence firing is indistinguishable from a political firing when your politics require you to be incompetent. 

It’s not just burrowing that the Bush administration is engaging in, either.  To no one’s great surprise, they’re pushing through HHS regulations that allow health care workers to do everything in their power to sabotage a woman’s contraception use in an effort to trick her into getting pregnant against her will.  This, despite an unprecedented public outcry.  There’s a couple of lessons to be learned from this. 


First of all, it settles the debate over whether or not Bush’s patriarchal religiosity is a political put-on or whether or not he’s a true believer.  It’s always been up for question.  When Bush waxed, um, poetic about the lives of “snowflake babies” (embryos created in IVF, who he thinks are more honored by being flushed down the toilet rather than used in research), it was hard to figure out if anyone could lack self-awareness to that level.  What next?  Calling Jenna and Barbara his seed?  Anne Lamott made me laugh out loud when she wrote, “Plus I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies – some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for….”  Clearly, she saw a true believer in Bush, probably because she had a lot of experience dealing with religious “pro-life” men and knew exactly how insecure they were, how badly they needed to believe that they did all the important work in creating the baby, that a woman’s contribution of 9 months of her life paled in comparison with the mighty effort of ejaculation.  Because that’s the crux of it, isn’t it?  If you believe life starts as conception, you embrace a view where the baby exists after the man has exerted and a woman has lain passive.*  If you believe that a baby is formed slowly over 9 months in a process called “pregnancy”—-and that therefore what’s in there becomes more and more baby-like over time and therefore we have a slowly growing interest in protecting its life, as Roe argues—-you’re pro-choice.  Also, you have a view of the world rooted in biology, not in rejecting biology because it doesn’t stroke your cock and tell you how big it is.

But I digress.  The point is that these midnight HHS regulations won’t count for much political capital, and while anti-choicers will be somewhat comforted by their new legal right to personally interfere with women’s ability to get contraception(if they get medical jobs), it won’t make up for the fact that after 8 years of the Bush administration, abortion is still legal, birth control pills are legal, sodomy is legal, and kids still know where to find condoms.  Women are still fucking, you know, and you’d think they’d have figured out a way to stop that.  We did put a man on the moon, and yet we can’t handle this crazy female copulation problem.  Since this won’t buy the Republicans anything with their base that wasn’t purchased with Sarah Palin, it’s not a political move.  Bush and his peeps are true believers. 

The other thing it settles is the “Bush: bumbling fool or sadistic asshole?” debate.  Not that there was much doubt in my mind after 8 years, but sadistic asshole wins hands down.  Even bumbling fools know that the result of a woman being slut-shamed by her pharmacist who steals her birth control prescription or an orderly who takes her pills away from her while she’s staying in the hospital knows that the woman is likely not to fall to her knees and thank Jesus for saving her from her slatternly ways.  No, the result is going to be the rush of sadism felt by bullies, the helpless anger felt by victims.  Full stop.  Aiding and abetting that interaction for no real reason seems to be an extension of that bullying urge.


*I wonder if pro-lifers know you can get pregnant with a woman on top.  Probably not, and there’s probably a few that would be surprised you can do it that way.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:32 PM • (58) Comments

How permanent will these last minute regulations be?  Will they be hard for a Democratic congress to overturn?

Comment #1: G Porgy  on  11/19  at  12:41 PM

Also, off topic, I’ve heard that Cheney has been indicted in Texas for abuse of prisoners in a private prison system he owns stock in.  Can Bush go ahead and pardon him, and if so, why didn’t Texas wait to do the indictment?

Comment #2: G Porgy  on  11/19  at  12:45 PM

The other thing it settles is the “Bush: bumbling fool or sadistic asshole?” debate.

I thought this was a both / and blog?

Comment #3: Dunc  on  11/19  at  12:47 PM

These regs, because they’re being instituted so late, can be erased with a stroke of the incoming president’s pen. So they’re really mostly a sop to a few naive wingnuts combined with the kind of transition-trashing W’s people accused the Clinton staff of perpetrating.

But this is a both/and blog, so I’m voting for “bumbling sadistic asshole”.

Comment #4: paul  on  11/19  at  12:49 PM

why didn’t Texas wait to do the indictment?
[so that] Bush [can] go ahead and pardon him…

Fixed that for ya.

That and the DA in question is in a whole mess of ethical trouble of his own, it seems.

Comment #5: seeker6079  on  11/19  at  12:49 PM

Exactly what I was thinking, Seeker.

Comment #6: G Porgy  on  11/19  at  12:53 PM

We should be surprised by this?

Comment #7: Ms Kate  on  11/19  at  01:01 PM

His Department of Labor is also ramming through changes to the regulations governing the Family and Medical Leave Act, something near to mv heart since I am an employment attorney.

