*applause*

Sep. 25th, 2011 05:49 pm
redstapler: (Default)


I'd like to know why a judge from TV got it right where the SCOTUS did not.

No dissent? Fuck all of you guys.

Please repost this video.

OH SNAP

May. 1st, 2011 10:56 am
redstapler: (Zom nom nom)


Obama just trolled EVERYONE.

Even Colbert is in awe.
redstapler: (Hayyy)
In an e-mail, Eugene Delgaudio (R-VA) denounced the TSA’s non-discrimination policy as “the federal employee’s version of the Gay Bill of Rights” and declared that the next person who pats you down at the security gate could be a homosexual, “getting pleasure from your submission.”
redstapler: (J&M)
If given the option between the backscatter scan and the enhanced patdown, I'll take the scan. I'm willing to subject myself to the continually-argued-to-be-safe level of radiation, and I'm willing to have my naked image saved on a hard drive somewhere in perpetuity. I'm really not thrilled at the thought of a stranger touching me while I'm trying to catch a flight and wondering if I have time for a beer first. At least the scan I imagine to be quick. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

One of the chestnuts being trotted around comment threads is that "by purchasing the ticket, you've agreed to the security protocols." Except, I didn't.

See, when I purchased our tickets for Thanksgiving, the introduction of the scans and the searches hadn't yet been announced. Or at least, their start date hadn't been. So I had no way of knowing in September that I was consenting to policy about to be enacted. If we're talking "consent," that's a whole lot of dub-con.

Now, making that argument for tickets yet-to-be-purchased for Christmas? Totally valid. By buying those tickets (which I haven't yet done, I know, I'm dumb), I'm acknowledging what the policies now are and passively consenting to them. Even if they really sketch me out.

Now, one more thing.

For the people who have problems being touched by strangers for whatever reason? This isn't going to go so well for them.

I'm really looking forward to (in a sarcastic, I'm really angry this has to happen, but I know it will way) the issues the airports have as people have meltdowns in the security lines. It's going to happen. They may not all be full-blown terror fits with screaming and thrashing, but I'm fairly sure that at least once a day at every airport with these protocols, someone will React BadlyTM. Someone will miss a flight. Or cause others to miss a flight. Or miss work. And then the lawsuits will start. Oh wait! That last already happened!

And to do all this right before the busiest travel season? To scores of passengers who bought their tickets long before they knew they'd be subjected to Hobson's Choice?

I smell Impending Doom for the TSA and related agencies.

This will not go well.
redstapler: (DW - Ghostbusters)
The question has been asked, and I feel like the answer deserves its own LJ post. This is not intended to be a definitive answer, but what it means to me. I, as I have stated before both in the comments to these posts and elsewhere, acknowledge my privilege as both someone who always had healthful food options, and am not and never really have been what society calls "fat.*" Please feel free to add your own answers to this question.

You can't tell why a person is fat. They could have PCOS, they could be on steroids or other medicines that have weight-gain side effects, they could have an underactive thyroid, they could have sleep apnea, they could have insulin resistance, their mother could have just died and they're taking the one really good reason to eat their feelings for once, they could be recovering from an injury, they could be going through a bad financial or prohibitively busy period requiring them to eat fast food and take away, they could have decided that the vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting was more harmful than the weight they'd put on without it, they could be in the middle of the "gain" period of a vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting, they could be at the thinnest they've ever been, but you don't know that because all you see is a fat person.

YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AND FAT SHAMING IS ASSUMING IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO EAT HEALTHY FOODS.

Concern trolling, which is what it's called when someone coos "But I'm worried for their heaaaaaaaaalth" without knowing an iota about that person's actual state of health.

I had a friend in college who absolutely was what society called "fat." Except for the part that she ate very healthfully (not easy in a dormitory setting), and worked out more often than anyone I knew not on a sports team. She didn't do these things because she was trying to lose weight. She did them because she loved cooking and loved being fit and strong.

If your state of health is good, and you are fat? Awesome, don't change unless you want to.

It's anyone giving you grief for the weight of your body, whether they call you a Lazy Fatty Fat Fat or tell you how worried they are for your pancreatic functions and the state of your knees. Or the worst, "I want you to be happy." Screw you if you think someone has to be skinny to be happy.

What's worse is that shame tactics? They don't work. Either they can be wholesale ignored, but more realistically, it will cause other, harsher, longer-lasting problems.

That, my dears, is fat shaming.

ETA: I don't mean this edit as a WHAT ABOUT THE SKINNY FOLKS, but a continued interest in shutting down body policing. All of what I said above about fat people? The same goes for skinny people. You don't know why they're skinny, so don't assume, and as the Great Wil Wheaton told us: DON'T BE A DICK.

*At my highest weight, I was definitely described as curvy, zaftig, and possibly even "thick." The only fat shaming I ever really received was the honking facefulls women usually receive from their mothers**, and the occasional guy not being into me. In other words: WHOA NELLY PRIVILEGE.

**My mother, it must also be noted, who was nine inches taller than me, and with a totally different body type. What numbers made sense for her SO didn't make sense for me.
redstapler: (Default)
The question has been asked, and I feel like the answer deserves its own LJ post. This is not intended to be a definitive answer, but what it means to me. I, as I have stated before both in the comments to these posts and elsewhere, acknowledge my privilege as both someone who always had healthful food options, and am not and never really have been what society calls "fat.*" Please feel free to add your own answers to this question.

You can't tell why a person is fat. They could have PCOS, they could be on steroids or other medicines that have weight-gain side effects, they could have an underactive thyroid, they could have sleep apnea, they could have insulin resistance, their mother could have just died and they're taking the one really good reason to eat their feelings for once, they could be recovering from an injury, they could be going through a bad financial or prohibitively busy period requiring them to eat fast food and take away, they could have decided that the vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting was more harmful than the weight they'd put on without it, they could be in the middle of the "gain" period of a vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting, they could be at the thinnest they've ever been, but you don't know that because all you see is a fat person.

YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AND FAT SHAMING IS ASSUMING IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO EAT HEALTHY FOODS.

Concern trolling, which is what it's called when someone coos "But I'm worried for their heaaaaaaaaalth" without knowing an iota about that person's actual state of health.

I had a friend in college who absolutely was what society called "fat." Except for the part that she ate very healthfully (not easy in a dormitory setting), and worked out more often than anyone I knew not on a sports team. She didn't do these things because she was trying to lose weight. She did them because she loved cooking and loved being fit and strong.

If your state of health is good, and you are fat? Awesome, don't change unless you want to.

It's anyone giving you grief for the weight of your body, whether they call you a Lazy Fatty Fat Fat or tell you how worried they are for your pancreatic functions and the state of your knees. Or the worst, "I want you to be happy." Screw you if you think someone has to be skinny to be happy.

What's worse is that shame tactics? They don't work. Either they can be wholesale ignored, but more realistically, it will cause other, harsher, longer-lasting problems.

That, my dears, is fat shaming.

ETA: I don't mean this edit as a WHAT ABOUT THE SKINNY FOLKS, but a continued interest in shutting down body policing. All of what I said above about fat people? The same goes for skinny people. You don't know why they're skinny, so don't assume, and as the Great Wil Wheaton told us: DON'T BE A DICK.

*At my highest weight, I was definitely described as curvy, zaftig, and possibly even "thick." The only fat shaming I ever really received was the honking facefulls women usually receive from their mothers**, and the occasional guy not being into me. In other words: WHOA NELLY PRIVILEGE.

**My mother, it must also be noted, who was nine inches taller than me, and with a totally different body type. What numbers made sense for her SO didn't make sense for me.
redstapler: (Hmm)
I confess, I haven't seen an episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution.

I've heard two very contradictory opinions from sources I trust.

One point of view says that he's addressing a very real problem about the quality of food in schools, the growing dependence on pre-made meals, and worse, the growing ignorance of basic cooking skills.

The other point of view says that he's a privileged wankadoodle who thinks money and time grow on trees, and what is it any of his business what people eat or weigh?

Not having seen the show, but having opinions about this sort of topic, I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle.

On his website, there is now a petition.

In one box, it has this message from Jamie: "If you care about the health of your children and the food they eat please sign this petition now."

In a box next to it is has this message "from you" for the petition: "Sign Jamie's petition to save cooking skills and improve school food.

I support the Food Revolution. America's kids need better food at school and better health prospects. We need to keep cooking skills alive."


I feel like those messages are contradictory.

Jamie's message conflates weight and health, which is a HUGE issue.

"Our" message demands better and more healthy food at schools, and to improve education on how to cook. That's kind of important.

Not to quote a truly bizarre source, but uh...did any of you ever see the movie Heavyweights?

It's about a kid who goes to a fat camp that got sold to a fitness madman (played hilariously by Ben Stiller in an obvious precursor to his role in Dodgeball), the kids stage a coup, and run the camp their way.

In their renewed vision of the camp, they have a fucking blast being kids in a warm, positive environment, and one of the clips in the montage includes a cooking class. Not a "how to cook low fat meals" class, but an honest to goodness class on how to cook food that tastes good.

I've seen with my own eyes people eat more healthfully once they start to learn to cook because they're caring about the quality of the components they're using, not which frozen meal is on special that week.

I realize this veers back into the "money and time don't grow on trees" category. However, I get the sense that part of "The Food Revolution" is a movement to bring better food options to underserved neighborhoods.