The new regulations would make it substantially more difficult to take leave from work to care for oneself or a family member with a serious health condition, especially where the health condition in question is a chronic condition that only flares up periodically (migraines, fibromyalgia, back injury, tendonitis, etc etc etc).

I really loathe George Bush.

Comment #8: ummeli  on  11/19  at  01:02 PM

Probably not, and there’s probably a few that would be surprised you can do it that way.

The parts don’t fit!  The parts don’t fit!

Comment #9: Ms Kate  on  11/19  at  01:02 PM

<blockquote>Can Bush go ahead and pardon him, and if so, why didn

Comment #10: Auguste  on  11/19  at  01:16 PM

Civil Service personnel can however be ‘transfered.’  Maybe we still have relations with the nice folks up in Greenland in Thule.  We could set up a “Department of Irrelevance” and send them there.

Comment #11: Magis  on  11/19  at  01:17 PM

“Ezra has a post up about the Bush administration’s last minute reign of destruction on America, specifically the process of “burrowing”, where political appointees are moved to career positions.”

It’s too bad the move to name that San Francisco sewage plant after Bush failed.  That’s just the kind of project that would seem to require very close, personal, Federal oversight by people whose offices are located on site.  Seem like an excellent career opportunity for some newly made civil servants…

Comment #12: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  01:19 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?_r=2&hp;“As an example of the policies to which they object, Bush administration officials cited a Connecticut law that generally requires hospitals to provide rape victims with timely access to and information about emergency contraception.”

I. Just. Cannot. Believe. This.

I’ve grown up hearing “Christian country” enough times. But every time I see this kowtowing to the Catholics, and to the Protestants determined to out-Catholic the Catholics… it blows my mind. When I was a kid in an evangelical community that was practically a cult, we still didn’t look down on birth control! And certainly not for rape victims! I still just cannot believe that we’ve regressed this far.

Last week I watched a 90’s movie I remembered as a kid - Super Mario Brothers. It was about as bad as you’d expect, but what amazed me was there was an “evolution for kids” speech in there to bring the audience up to speed. It was blase and the actors were bored - I had to remember that, in the 90’s, this wasn’t some crazy lynchpin issue. Birth control is like that.

I’m scared, I really am.

Comment #13: Ellen  on  11/19  at  01:28 PM

Saying this is a “Christian country,” is pretty much like saying it’s a white country.  I don’t know why people get away with it.  A politician who ran on this being a white country wouldn’t do very well, but the Christian country guys get a pass like their views of what this country is aren’t as bigoted.

Comment #14: G Porgy  on  11/19  at  01:37 PM

Ellen, I get a little freaked out, in a Handmaid’s Tale kinda way, every time I re-watch something from the 90’s, especially very poppy pop cultural stuff (rather than “high art”, which you can justify as ahead of it’s time, avant-garde, or purposefully risque).  Because over and over again it rubs my nose in how much we’ve regressed in just the past decade.  I’m convinced that most of Buffy and/or Angel would not be acceptable prime time network television nowadays, for instance.  And these are shows that left TV all of 7 years ago!

Comment #15: The Opoponax  on  11/19  at  01:52 PM

@ Opoponax,

I especially see the trend in video games. I recognize that violence and sexualized characters are still the norm (perhaps even more so now), but it seems like ALL sex has become ‘dirty’ and bad or something. For example, I’m a big Harvest Moon cult-follower - it’s a farming game (I’m lame) with cows and stuff.

In the first game (SNES), which came out when I was a kid, you could get married to a town girl. You shared a bed and if you came home every night ‘before bedtime”, she would have a baby eventually. In the second game (PS1), you could get married, but you both had two beds now. Your wife got pregnant if you gave her a present (flower/food) every day, which made sense but LESS sense. In the third game of the series, (PS2) you could get married, but then there would just be this time lurch from wedding to a kid being three years old. In the fourth game (PS2 or PS3, I can’t remember), there’s no marriage OR kids.

Maybe I’m really reaching for an obscure example (I’m a geek), but it feels like they are trying to infantalize the series in order to appeal more to buyers. Since, as a kid, I was intrigued at being an adult with family in tow, I have to assume this is an attempt to appeal to parents. Do parents nowdays not want to see video games where a loving husband-and-wife only own one bed? I can’t answer, because I’m not a parent. But it seems weird. And I feel I see this in my other games - some of my SNES and early PS1 stuff dealt with “real” topics like marriage difficulties as, you know, part of the overlying plot. I don’t understand why, but it seems those aren’t appropriate for kids anymore.

I could just be an idiot - I still don’t understand why ritual torture is O.K. in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe movie, but peoples’ heads would have spun if there had been a single nipple in there. Or why Golden Compass was so much worse, just because the author is an atheist. (Disappointing movie, but that’s only because the books are so incredibly awesome. \fangirl)

(Oh, yeah, and Handmaid’s Tale is both the best book ever and an absolutely terrifying precursor to this “no BC for women” kick. In my more paranoid times, I wonder if I should flee to Canada now before the borders close. But I’m just overracting. I hope.)

Comment #16: Ellen  on  11/19  at  02:11 PM

Oh, one more question - I see that the Catholic hospitals being targetted also refuse to perform “sterilizations” now. Really? So…no vasectomies for you? Really?

I wonder how much these patriarchs would like to go back to a time when “birth control” meant “no sex until menopause”.

Comment #17: Ellen  on  11/19  at  02:12 PM

I’ve heard that Cheney has been indicted in Texas for abuse of prisoners in a private prison system he owns stock in.  Can Bush go ahead and pardon him

No.  The presidential pardon pwoer does not extend to aprdoning state charges, only federal ones.

Having said that, the charges against Cheney look, unfortuantely, like pure b. s. anyway.  Anyone here have money in Vanguard?  You could be indicted too, on the same theory!  As a basic rule, investors are responsible for corporate crimes only if they personally participate in them, and I doubt that Cheney was personally abusing inmates of the Texas prison system, at least, not more than he was abusing everyone else.

Comment #18: rea  on  11/19  at  02:13 PM

you have a view of the world rooted in biology, not in rejecting biology because it doesn’t stroke your cock and tell you how big it is.

That’s a keeper. Almost good enough for a macro.

Comment #19: sunsin  on  11/19  at  02:21 PM

”...I doubt that Cheney was personally abusing inmates of the Texas prison system…”

...where do you think the special fluid comes from that keeps Cheney alive?...

Comment #20: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  02:21 PM

If you believe life starts as conception, you embrace a view where the baby exists after the man has exerted and a woman has lain passive.

That’s a great point, and one that I’ve never seen made before.  I still think that the anti-choice faction is motivated by religious hooey like “ensoulment”.

I doubt that Cheney was personally abusing inmates of the Texas prison system

Hitler didn’t personally kill any Jews, either.

Comment #21: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/19  at  02:31 PM

“A politician who ran on this being a white country wouldn’t do very well”

I disagree. McCain & Palin got over 45% of the popular vote running on just that proposition.

Comment #22: wapsie  on  11/19  at  02:31 PM

I’m a pre-pharmacy major in college right now and if I make it all the way through, at least that’s one more pharmacist who will fill birth control prescriptions.

All of these attempts by the Bush admin to limit women’s reproductive rights put me in mind of Handmaid’s Tale, as other commenters have mentioned. Luckily, it was Obama who made it to the White House, not McCain/Palin. And with a Democratic majority in Congress, hopefully I won’t have to worry too much about rights being taken away.

The growing power of the religious right continues to unnerve me, however. America was never intended to be a “Christian nation,” so they shouldn’t get out of being criticized any more than other groups.

Comment #23: ArtOfMe  on  11/19  at  02:50 PM

Waspie, I stand corrected.

Comment #24: G Porgy  on  11/19  at  02:59 PM

@wapsie:

Yeah, but guess what they didn’t get?

Comment #25: Lindsay  on  11/19  at  03:01 PM

No.  The presidential pardon pwoer does not extend to aprdoning state charges, only federal ones.

Wow, did I ever show my lack of knowledge earlier.

How have I lived a 33-year fairly politically informed life and missed that one?

Comment #26: Auguste  on  11/19  at  03:02 PM

Because over and over again it rubs my nose in how much we’ve regressed in just the past decade.  I’m convinced that most of Buffy and/or Angel would not be acceptable prime time network television nowadays, for instance.  And these are shows that left TV all of 7 years ago!

Joss Whedon is still making TV.  And he’s not even close to the worst of it.  Check Dave Chappelle show or David E. Kelly’s Boston Legal or Family Guy / South Park.

Buffy’s ratings slumped in part because some people felt they jumped the shark with all the lesbian wiccan craziness.  Now you’ve got a show like House that handles lesbians like the token black guy.  As far as TV is concerned, I completely disagree with you.  Prime Time television hasn’t backed off an inch in the last decade and it will continue to push the envelope until ratings force it to do otherwise.

Comment #27: Zifnab25  on  11/19  at  03:05 PM

Joss Whedon is still making TV.  And he’s not even close to the worst of it.  Check Dave Chappelle show or David E. Kelly’s Boston Legal or Family Guy / South Park.

Is it that simple? Comedy Central stuff exists and makes buckets of money, I’m not disputing that, but they are highly controversial and not exactly mainstream and it’s easy to avoid if you’re religulous. I think Opo is saying that more moderate / liberal shows would no longer have mainstream support and *yawns* all around. I think the point is that our society is much more right than center or left?

Comment #28: Ellen  on  11/19  at  03:30 PM

Didn’t Willow get a girlfriend in, like, season 5? 3 years is a long time to hold out against a ratings slump.  I lost interest halfway through season 7 because the stories lost focus, but that didn’t have anything to do with teh gayness. Also the way everybody started saying “I get that” bugged the shit out of me.

It seems like good shows consistently get canceled. Buffy, DS9, Family Guy (before it came back), SG-1, That 70’s Show, etc. I can’t think of any 90’s show that featured torture in the way 24 does.

Comment #29: banisteriopsis  on  11/19  at  03:45 PM

To call George W. Bush a douchebag is, at this point, a gross insult to vinegar, water, and the pouches in which they sometimes travel together.

Comment #30: The Crapture  on  11/19  at  03:58 PM

“I’ve grown up hearing “Christian country” enough times. But every time I see this kowtowing to the Catholics, and to the Protestants determined to out-Catholic the Catholics… it blows my mind. When I was a kid in an evangelical community that was practically a cult, we still didn’t look down on birth control! And certainly not for rape victims! I still just cannot believe that we’ve regressed this far.”

I’m not sure we should hate on Catholics so much.  I was raised Catholic in a culturally Catholic country, and yes, there are very rigid rules, but the BASIC and MOST IMPORTANT thing that all priests reinforce all the time, is that no matter how good you think you’re doing, you’re fucking it up.  Also, stop trying to get the lint out of your neighbor’s eye, and all that.
My very Catholic mother-in-law supports gay marriage, contraception for all, abortion, divorce everything.  For OTHER PEOPLE.  Not for her.  That’s the thing about Catholicism.  Being judgemental of the neighbor is the worst sin you can have, he who is free of sin, cast the first stone.  Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, befriend the prostitute, ask for nothing in return, and NEVER brag about your good deeds.  At least this is the doctrine.  In reality it might not quite work that way, but you can always shame a Catholic who is being judgemental.

Whereas a lot of the Christians, the born-agains, all these people seem to have this idea that it is their faith and not their actions that saves them, that they can pray for you and their prayers will be heard more than yours, that they are worth more in the eyes of God, that they know what God is thinking.  A good Catholic will NEVER tell you you are going to hell.  I’ve had Christians tell I am going to hell more than once.

I think, overall, these rules are much more about hating women than pandering to any religion.  And when churches press on this issues, they too are straying from doctrine to pander to women haters.

Comment #31: raspberryjamba  on  11/19  at  04:08 PM

Sheesh.  Long post.  Sorry!

Comment #32: raspberryjamba  on  11/19  at  04:09 PM

To call George W. Bush a douchebag is, at this point, a gross insult to vinegar, water, and the pouches in which they sometimes travel together.

The Crapture on 11/19 at 01:58 PM

THIS! FTW!

I’m not shocked that these a-holes are still trying to push through these b.s. clauses.
If the job is at some point goign to ask you to do something that you don’t “religiously” agree with perhaps you’re better off NOT being in that job or being on the paperwork end of things.
But that kind of logic is just too much for these jerks to really comprehend. The little lightbulb went off a long time ago. Replaced by a mindless drone to anyone who can take control and say that jeebiz said they could.

Comment #33: Danica Lefse Queen  on  11/19  at  04:14 PM

Buffy’s ratings slumped in part because some people felt they jumped the shark with all the lesbian wiccan craziness.

You know, even though that storyline ended with the typical ‘homosexual sex ends with murder and the surviving partner going ape-shit crazeee evil”, while it was on, it was the best portrayal of lesbians I’ve ever seen on TV.

Joss treated Willow and Tara exactly the same way he treated Willow and Oz.  The network would make him hide their kisses, sometimes, but they were just normal characters who were dating each other.

Buffy’s ratings fell off b/c Joss got involved with Firefly and let Marti Noxon, who I’m convinced actually hated the character of Buffy, run the damn show.

Comment #34: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/19  at  04:26 PM

@ raspberryjamba,

Whoops, sorry, wasn’t trying to hate on Catholics, although I guess it reads like I was. I’m just frustrated that these “holy hospitals” that these laws are made for seem, invariably, to be Catholic, and I’m shocked that Protestants have gone so quickly from being suspicious of the ‘papists’ to suddenly announcing that they hate on BC even more than their Chrisitian cousins.

A certain skit from Meaning of Life will have to be jettisoned soon…. :(

Anyway, not trying to hate on Catholics. And my own ancedata aligns with yours - the actual Catholic people I meet seem to be a LOT more tolerant than some other people I know.

Comment #35: Ellen  on  11/19  at  04:32 PM

I’m not sure we should hate on Catholics so much.

The problem is not that Catholics exist (heck, I was raised one myself).  The problem is that many of our hospital systems are run by the Catholic Church, and they have imposed rules on those hospitals that ban abortions and emergency contraception for their patients.  In other words, you have non-Catholics being brought into the hospital who are forced to follow Catholic rules about life beginning at conception.  You have rape victims being denied emergency contraception because of hospital rules, not the patient’s beliefs.

That’s why people get so pissed off.  The Catholic Church in America is literally imposing its beliefs on sick and injured people who have no other recourse.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  04:44 PM

@ellen,

I know what you mean about the holy hospitals…  and it is even worse in countries that are OPENLY Catholic.  But I think the doctrines themselves don’t include all of the woman-hate, and that the church adds the woman-hate to attract new clientele. 

I see some Christian churches publishing how much people donate, when it’s a big donation.  This stimulates other rich people to give money.  Although Jesus directly says this is wrong in the Bible, the churches will bend the rules for money.  As I am sure they are bending now to accomodate all the gay-hating, woman-hating, muslim-hating, horrible people out there.  Capitalizing on the flaws of their competition. 

I they printed fliers, they would say:  “Is secular humanism restricting your sadist rush?  Are you tired of your priest telling you to love your godless liberal neighbor?  Are you just sick of God not loving YOU more, even though you attend service every Sunday?  Well, suffer no more!  Come to Our Church!  Where we accomodate all your frustrations, fears and self-hate and bestow the Papal Blessing on it.  Come say Hi on Sunday!  You’ll be glad you did…  We are, as of October of 2008, accomodating ALL hate.  Reservations recommended.”

Comment #37: raspberryjamba  on  11/19  at  04:45 PM

“The problem is not that Catholics exist (heck, I was raised one myself).  The problem is that many of our hospital systems are run by the Catholic Church, and they have imposed rules on those hospitals that ban abortions and emergency contraception for their patients.” 

Yeah, this is my biggest beef with Mother Theresa.  She was known for doing this to the poor people she helped.  Birth with no pain relief.  No BC.  No STD prevention.

Comment #38: raspberryjamba  on  11/19  at  04:49 PM

@ raspberryjamba,

Jesus H. Christ, but that’s a scary flier you came up with. I’m glad you’re on OUR side - we don’t need another Robertson / Huckabee / Dobson against us!!

smile

Yeah, this is my biggest beef with Mother Theresa.  She was known for doing this to the poor people she helped.  Birth with no pain relief.  No BC.  No STD prevention.

I’ve got a book around here by…Hitchens, I think?...on this topic. Haven’t read it yet, but sounded very interesting. It’s so weird how the media can “angel-icize” a person from “really good person” to “saint who never does anything wrong, ever”.

Comment #39: Ellen  on  11/19  at  05:17 PM

The problem is that many of our hospital systems are run by the Catholic Church, and they have imposed rules on those hospitals that ban abortions and emergency contraception for their patients.

It’s a little worse than that, especially in Chicago.  Catholic-run hospitals are teaching hospitals and the public university is affiliated with them.  So…no matter what your faith, what your position on a legal medical practice, you will NOT be taught how to do an abortion.

We need a law that not only requires hospitals to practice medicine, but requires all doctors to be taught all medical procedures before they can be licensed.

If that means the Catholic church has to get out of the hospital business, just like they had to get out of the adoption business in MA, so be it.  Their bigotry should not be coddled and fostered by a secular state.

Comment #40: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/19  at  05:42 PM

Ellen:

(Oh, yeah, and Handmaid’s Tale is both the best book ever and an absolutely terrifying precursor to this “no BC for women” kick. In my more paranoid times, I wonder if I should flee to Canada now before the borders close. But I’m just overracting. I hope.)

You’re not the only one who feels exactly this way. And I’m not even female.

Comment #41: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/19  at  05:46 PM

Joss Whedon is still making TV.

Yes, but if you’ve noticed he’s on cable now, and Firefly and Dollhouse (is that the title of the new one) just don’t get the attention that Buffy got.  And I know for damn sure that Angel depicted sexuality in a way that just would NOT fly on primetime network TV at this point.  I remember seeing some of the Connor/Cordelia stuff recently and commenting to the friend I was watching with, “This came on prime time network TV?!  And nobody got fined?”

Check Dave Chappelle show or David E. Kelly’s Boston Legal or Family Guy / South Park.

AFAIK Dave Chappelle doesn’t come on anymore either, and it came on cable when it did..  Boston Legal and Family Guy have never even remotely approached what I’m talking about re Buffy.  For instance neither show has as its premise the concept that teenaged girls are full-fledged human beings (though it’s the way Buffy’s sexuality is depicted during the high school years that especially jumps out at me now).

Buffy’s ratings slumped in part because…

My point was not Ohnoes, Can You Believe They Cancelled Buffy?!  - TV shows end,.  I’m a grownup and I can handle that.  My point is that it’s very obvious that they got away with much more, sexually, than anybody gets away with now.  Especially in the depiction of teenaged and premarital sex as normal healthy parts of life.

Now you’ve got a show like House that handles lesbians like the token black guy.

Again, I think you don’t understand my point.  It’s not so much about the depiction of minorities and such—it’s this is why I used the expression “handmaid’s tale”  .  I’m talking about the way that sexuality is depicted, the sorts of dimensions female characters are allowed to have, the kinds of topics that are depicted.  I can’t back this up with an example from 90’s TV (though I sure someone who watched more Gilmore Girls or Dawson’s Creek can fill in the blanks), but for example, the way that abortion is portrayed on television nowadays is positively SHAMEFUL considering its depiction back in the 70’s on Maude.  Thirty fucking years ago you could have an honest talk about abortion during prime time TV.  Controversial, but it did see the light of day.  Now the only time you’re allowed to talk about abortion is if the woman is a wanton slut who is punished for her transgression, or some permutation thereof.  Unless it’s cable, of course (SPOILER: though even on Mad Men, this season, she ultimately didn’t go through with it).

Prime Time television hasn’t backed off an inch in the last decade and it will continue to push the envelope until ratings force it to do otherwise.

Well, OK. Either you are 11 years old, lived under a rock until approximately 2003, or are living in some kind of We Have Always Been At War With East Asia bubble.  I know the pervasive meme of pop culture is that we are always “pushing the envelope”, but if you actually watch TV shows from the 70’s - 90’s you will discover that it’s not true.

Comment #42: The Opoponax  on  11/19  at  05:56 PM

@ The Op,
Yeah.  Remember Popular?  I know, shitty show, but teenage sex there was treated like a normal thing, and one of the main characters had a lesbian mother.

Comment #43: raspberryjamba  on  11/19  at  06:03 PM

Maybe environmentalists should start a church, that way they would be protected by Bush’s religious ammendments. 
Then baptised environmentalist mailmen could deny delivering junk mail, as it would be against their religion.  And supermarket cashiers could deny giving you a receipt or double bagging.  And buildings could turn the heat low enough you need a coat indoors.  All under the auspices of Bush’s religious protections.

Comment #44: raspberryjamba  on  11/19  at  06:21 PM

SPOILER
(SPOILER: though even on Mad Men, this season, she ultimately didn’t go through with it)

Well, to be fair, going through with it would have quite literally made her a criminal, assuming the doctor didn’t get himself arrested first.  By the early 1960s, they at least had antibiotics so you wouldn’t go septic, but if you showed up at an emergency room with complications, you would be arrested.  I don’t really have a problem with shows/movies set in pre-Roe days pointing out that it was very dangerous and virtually impossible to get an abortion then. 

SPOILER

Comment #45: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  06:24 PM

Oh, neither do I, Mnemo.

That was mainly included because that episode is literally the ONLY recent depiction of the subject I can think of which was relatively normal.  Betty is an ordinary housewife who finds herself pregnant at a particularly inconvenient time and simply doesn’t want the child, and this is seen as perfectly OK, if complicated and rather transgressive.  She even talks about it with her friend in public (even in front of an obnoxious neighbor who keeps freaking out about what people are talking about in the presence of her daughter!). 

It’s really sad when the TV show that handles abortion the best is the one that takes place in 1962 when seeking an abortion really was a problematic undertaking.

Comment #46: The Opoponax  on  11/19  at  06:33 PM

A politician who ran on this being a white country wouldn’t do very well.

I disagree.  McCain & Palin got over 45% of the popular vote running on just that proposition.

True, but the non-white and the non-religious segments of our country are growing much, much faster than McCain/Palin’s base.

I’ve got a book around here by…Hitchens, I think?...on this topic. Haven’t read it yet, but sounded very interesting.

That sure is an interesting book.  Hitchens wrote it before he went nuts.  Very eye-opening.

even though that storyline ended with the typical ‘homosexual sex ends with murder and the surviving partner going ape-shit crazeee evil”


That was such a stupid plot development.  I was so disappointed in that.  Poor old Willow.

Comment #47: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/19  at  06:41 PM

“I disagree. McCain & Palin got over 45% of the popular vote running on just that proposition.”

Eh, just having an “R” next to your name gets you to about 35%. Forty-five percent is as well as Michael Dukakis did, and he is considered a failure.

Comment #48: Ben D.  on  11/19  at  07:35 PM

I see the point of ramming through all these regulations at the last minute as being so that in 2012, after the Obama administration laboriously undoes all this junk, the Republican nominee can say “Obama used the power of government to mandate that pharmacists give out contraception!”  And similar stuff.  It’s setting up the base message for the next election cycles, putting in stuff they know is intolerable to us but will energize their fundie base next time around.

Comment #49: liberalrob  on  11/19  at  07:46 PM

It’s setting up the base message for the next election cycles, putting in stuff they know is intolerable to us but will energize their fundie base next time around.

We can hope so.  “Energizing the base” is no longer a winning strategy for them.  The base was plenty energized this time - how could they not be, with a True Believer like Sarah Palin on one ticket and a communist muslim terrorist black man on the other?  But their base is white, heterosexual, married, rural Christians.  Over 30.  That’s just not enough anymore.  The longer it takes them to figure that out, the longer they’ll spend in the wilderness.  In the end, they’ll either learn they have to deal with American society as it is in the early 21st century, rather than the late 20th, or they’ll be replaced by a party that can.  Either is better for the country than them continuing on as the Bigotry Party.

Comment #50: Seraph  on  11/19  at  08:55 PM

The <a >Pop Culture Abortion Timeline</a> provides a depressing glimpse of how anti-choicers have been steadily winning the culture war on abortion.  In the 1970s, in the immediate aftermath of Roe, abortion was often portrayed in TV and movies as a normal and potentially positive choice.  The abortion episode of “Maude” may have been the high-water mark: Maude is an ordinary wife and mother who simply decides that she doesn’t want another child right now, and she and her daughter talk it over and decide that she should have an abortion.  There was also a rash of mostly positive abortion storylines on TV soaps, starting with the famous abortion storyline in “All My Children.”  Erica Kane (Susan Lucci’s character) gets an abortion simply because she doesn’t want a baby, and she doesn’t suffer as a result.  (I hear that’s recently been retconned, unfortunately.)

By the ‘80s, the most positive portrayals of abortion were in movies like “Flashdance” and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” where abortion is still framed as a normal choice, but not a positive thing, more of a necessity chosen by young women with no other options.  On television, thanks to constant boycott threats from the religious right and network pressure from conservative executives, it became taboo to show anyone going through with an abortion.  Instead, you’d often see storylines in which female characters consider abortion, then suffer a convenient miscarriage so no decision has to be reached.  “Cagney and Lacey” had an abortion-clinic episode that was heavily censored by the network, with Lacey’s pro-life views left in but Cagney’s pro-choice views mostly written out.

In the ‘90s, you had a lot of TV storylines in which pregnant female characters consider abortion but decide at the last minute that having a baby is the “right” choice, often under pressure from a husband or boyfriend.  “Melrose Place,” “Beverly Hills 90201,” and “Felicity” all used this exact storyline (“90201” also had an episode where a character reveals she had an abortion, but it’s still presented as a terrible thing).  “Dawson’s Creek” had a storyline in which Dawson’s mother considers an abortion, only to be talked out of it by her son.  On rare occasions when a TV character in the ‘90s had an abortion (usually as part of a “controversial” plot in a daytime soap or TV movie), it was almost always due to extreme circumstances such as rape or a severe birth defect.

Now the mass media is largely pretending that abortion just doesn’t exist.  There’s “Juno” and “Knocked Up,” of course, in which women with unwanted pregnancies decide against abortion for no other reason than because otherwise there wouldn’t be a movie.  But at least those movies acknowledge, however briefly and dismissively, that abortion is an option.  Most television shows seem to take place in a universe where the procedure was never invented.  On the few TV shows that mention abortion, the popular “last-minute miscarriage so it’s not my bad thing” and “wait, I decided I really want to be a mommy after all so no problem” storylines continue to rule, along with a new one, “I was permanently traumatized by the experience and now my life is ruined.”  Abortion is treated as taboo.  When “Everwood” did an abortion episode that was strongly anti-choice (the hero doctor refuses to give a teenage girl an abortion, the villain doctor does it but is wracked with guilt, and the girl is traumatized for life) it still ran with a “Viewer Discretion Advised” warning and was never rerun.

What really bothers me about a lot of this noodling are the underlying assumptions about women and childbearing.  Watching TV and movie portrayals of abortion, you’d think that only two types of women ever seek abortions: irresponsible young sluts who just haven’t realized they’d be happier with a baby, and women in very extreme and unfortunate circumstances (carrying a rapist’s or molester’s baby, carrying a severely deformed fetus).  The idea that a woman might not want to be a mother—hell, that she might not want to be a mother right now, or that she might not want more children than she already has—is almost never broached.  (That’s one thing I do respect about “Juno”; even though the heroine chooses to go through with the pregnancy, it’s made very clear that this doesn’t make her ready for motherhood, and that she can still be a mother someday on her own terms.)  Motherhood is presented as the default state for women, and trying to avoid motherhood, for whatever reason, is increasingly portrayed as immoral and aberrant.

Comment #51: Shaenon  on  11/19  at  09:11 PM

I’m with everyone who is dismayed to realize just how much we’ve regressed in the last 10 years, let alone the last thirty.  I read an interview for American Wedding where the cast agreed that the original American Pie could never have been in 2003 (when American Wedding was made).  Everything shifted radically to the Right in the intervening years.  Can’t imagine what might have happened…

Amusingly enough (or not), torture porn came and largely went (thank God) during those same ten years.  I guess it’s okay if young women are tortured, as long as they don’t have sex.  What else is new?

There is some good news, though.  I’m not at all interested in watching Gossip Girls, but the signs on the sides of buses here in NYC that use the condemnations of conservative reviewers as advertising copy just warm my heart.

Comment #52: Seraph  on  11/19  at  09:22 PM

On the few TV shows that mention abortion, the popular “last-minute miscarriage so it’s not my bad thing” and “wait, I decided I really want to be a mommy after all so no problem” storylines continue to rule, along with a new one, “I was permanently traumatized by the experience and now my life is ruined.”

I brought this up before, but “House” had a particularly repugnant example of this early this season where the zygote had implanted in the woman’s intestine instead of her uterus and it was treated as though there was any available choice other than to get it out.  It’s an ectopic pregnancy, you fuckers!  It will never come to term!  If you leave it where it is, both the fetus and the mother will die!

Ahem.  I really wanted to reach through the TV and knock a couple of heads together.

Comment #53: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  09:24 PM

...after the Obama administration laboriously undoes all this junk…

According to this article, it might not be so easy to undo some of these midnight rules.

Re the HHS regulations, unfortunately, I think they’re here to stay and cause a lot of harm. Not only do they, once again, lower the bar when it comes to justifications for regulating repro healthcare [the HHS Secretary lied about the need for the regulations; ACOG called him out on it, for the good that did], but the scope of the regulation is breathtaking. For example (.pdf):

(d) Entities to whom this paragraph
(d) applies shall not:
(1) Require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by the Department if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Comment #54: ema  on  11/19  at  09:36 PM

I read an interview for American Wedding where the cast agreed that the original American Pie could never have been in 2003 (when American Wedding was made).

I’d regard the fact that there was an American Wedding as conclusion to the American Pie franchise as perfect evidence for what I’m talking about.  In the 80’s and 90’s you wouldn’t feel like you had to marry everyone off by the conclusion of the trilogy.  Even all the vaguely reactionary Molly Ringwald movies of the 80’s didn’t force her to marry the object of her desire in a later sequel!  The assumption was that this was typical high school puppy love—you go away to college in a different town, forget they existed, and run into them at your high school reunion 10 years later.  You don’t marry them.

Comment #55: The Opoponax  on  11/19  at  10:16 PM

<i>Civil Service personnel can however be ‘transfered.’ Maybe we still have relations with the nice folks up in Greenland in Thule.  We could set up a “Department of Irrelevance” and send them there.

Magis on 11/19 at 11:17 AM<i>

The burrowed officials who are ideologically compelled towards incompetence in their jobs can be transferred to red states.  (Sorry, Texans.)

It looks like Tom Daschle is going to be the next HHS Secretary.  If an outgoing Sec can suddenly make radical rules changes, why can’t they be changed back?  Why not a rule that states that if an employee’s religion/ideology prevents them from fulfilling their duties, they can be dismissed?

Comment #56: RobW  on  11/19  at  11:14 PM

I think this is meant to tangle up Obama’s admin as well. Burrow enough bad appointments and sneak in enough bad regulations and it will take a lot of time to deal with them, time Obama’s team needs for other problems. It’s a way to be obstructionist while out of power.

Comment #57: Samantha Vimes  on  11/21  at  08:37 AM

Yes, agree with RobW, why can’t the regs be repealed? Why can’t incoming Obama Admin officials stay in the office late for a few days this January, to take care of instantly repealing all of the regs? The burrowed conservatives can’t possibly have contracts that would anticipate every little way the Obama Admin can make their lives hell: Northern Alaska or Greenland (suggestion from another post here), Baghdad, janitors’ closets in the basement for office, etc.

Comment #58: Luke  on  11/21  at  02:16 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.