Anyway, I hope that the good intentions of this show and movement aren't paving a certain road. I hope that there's an understanding that weight and health aren't one and the same. I hope that there's an understanding that sometimes living off of canned and frozen items is all a person can do.

But I really hope that this show isn't all the bad that I've heard, and none of the good.

ETA: [livejournal.com profile] kalmn points to this post on Shakesville in which they point out all the ways the Revolution failed one town. It's pretty jarring.
redstapler: (Default)
I confess, I haven't seen an episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution.

I've heard two very contradictory opinions from sources I trust.

One point of view says that he's addressing a very real problem about the quality of food in schools, the growing dependence on pre-made meals, and worse, the growing ignorance of basic cooking skills.

The other point of view says that he's a privileged wankadoodle who thinks money and time grow on trees, and what is it any of his business what people eat or weigh?

Not having seen the show, but having opinions about this sort of topic, I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle.

On his website, there is now a petition.

In one box, it has this message from Jamie: "If you care about the health of your children and the food they eat please sign this petition now."

In a box next to it is has this message "from you" for the petition: "Sign Jamie's petition to save cooking skills and improve school food.

I support the Food Revolution. America's kids need better food at school and better health prospects. We need to keep cooking skills alive."


I feel like those messages are contradictory.

Jamie's message conflates weight and health, which is a HUGE issue.

"Our" message demands better and more healthy food at schools, and to improve education on how to cook. That's kind of important.

Not to quote a truly bizarre source, but uh...did any of you ever see the movie Heavyweights?

It's about a kid who goes to a fat camp that got sold to a fitness madman (played hilariously by Ben Stiller in an obvious precursor to his role in Dodgeball), the kids stage a coup, and run the camp their way.

In their renewed vision of the camp, they have a fucking blast being kids in a warm, positive environment, and one of the clips in the montage includes a cooking class. Not a "how to cook low fat meals" class, but an honest to goodness class on how to cook food that tastes good.

I've seen with my own eyes people eat more healthfully once they start to learn to cook because they're caring about the quality of the components they're using, not which frozen meal is on special that week.

I realize this veers back into the "money and time don't grow on trees" category. However, I get the sense that part of "The Food Revolution" is a movement to bring better food options to underserved neighborhoods.

Anyway, I hope that the good intentions of this show and movement aren't paving a certain road. I hope that there's an understanding that weight and health aren't one and the same. I hope that there's an understanding that sometimes living off of canned and frozen items is all a person can do.

But I really hope that this show isn't all the bad that I've heard, and none of the good.

ETA: [livejournal.com profile] kalmn points to this post on Shakesville in which they point out all the ways the Revolution failed one town. It's pretty jarring.
redstapler: (That One 08)
...did somebody say something about voting?

In NYC it'll get you coffee, ice cream, and a sex toy. Seriously.

Oh, and probably a lot of smiles, too. [/cheese]
redstapler: (Default)
...did somebody say something about voting?

In NYC it'll get you coffee, ice cream, and a sex toy. Seriously.

Oh, and probably a lot of smiles, too. [/cheese]
redstapler: (That One 08)
This discussion over at [livejournal.com profile] theferrett's LJ is interesting.

My issue with Palin's ridiculous "appearance" budget is this:

-She (by which I mean her handlers/personal shoppers) spent about three times more money than needed to be spent. In New York, they went to Barney's and Bendel's when Macy's, H&M, Century21 (right by Ground Zero!), etc would have been sufficient.

-Since being picked for VP, she has made a "thing" about how normal and down to earth she is. Don't tell me that, and then spend five times my yearly salary on clothing for you and your family.

She bought an ivory-handled backscratcher when a plastic one would have suited just fine.

Discuss.
redstapler: (Default)
This discussion over at [livejournal.com profile] theferrett's LJ is interesting.

My issue with Palin's ridiculous "appearance" budget is this:

-She (by which I mean her handlers/personal shoppers) spent about three times more money than needed to be spent. In New York, they went to Barney's and Bendel's when Macy's, H&M, Century21 (right by Ground Zero!), etc would have been sufficient.

-Since being picked for VP, she has made a "thing" about how normal and down to earth she is. Don't tell me that, and then spend five times my yearly salary on clothing for you and your family.

She bought an ivory-handled backscratcher when a plastic one would have suited just fine.

Discuss.
redstapler: (Four More Months)
Via DailyKos, via [livejournal.com profile] brawdymchwil: "It's the economy, stupid."

It's not that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the answer, it's that John McCain and Sarah Palin really, really aren't.
redstapler: (Default)
Via DailyKos, via [livejournal.com profile] brawdymchwil: "It's the economy, stupid."

It's not that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the answer, it's that John McCain and Sarah Palin really, really aren't.

Profile

redstapler: (Default)
A Punk Rock Joan Holloway Trying To Be Ianto Jones

October 2016

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2017 08:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios