Disaster Capitalism exposes the weaknesses that were always there

Naomi Klein. Whether you've read the Shock Doctrine or not, you should see this.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1237300.The_Shock_Doctrine

Everything is connected. Democratic socialism is common sense.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1238536047455330306?s=20
The ideas are popular bc people need them. Evidence of this are things like the rise of Yang, Republican acceptance of temporary emergency paid sick leave and $1000 checks, neoliberals are even... oh wait. (*Note that the Yang and Republican mentions aren't a credit to them - see disaster capitalism* This deserves a longer explanation but I'm not going to do it.)


https://youtu.be/niwNTI9Nqd8


https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2020/3/19


Here's another one of you've run out of podcasts or want to hear about Pelosi and Schumer.
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/14/donald-trump-and-the-counterrevolutionary-war/

Where is Joe Biden

March 21, 2020

Idk who's going to win the nomination, but one candidate is all over this and one is - who knows?

Why hasn't joe taken control and led a Democratic attempt to inform and at least look like he could handle this if he were president (since he, his handlers, and supporters are dismissive and acting like he's the presumptive nominee)? If you're auditioning for a leadership role, either against Sanders or 45, shouldn't you, eh, LEAD? Do something?

While Biden figures out a webcam or is in hiding again, Bernie has been out there, he responded right away with a plan and reassurance, and he continues to update and encourage people to help each other.

Looks downright presidential - if you like using that word.

Good And Mad by Rebecca Traister

Good and Mad by Rebecca Traister

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39939208-good-and-mad

"I've been thinking a lot about the ways that women are required to perform our emotions during this moment, and in particular how much thought and effort we put into mitigating the risk of being seen as angry. 

These performances have belied the reality that if you consider yourself fully human as a woman, and fully endowed with dignity, then anger is a very reasonable response to sexual harassment, assault, or other gendered violence. 

This is another thing I've been thinking about: How anger has both limited me and led me astray, and also been a wonderful motivator. Anger leads me to seek answers, to seek change." -- Moira Donnegan

https://twitter.com/MoiraDonegan/status/961992524213751809?s=20

Bernie is best for the coronavirus pandemic and after

Everything Has Changed Overnight
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/everything-has-changed-overnight


Basic Income in a Pandemic and Beyond
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/universal-basic-income-ubi-coronavirus-covid-19-crisis/
(And get out of here with Yang nonsense.)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/16/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income-229847


Too late, coronavirus proved Bernie Sanders was right. Now we have to settle for a recession led by Biden
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-bernie-sanders-biden-medicare-for-all-wheresjoe-wedeservebernie-a9421471.html


Workers Are More Valuable Than CEOs
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/03/coronavirus-low-wage-workers-front-lines-grocery-store


Joe Kassabian  @jkass99: The problem with capitalism is that you eventually run out of other people's labor.
https://twitter.com/jkass99/status/1242555406523629568?s=20

The Intercept Tara Reade - rape accusation against Biden

I first saw this on Democracy Now - Tara Reade accused Joe Biden of rape and sexual assault.
And now we have the same old fight: to believe women or not to believe women. Some men are just waiting for a major news network to pick this up or for some excuse to say aha! we don't actually have to believe women! They're liars! I believe Tara. Will she be deemed credible by YangNews, CNN, or the hacks at MSNBC, or the fine civil folks at NPR? I don't know. I don't care. It's hard to come forward and be subjected to these immediate attacks of disbelief and opposition and even death threats. I understand why women don't report. Men still don't. WE have learned nothing.

Everyone in the wake of these things who are out of the gate unconvinced are suspect. Not suspect in a criminal way or anything like this, but tagged mentally as someone who is not safe, someone you wouldn't go to if you were in trouble, someone you can't trust with real things. I'm not talking about canceling, but you can't count on them when it counts. That circle gets smaller and smaller.

Here's the Democracy Now link:
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2020/3/26
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/26/headlines/the_intercept_times_up_legal_defense_fund_refused_to_support_metoo_allegation_against_joe_biden

Katie Halper's video and tweet - she is from The Hill's The Rising and is who broke the story, I think?
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1242691746561167360?s=20

TIME’S UP SAID IT COULD NOT FUND A #METOO ALLEGATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN, CITING ITS NONPROFIT STATUS AND HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/


Ryan Grim at the Intercept addresses an objection to her name change as basis for not believing her.
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1243199151673872389?s=20

******
Intercept and other media measured for facts and bias in response to Howard Dean's tweet and suspicion of Reade and The Intercept.
https://twitter.com/Bern4Bern/status/1243561239705460736?s=20

Howard Dean may have deleted his tweet, so here it is:

******


Outlets begin picking it up days after Democracy Now:

The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is an integrity test for the Democratic Party
https://www.mic.com/p/the-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-is-integrity-test-for-the-democratic-party-22661534

JOE BIDEN'S SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSER WANTS TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK OUT WITHOUT FEAR OF 'POWERFUL MEN'
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-campaign-team-denies-past-sexual-assault-allegation-former-senate-staffer-1494794

Joe Biden Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Senate Aide In 1993
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-sexual-assault-tara-reade_n_5e7e69c8c5b6256a7a2a88f2

A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation

Thanks, fundies. Governors who don't express obedience to Trump won't get aid

Trump says he's directed Pence not to call governors who aren't 'grateful' for federal aid

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/white-house-coronavirus-task-force-to-hold-daily-briefing-after-trump-signs-stimulus-bill

Please tell me more about how he's a baby Christian and you were a Christian in and out of the voting booth when you elected this disaster.

He's withholding aid based on who's not grateful enough, however that will be determined. Is this the presidential rising to the occasion you'd hoped for?

These "values" you mean to protect at the expense now of the world's population include mainly - let's be honest, for most, only - securing prosecution of or outlawing a medical procedure ON SOMEONE ELSE that you have always had the religious freedom to simply abstain from if you choose.

When people told me he'd grow into it, rise to the occasion, and learn the job, I thought they were delusional. Not that I'm the only one, but we were right. 🎉 Now what? I guess wait for his next speech that will contain exactly no useful, factual information and probably some conspiracy, lies, and disinformation.

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1243668778573053953?s=20

Quote:  "Here’s the thing: even if every governor tells him to go fuck himself, it’s his job to help anyway. This is fucking insane. He’s making decisions about who lives and who dies based on who kisses his ass the most. Fuck him. Honestly, I’m just fucking over it."

US assassinates Soleimani and a letter from 2003

So this happened now and is making my Gen X cohorts think of an earlier time.
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/3/headlines/us_assassinates_powerful_iranian_general_qassim_suleimani_at_baghdad_airport

Here is what I wrote 20 years ago, still a Christian, maybe 8-10 years from deciding to leave religion.  I think I asked decent questions. It's on this blog in another spot, so it has an older intro...

I'm 42 and it's 2020. I hope things have changed, but I don't see it. Well, at least I've changed!

I think this letter was in 2003. I was 25. 9/11 was of course in 2001. But it's all linked in my mind and time and events get a little muddied, but I remember it as one big mess both because the Republicans linked them and both things made me see the church and American exceptionalism/patriotism for what it was.

#######

I had been looking for this email I sent to a friend discussing my various questions about war, action in Iraq, peace and how this relates to the Bible or how Christians are supposed to react to these things. Some are questions and items are just me trying to process my Bible study and balance it with various political views. It was written about two months after our invasion in Iraq at the tender age of 25. That seems so long ago, but I guess it's not really. The first part is the letter to the friend. I also refer to his responses and also a Bible study the young adults had on this or a similar topic at which there was surprisingly little discussion. 

Some of it is repetitive and maybe not that well thought out, but it is interesting to me to re-read. I suppose what drove me to write it was the annoyance that patriotism, support for war, support for Bush, and obeying authority read no protesting, no questioning, no criticism of the president) were being lumped together (by some) as the sum of a good Christian when it wasn't necessarily Biblical to do so. Another was Bush's cowboy pseudodiplomacy.

I read this article :
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html

now here ?  https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128467&page=1
Reason for War? [White House Officials Say Privately the Sept. 11 Attacks Changed Everything
W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.]

and this one http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

and wondered if the reasons given for the war (intent) had an impact on any conclusion on whether or not the Bible allows war. If we gave reasons such as WMD, link to Al Qaeda, and then liberation from dictatorship, but the real reason was wanting to flex our muscle and teach the region a lesson, would this be wrong? (There are current leaders who have killed more innocent people, have more WMD and have threatened to use them more than once) Are there right and wrong reasons to go to war, like proving a point versus self-defense?

>Also, I’ve heard people quote Old Testament verses to show examples >of war and justify it. Since we’re under a new covenant and the 10 >commandments are not sufficient, is there enough new testament >justification for self defense or war? >

>Some people I have talked to say that because the Bible says submit >to government, we should support the attack on Iraq. Period. A lot >of times their logic is that Bush is appointed by God or that God >approves only of American style democracy and I don’t think that’s >what the verses below are saying exactly. After all, Christians in >other parts of the world would submit to their leaders and not ours. >‡I know we’ve covered submission before, but I’ve heard 1Pet 2 and >Rom 13 used to justify war in the same places submission was >defined. When we question our faith, we are not being unsubmissive >or unfaithful, so just raising points on the opposite side should >not be considered unsubmissive. >‡Dissent, free speech and protesting are allowed under our >government (authorities appointed by God-Rom 13), so are protesters >really resisting authority as some have implied? >‡If our government decided that we could not practice our religion >or told us to do something against God’s will, we’d obey God and not >man. It’s hard to see how this verse (Rom 13 and 1Pet) is an >adequate justification for war. It addresses the fact that if you do >wrong, the government has the authority to punish. It doesn’t say >much about what to do if you are following God and the authority is >not. >The real question is –is war right or wrong. I’m going to stop on >this now because I think I’m going around in a circle. >

>Bush’s spiritual advisor is Billy Graham. Does this present any >problems in our submitting? Many of his speeches remind me more of a >televangelist rather than a head of state, so I think Graham has >alot of influence. I guess this goes back to the question about the >government going against God’s will and what we do in this case. >

>1 Pet and Rom 13 say “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man” >and “be subject to governing authorities”. It sounds like the UN >would fit the description. The US did not go through the UN, so if >the UN is an authority, we were wrong in attacking. I was wondering >if UN Resolutions are not the ordinances of man also that we should >be submitting to? If not, then all countries are dealing with each >other by different standards and can claim theirs is the right one >because if you are a citizen of that nation you have to follow that >leader, but that‘s just my opinion.. Anyway, if nothing else, the US >agreed to be apart of it and follow the UN charter. Should we not >keep our word and comply with treaties and charters (like the UN’s ) >that our government discussed at one time, voted on and promised to >abide by? We seem to accept it’s authority when we want, (i.e we >made a big deal about Iraq undermining the UN and not following the >Resolution that said WMD are illegal for Iraq to possess and make) >and dismiss it when we don’t like it (i.e. when we could get support >for a war resolution at the time we wanted it). It seems that if the >UN has no authority for us, then our big reason for war, the fact >that Iraq had WMD and was not permitted to do so by the UN, would be >shot down. If we decide that the UN does have authority, then we >undermined it and ignored it when we attacked Iraq. Also, the rules >of war were mentioned Friday. Most of those rules, the Geneva >Conventions and all that are UN creations made to preserve order and >justice among nations, so if the UN has no authority for us then >most rules for guaranteeing human rights and justice aren’t >applicable and we can’t accuse others of not following them, unless >the US has it’s own special rules for war. In this case, I would >still have the question I talked about in my 4th paragraph- if the >Rom and 1 Pet verses are conditional, wouldn't we need to figure out >whether it is right to do that first, then accept it if it fits with >God's word. >

>This is in response to a Bible study we held on the war topic: >
>I mentioned some verses that seemed like they wouldn’t fit with >permitting war. You said that those were dealing with the individual >and not government. Does this mean that the government is not made >up of individuals- only Bush? Are there verses that exempt those in >government or authority from these verses? In those verses, the >Bible didn’t say that government is exempt. >

>It seems like the consensus was that it’s ok to kill in war even >though innocent blood is shed. Besides the verses about submitting >to government (which I will get to later), the main support was the >Old Testament distinction between killing and murder. I realize that >God told the Israelites to kill everyone including children in some >battles, but that was a direct command. God didn’t tell Bush to >attack Iraq, take it over and kill everyone. He doesn’t speak to us >in that way anymore. Is the distinction still made in the new >testament and how do we know for sure? >

>We talked about things done in war like dropping a bomb, firing in >the direction of enemy fire, and blowing up buildings (or “targets >of opportunity”, if you will) as not being murder because the >soldiers aren’t intending to kill innocent people. Soldiers have to >be pretty naïve to believe that a bomb dropped from whatever height >, firing in a general direction, and blowing up structures with >force that could kill those inside and collapse houses in the area >on top of people is only going to hit the person or facility deemed >to be evil by the government. It’s true that our weapons are more >precise now, but innocents still die. Another thing that struck me >was that just because a dozen or so planes go out so no one knows >who dropped it or pilots think about family or feel nothing when >they drop bombs except a slight bump as it is released it doesn’t >affect whether or not innocents will die or whether it is right or >wrong. These things are done just so the soldiers won’t carry the >guilt. It was also said that fewer Iraqis died in this conflict that >Hussein killed. Does this justify war Biblically or otherwise? It >sheds no light on the war question. >

>It also seemed like people agreed that we are supposed to submit to >government and buy their justification for war except if they tell >us to do or not do something that is a Biblical truth (ie. Come >together and worship). This one is logical and easy to accept-Paul >and others were told not to preach by authorities and they did >anyway. Another exception mentioned was Nazi Germany and the >holocaust even though those people had to submit to their government >like we have to submit to Bush, or “ordinances of man” or authority. >The holocaust was immediately dismissed as wrong without discussion. >Is that because the people were innocent? But we know about as much >about that as we know about reasons our government gave for war. It >seems that we’d established that we can’t know the government’s >intent and can’t trust what they say and basically can’t understand >what and why the governments do these things. (By the way, I’m not >saying the holocaust was just. I’m just trying to understand.) If >there are exceptions to submit to government, then we must determine >whether the act is right or wrong and the Rom and Pet verses can’t >be used alone because they are conditional. About those verses, >noticed some things that may be nit picking or wrong altogether, but >it made me think. 1Pet2:15 says that submitting to the ordinances of >man is the will of God and that by doing it we will silence fools. >So if the government is not doing good, we won’t be doing the will >of God or silence fools. This seems to say that if war is right, we >should have submitted, but if it is wrong, we should disagree. 1 Pet >2:16 talks about not using liberty as a “cloak for vice”. I’m not >sure if that means that reasons for war might matter. It sounds at >first glance that government shouldn’t use it’s authority to >accomplish it’s goals unless they are not vice. I’m not totally sure >what that verse is saying, though. I’m just trying to understand why >we use the Rom 13 or 1Pet 2 to justify war, but then say that it’s >ok to resist the government in the holocaust or in civil >disobedience in the 60’s. The verse doesn’t make distinctions that >I’m aware of, but we do. >

>Another thing that I wonder about is why we are supposed to believe >all the “evidence” and forgeries our government uses to gain public >support for war, but when high ranking officials come out and say >that the government may not have had the best intentions (innocent >people killed for no reason, as much as depends on us, we did not >live peaceably), then we are to dismiss this because they are just >out to get the president or make people look bad. If war is allowed, >it seems like it should be a last resort but in the Iraq case, we >threw out weapons inspectors and ignored countries that wanted to >try all possible peaceful means before war (many countries that were >opposed to war, would not have opposed it had it actually been a >last resort). I’ve heard Bush and others in his administration say >that they think war should be a last resort, (but with the evidence >they gave, all possibilities were not exhausted. Self-defense was >hardly a reason because we ended up proving their military >inferiority by the fast advances we made. Another thing that makes >me question the government’s intentions is that there was a definite >change in policy after 9/11. We changed to pre-emption rather than >attacking in self-defense. The same people were in Bush Sr’s >administration (Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, etc) and tried to push >pre-emption, but it leaked out and people were outraged, so they >changed it. It’s disturbing how 9/11 made people more supportive of >violence against other nations and against those who “look Arab” >including Indians and Hispanics. Needless to say, since Bush Sr’s >people are in Bush Jr’s administration and people need less evidence >now to support war, the pre-emptive policy was a big hit. It seems >like this change is more motivated by revenge than anything else or >a desire to please the public.

>***
>You asked why has God put his people in so many wars. It was >different then. God spoke directly to people and provided food from >heaven. We're under the new covenant and some things have >changed/been fulfilled. I can't recall the cases where God told the >apostles to wipe out cities with force or Paul or Jesus doing >anything that violent. >

>Rom 13:4 says that is you do evil then the ruler can punish you for >doing evil. I guess a question I have is are we supposed to be >subject to our ruler, all rulers, only those that "do good"? Some >seem to think that American presidents have more approval from God, >so it’s ok for us to invade whoever we choose for whatever reason, >though I don’t know where they get this. Who's to say that George W >is "doing good"? It says in KJV that rulers are ministers of God for >good, so they can punish subjects for doing evil. As I mentioned >before, it seems to address what goes on if the subject is doing >evil, not if the ruler is doing evil. We mentioned the holocaust as >an "obvious" exception to having to do what rulers say and I have a >feeling the civil diobedience in the 60's would also be considered >the "right" thing to do along with resisting many other injustices. >It does not seem to give these exceptions in the Bible, yet we have >made them. If we say that rulers are from God and we need to follow >them, then Hussein's soldiers were doing right in fighting our >troops and Hitler's men were doing right by following orders and >rounding up Jews, gypsies and others that Hitler didn't want in his >perfect race. and no one wants to accept this. >

>Were Jesus and Moses parents resisting authority when they went >against the rulers decree about killing baby boys? In at least one >case, God told them to disobey the order. So what does that say >about disobeying orders when they are wrong or are not doing good?

>*** >Friend's reply: >I did have another question for you. Do you think there is ever a >time war would be justified? I mean, say all means were tried with >Hussein, WMD were found, etc. Would you still think the war was >sinful? >

>My reply: >I’m working on that one about is a war ever justified. Without >looking at the Bible, my inclination is to want to hit right back >when we are attacked, but is this right? I don’t know. I would tend >to say we were right to attack Japan after they attacked Pearl >Harbor, but the A bomb was going too far. That was more like >revenge. I have nothing to base this on and I don’t know why I think >this, it is only my feeling. >

>About the Iraq attack (also my opinion because I can’t find Biblical >proof), there isn’t much that would make it right. We didn’t exhaust >all means. That is obvious. Gen Franks was saying how it could take >a year or so to find WMD and we have the full run of the country. >Weapons inspectors in this last round should have been given at >least a year and maybe more because they may not get the access they >want all at once. Even if WMD are found now, they’d have to prove >that Iraq had the ability and machinery necessary to launch or >disburse the WMD and also prove that there was an attack planned on >us with those WMD for the near future if we wanted to use the >self-defense excuse to justify the pre-emptive Iraq attack (even if >they find “proof” you really can’t know until they attack-that’s the >danger of pre-emption. There’s a lot more chance of doing more harm >than good unnecessarily). The US used the undermining UN excuse at >the beginning because the resolution says they are not supposed to >have WMD. We can’t decide if this is an acceptable excuse until we >figure out my questions in my past few emails about the UN. If the >UN is not binding by Biblical standards, then we can’t use that as >an excuse. If the UN is binding, then our using the resolution as >justification for war then acting without the UN and against it was >undermining it and wrong. >

>(Re: your 3rd item)We don’t know what our own military was told >either. All we have are history books to tell us who was told what. >The books do say some of what Hitler’s men were told and will say >what Hussein’s men were told. My point was that everyone has their >leader to follow, so when leaders accuse other leaders of being >evil, fighting those soldiers of the “evil” leader may not >necessarily be fighting evil. We’re just killing people who re also >following their leader. >

>It seems Bush has taken a very oversimplified and controversial view >of the world with the whole good vs evil thing and “if you’re not >for us, you’re against us”, but it appeals to Christians which most >of our nation is. >

Levar Burton Reads - the bad or the ugly

First, the podcast link:  http://www.levarburtonpodcast.com/

I will talk about some of the good ones eventually because there have been very good ones (!), 

(such as The Lighthouse Keeper by Daisy Johnson, The Paper Menagerie by Ken Liu, The Truth About Owls by Amal Mohtar, and maybe the Murakami one, the Second Bakery Attack, and Lesley Nneka Arimah's What It Means When A Man Falls From the Sky)

but there are two that annoyed me quite a bit - especially when he praised the female representation and I felt it was pretty horrible.


Let's talk about #12, No Man's Guns  - A Western, so ick, right out of the gate. Not a fan.

Levar, in his commentary, says there are usually no women in westerns but this one had a prominent women's voice. Huh? I missed that. I think this is a horrible example of a woman's voice. She's not a prominent voice and isn't terribly developed as a character. She does show show contempt for her scumbag brother or whoever she travels with, which is good, but obviously she's still under his control. No agency. Depressing. Typical. 

The main character had quite a journey, getting comfortable with dying/ his fate and then having his word first disbelieved then proved true, justice done, and life saved in the end. 

All the woman had was this guy thinking some thoughts about marriage and that maybe she was feminine but talked a little too much. She didn't. His opinion on what makes a good woman is pretty stunted. She was more of a prop even than #3 below. I was not nearly as wowed by the woman's voice because I know I have a lot more thoughts every second that this guy gave the woman in a lifetime. Too much of a sexist stereotype to be a real character. 


#3 Empty Places

This is one he was kind of gushing over. I get it -- from his particular perspective how he gravitated to this theme. He's right that the mentor/ mentee thing in the two major characters is good - they end up being better people than you'd expect.

A secondary -- but maybe not so minor -- character was this queen. Even though her story wasn't as prominent, I felt she should have had more life -- been less of a prop for these other characters. She was writing this letter to a past male friend because she was unhappily married to a brutish and horrible king who forgot their son's birthday, among other things. She was only 16 or something, which again is pretty terrible. So the main characters stole this letter she wrote so that she is barred from her own growth, well-being and connections beyond castle walls -- and, importantly, sinking her chances of escape either mentally or physically from an unhappy and who know what else - marriage.

The two main characters conspire to steal the letter and leave a gift so that the queen will think the king remembered the son's birthday. This will cause her to show patience and kindness which will encourage the king to return the kindness. ??? Like WHAT IS THAT ???

Men aren't responsible for their own bad behavior? The only way to deal with bad men is to ignore the actual problem and be extra nice to them?? Give them more chances??

I think there are some good themes to explore here, like he said with the mentor relationships, but the one regarding the queen tells women they shouldn't expect more; just work harder and ignore your own suffering and the man will come around - maybe. If ignoring his coarseness and unfairness doesn't work, oh well, you can't leave! There's the kingdom to think about. What will your subjects say - how will this reflect on the king? Clearly, all that matters is making the king look good and everyone will pull together to see that this happens, even at the expense of a woman. Because who care about them; right?

Unless I missed something - that particular theme was garbage.

On the other hand, if she was caught corresponding with a male friend and if the punishment is beheading or medieval torture, maybe they DID help her, such as the "help" in those times was? Abuse in marriage rather than death. Life sucks either way in that case. I'd loved to have seen a little more consideration or compassion for the queen. As in many stories and maybe life, the woman here was just a prop in several men's stories.

Movie Nites: Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre

The next two are slashers - Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre

There seems to be something hyper masculine (dare I say toxic?) in saying you can watch a slasher movie with no substance and think it's funny or something. Be different! Say it's bad. Because it is.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/10/178587/horror-movies-death-by-sex-slut-shaming


Halloween

Long awaited. I'd never seen these, but of course they've been referenced and spoofed into oblivion. Everyone who says they love horror loves these two movies.

And there's really nothing there.

The killer with the bleached Capt Kirk mask killed his sister when she was a teenager (why??) and he was an 8 year old or something. He's put in an asylum and breaks out 15 yrs later and stalks a girl in his hometown as old as the sister was (maybe?) for, again, I don't know what reason. There is no reason. Are they trying to say violence is perpetrated by the mentally ill? Violence is senseless and has no discernible cause? Violence is entertaining? No. Just no.

There's lots of stalking (girl sees, her friends tell her they don't see) then senseless gore and one girl's friends dropping like flies. I feel like this is playing on women not being believed in sexual assaults and their expertise and observations being generally given less weight than men's - but it'snot so much calling attention to it, but rather using it as a given as part of the story.

Maybe there's slut shaming too? The girl that wanted to have sex I think is the one the guy murdered, ripped up his sister's gravestone and put on her bed with her in it. The studious girl who appeared not to want sex is the one who lived. Hm.

Some movies you can debate whether or not it's feminist or good. I don't think that's the case with these.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre

This one was a bit stressful. Being in the middle of nowhere, all the friends you're with are murdered one by one, then you're tortured and nearly killed. Yay! 

Even the man at the gas station when she runs away and thinks she's safe the first time is in on it, is part of the murdery family of men. 

There's lots of screaming, if that floats your boat. Lots. Her face - lots of close ups of her screaming. And more screaming. Women feel this kind of terror a lot I think. Not only that, but are warned of it and blamed for it, so it's tiring. She does get away, I guess, in the end. So that's good. For the franchise at least?

I connected with this book and quote a lot more:

"Women have always been the most important part of monster movies. As I walked home one night, I realized why. Making my way down dark city streets to my apartment in Brooklyn, I was alert and on edge. I was looking for suspicious figures, men that could be rapists, muggers or killers. I felt like Laurie Strode in Halloween. Horror is a pressure valve for society's fears and worries: monsters seeking to control our bodies, villains trying to assail us in the darkness, disease and terror resulting from the consequences of active sexuality, death. These themes are the staple of horror films.

There are people who witness these problems only in scary movies. But for much of the population, what is on the screen is merely an exaggerated version of their everyday lives. These are forces women grapple with daily. Watching Nancy Thompson escape Freddy Krueger's perverted attacks reminds me of how I daily fend off creeps asking me to smile for them on the subway. Women are the most important part of horror because, by and large, women are the ones the horror happens to. Women have to endure it, fight it, survive it — in the movies and in real life. They are at risk of attack from real-life monsters. In America, a woman is assaulted every nine seconds."

― Mallory O'Meara, The Lady from the Black Lagoon: 

Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick

I used to have a recurring dream about being chased. Sometimes I was caught, and when I was, I screamed and nothing came out of my mouth. The whole thing was just pure heart-pounding terror. Even when you wake up, it takes time to calm down. I've felt nearly the same in a parking deck, walking alone after dark on a college campus, being in public after a creep makes it known he's watching you. I've made my schedule around making sure I'm in a populated area but not too populated or in order to make sure I'm not running in a forest in the dark. I really don't need to watch these things to know what it's like to feel scared. Maybe men do? I'd rather think they watch to develop empathy than revel in the misogyny of slaughtering women for being sexually active. I'm probably too optimistic.

Movie Nite: Carrie

October movie nite:

Carrie

The release date is November 3, 1976, so it's a year older than me. That's kind of fun. Also November 3 is Godzilla's birthday.

I think I had seen this one before. It wasn't nearly as scary as I remembered. By far the best out of the several campy and several slashers we've seen this month. You probably can't go wrong with Stephen King. It was spooky, had a plot, and had some magic to mix things up a little. It didn't kill the women for having sex like some others, so That's a plus. Did it equate women with being witches emitting  a polluting substance as this article brings up? Maybe. I'll entertain that. I think greater was the comment on religion - that Carrie's ignorance that caused her shame was caused by her mother's abuse and religious beliefs. So, I don't know on balance whether this was necessarily a feminist flick. It could go either way.

Leaving the question of whether or not the movie is particularly feminist or not for a moment, my daughter had seen it done in some form in this show she likes, Riverdale. It's everywhere in pop culture. It was kind of fun to show her the original. 

It's got telekinesis and stuff and a little horrible religion messing people up. I like the way the people the mother evangelized to really didn't pay much attention. Mixing up the magic and religion is a pretty good choice - it makes you think about believers and manipulation and related things. She gets her period at the beginning and is kind of an outcast, so those are always good themes as well. Coming of age and feeling like an imposter are themes with a lot of material. Getting your period comes with a lot of those things represented in a person grappling with finding out they have a power and need to develop it - extra responsibilities, the need to learn a lot of things very quickly, extra dangers, etc. And as I type, it's interesting that I'm comparing a supernatural power to getting one's period because I've always thought of it as the opposite of a power. Maybe my thinking is influenced by the patriarchal culture.
It's always been an unfair burden, something that holds me back physically and or emotionally, gets in the way, has to be managed and planned for whether you want to or not so you don't bleed everywhere or get pregnant. The fact that the telekinesis came with her fist period was an interesting and maybe not insignificant plot point. 

I had imagined it as a bit scarier than it was. The scariest thing is actually the lighting and camera angle at the school dance (at which the iconic pig blood scene occurs). It captures school in a fairly exaggerated but familiar way. There's only one murder and it's not like a rampage - it's rather justice that no one else seems to be able or willing to deliver. I didn't even really remember the Jesus voodoo doll thingy from the first time around, but it was featured prominently in the doll and the abusive mother's death. I guess that's why I liked the movie, the most vulnerable person was sort of protected instead of picked off and tortured more like in a slasher movie. Well, except for the fact that she died. So, again, not sure it's particularly feminist, but it's got more going on than your average slasher/thriller.

A few other things worth noting that critics have brought up is the mother being the source of the harmful patriarchal religious abuse, so it's kind insult to injury like women are inflicting this on themselves; men are answering for nothing. And tied to that, treating menstruation as a shameful thing - and again the mother didn't educate her because of enforcing the extreme patriarchal religious view of women as sinful, dirty beings. It's hard to say for sure, but worth discussing.

Movie Nite: Teenagers From Outer Space

October Movie Nite

Teenagers From Outer Space

Really 50s. Ridiculous. An alien named Derek lands on Earth and wants to stay. It's complicated! - his dad's the supreme leader of his planet where they don't have families so they can't just fry him on the spot for desertion of his space duties He moves in with a teenage (I'm assuming) girl and her grandfather. The name was really funny, I don't know why. Because they're supposed to be named Mork? After he reached town, it was all Donna Reed or Father Knows Best - for a little bit.

But the killer alien - I don't remember his name - kills with such impunity and coldness and sterility, it feels very much like a comment on the fear and war and the new bomb technology. Maybe a fear of science as a result? It gets more points than a slasher movie for that bit.


This is one of the parts of substance:

Captain: Morrow! Go below and bring up the young gargon specimen. Now the decision depends on its reactions.Derek: Wait, Captain. I have found evidence of intelligent beings on this planet!
Thor: Of what concern of foreign beings?
Derek: Of none to you, Thor! Just as you were so unconcerned when you destroyed this small creature, so bravely!
Thor: It was no more than an insect.
Derek: But it had life. And that life you had to take to satisfy your endless hunger for killing.


The romance is as unimpressive and sexless as the 50s. She has two boyfriends and nothing really happens. Maybe we can excuse her because they're trying to stop Derek's alien friend from zapping everyone's meat off their skeletons.

It's interesting that the reporter boyfriend isn't jealous - maybe some progressive thought there? Or maybe just the real life relationship between the two guys snuck into the fiction.

 

The writer/producer was in the film as the reporter/boyfriend of the girl Derek was in love with and was actually the boyfriend of the man who played Derek. Fun background info.

This next exchange was kind of cheesy, but maybe tries to say in words what they should've shown - how love feels and that you can love those who seem different by your culture's standards because we're all the same - as in the Twilight Zone's People Are the Same All Over and Third From the Sun.

Derek: Betty, when you learn where I'm from, well... you will not understand but, I hope it will not make any difference between us because...Betty Morgan: I don't care where your from. I don't understand all this, but somehow I feel that I've always known you. That we've never been apart!

Another kind of irrelevant but fun fact:The grandfather, Harvey Dunn, had missing fingers and in real life made cards to explain. 

The story of my finger cut off July 18, 1908: "Caught in a cogwheel of a printing press at the Press and Dakotan office, Yankton, S. D., while working around the press. Attending physician Dr. Moorehouse. I did not sue for damages. I can write just as well now, if not better, than before the accident. The stub of the finger has the tendency to melt in summer and freeze in winter. I swear this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge." Sincerely yours, Harvey B. Dunn.

Movie Nite: Plan 9 From Outer Space

We were going to watch one horror movie every night in October, but I think we're averaging every other. 

Plan 9 From Outer Space

The UFOs were as bad as promised.

And Vampira!!!

I kinda fell asleep a little. 

And this is pretty bad... because only detectives can makes very basic inferences:

LT. HARPER Well don't forget Mrs. Trent claims to have seen them too. She didn't have anything on her breath. 
LARRY She was hysterical. 
LT. HARPER Well true, she was frightened, and in a state of shock. But, don't forget that torn nightgown and the scratched feet.
LARRY Yeah I hadn't thought of that. I guess that's why you're a detective lieutenant and I'm still a uniformed cop.

But there are a few interesting things! -- besides the legendary badness of the film. The aliens want to destroy earth people because we made terrible weapons - probably the big bomb scare theme - and they want to destroy us before we destroy them. Compared to the slasher films, I appreciate the noble goal here. In fiction writing, they always say to show, don't just tell, so possibly the guy could've taken a few classes before launching this, but I like the idea.

In another part, the alien mentions God and the human is shocked. In a way, it's a comment on how people from other cultures assume they're different, but they have more in common than they think. I like that theme generally, like several in the old Twilight Zone series.

The major funder was a Baptist preacher and converted a lot of the cast, as I learned in the Vampira book I read recently. Tor Johnson, while being baptized with most of the crew, pretended to drown. Maybe they didn't take the conversion all that seriously? Would've been funny either way. 


The book in question:

Vampira: Dark Goddess of Horror - my notes on Goodreads:
There isn't a huge cache of info on Vampira it seems. Even so, Poole manages a good bio as well as description of where she fit in the cultural changes and how she may have influenced.

What stood out to me was that she was a strong figure who instead of doing the submissive pin up routine, looked at the audience and embodied a women's right to pleasure - and pain if she wants - just by a scream.

She seems to have had lots of bad luck where others got breaks, made a few no so great choices (the lawsuit, for one), and was a little too strong for her era. Like the James Dean stunts. I feel like that would have been fine for today, but it kind of soured people on her at the time.

She's kind of an underdog or forgotten legend. She was pretty revolutionary - or ahead of her time in some ways. There was a bit about how she wanted to choose the next Vampira. She wanted a black or Latina woman, but the network said no to avoid "controversy."

She was under contract four a role in a work by William Faulkner. She was in the Village in the 40s, though her words are forgotten rather than celebrated like her male cohorts, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs. Ackerman, it's said, borrowed from her without attribution. It's amazing that she had so much influence and so little reward.

Quote from the beginning: "Here, the marginalized learn the importance of performance for survival. They understand themselves as different from the dominant power structure and know a direct challenge rarely ends well. So they role-play and subvert, often through the medium of anarchic humor."

transgender people and athletics

transgender people and athletics and the ADF scare tactics

---

I think I'll try and put most of my thoughts here. I'm feeling hermit-y again. Facebook is increasingly not a place I want to microblog or do much else besides connect in groups or post funny crochet things. 

I get that white guys think communicating with (read: shouting down/mansplaining) people with differing views is open minded, but I spend my life swimming upstream and being uncomfortable and need the respite of groups with similar interests who don't get offended by equality.

---
I saw this link below come up on my timeline - and just to warn you - it's going to be biased and hateful because that's the Alliance Defending Freedom's brand - so I looked for more info and interestingly, the targeted individuals are black. (See the Boston.com link here) Hmmm.

A few links on that bit:

-- https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2810857-andraya-yearwood-knows-she-has-the-right-to-compete.amp.html

-- https://rewire.news/article/2019/04/05/the-crisis-of-violence-against-transgender-people-is-not-a-myth/

-- https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community

---

In quotes is the FB post and link that popped up on my feed this morning.

"I'm not posting this to get into the whole gender issue (if you comment on that, try to argue about that, I will remove it. Take that to your own wall). I'm posting this because these young ladies, and others like them, are being robbed of what they have worked so hard to earn."
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/09/09/make-your-voice-heard-men-don-t-belong-in-women-s-sports

---

The poster only wanted to talk about the sports - all transgender discussion would be deleted, but I don't understand that since the crux is fearmongering on the right and complete lack of knowledge of that entire point of view, probably intentionally. So discussion of transgender issues would be exactly what's needed. 

The link is directly encouraging hate and discrimination, so discouraging discussion is asking us to accept the indoctrination and propaganda without talking about it while posting on a public discussion oriented platform. Though I get not wanting a bunch of arguing on your own page.

Here was my polite appeal to the religious crowd before I deleted it:
I would just encourage people to find info outside of this organization, which very definitely is pushing discrimination if you look at the action items (and its activism in general). There's already a court case. This will get sorted out. It needs no action. 

This was a thoughtful Twitter thread (indy link below) more based on evidence about trans athletes.... (#7 kind of explains what this organization is doing)...

The way I learn and connect with things is through books, so maybe read books by trans authors? I would just urge a bit of understanding or curiosity even though it makes us uncomfortable theologically before acting like this org here.

https://www.indy100.com/article/trans-athletes-lgbt-twitter-thread-brynn-tannehill-8808621

---
I wonder if this issue and "concern for fairness" can be the gateway into thinking about how we might be too competitive or how sports shouldn't matter that much or how we should focus on education more actually.
---

Further searching and information: 

Interesting find here. A documentary at the Tribecca Film Festival featuring one of the girls from Connecticut... Could be a source of the backlash. I don't know if I'm interested in what came first. I just don't think we should discriminate and be obsessed with people's genitals at birth or whatever it is Christians say.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/changing-the-game-trailer-exclusive-tribeca-1203193075/

I haven't read these, but I'd start here maybe- books by non-binary authors:

https://bookriot.com/2018/10/27/trans-non-binary-authors/

Peterson, Pinker, and the Intellectual Dark Web

There are a group of names that keep popping up that people will insist that are more progressive than you think or that need to be heard because they are being silenced. Who can be against free speech; right? In reality, whatever else their main focus is, they are usually spouting some serious strains of Islamophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, hate for immigrants to rival the GOP, or patriarchal gender binary defense to rival the most conservative church. They will talk about free speech and human rights so that you think they might be progressive - until you realize these rights they are talking about are only for them. They are uninterested in yours. Who are they? Generally white guys who think everything is equal so why do these other groups need any more rights? It's infringing on their freedom to call people by the pronouns they ask. They whine about #metoo going "too far." They don't see color. Women owe them sex and ant prove capitalism is natural. They love to opine about the outrage culture of the left and identity politics.

This is a fun little satire.

New Jordan Peterson book asserts all dogs are boys and all cats are girls

I fell into the intellectual dark web awhile back in explaining why Jordan Peterson is not as great as Joe Rogan fans insist. At times I have emphasized the fact that he spawned men's rights activist groups of entitled male "victims" of feminism. Other times, I have cited how he is, some argue, hateful toward trans people and thinks feminists are evil. Men have trouble connecting to these themes apparently.

 On one hand, he uses science like a social Darwinist, which is to say wrong - he doesn't know anything.

 


On the other hand, lots of Big Thinkers and New Atheists or whatever we're calling them overlap with this problematic bunch for some benevolent (or not so benevolent) sexism, racism, etc. Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker come to mind. They are known for being critics of religion and don't always say objectionable things. They come across as reasonable and people you should be allies with in the protection of separation of church and state. But some will cite scientific research or statistics with the criticism that seems to support racist or Islamophobic stereotypes, but them will warn against such - as though to say "I'm not racist, but..." and then go on to say something very racist. Racists and Islamophobes love these guys. And they have the added benefit of these guys being respected neuroscientists and thinkers rather than a Milo Yiannopoulos type spouting hateful tropes. Not everyone who enjoys these skeptics or religion critics is racist or sexist, but they often can't see the problem with them due to their privilege.


In "Why Do People Love to Hate Steven Pinker," you can see a little of the disconnect in this description of Quillette in which I agree with the unnamed latter critic that Quillette is a center for white male grievance:

"He’s also been a supporter of and contributor to Quillette, the online house journal for the Intellectual Dark Web, the loose collection of academics and writers who see themselves as forging a centrist path in a rigidly ideological culture. Quillette is either “unique and indispensable,” as Pinker puts it, or a “center for white male grievance,” as one critic described it. The Quillette ethos, to the degree that there is one, tracks closely with Pinker’s thinking. "

In Down Girl by Kate Manne, she shows how Steven Pinker indirectly used someone else's sexist argument to deny that the Isla Vista killings were caused by misogyny. He might be in favor of progress, but that doesn't mean he's not also sexist or unable to see the problem (and denying one exists!) owing to his privilege.

"Again" because Pinker used Heather Mac Donald to do his anti-feminist dirty work for him in the immediate aftermath of the Isla Vista killings. pic.twitter.com/reMgaJyQxa

— Kate Manne (@kate_manne) March 12, 2018

The AV Club has an interesting take on the infamous Bari Weiss NYT article on the subject:
The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it

"The ridiculousness of the article is pretty clear. It takes the arguments of its subjects at face value, legitimizes the unironic use of “Intellectual Dark Web,” and generally reads as an apologia for those who, a few short years ago, were rightfully ignored for propagating bad arguments meant to give audiences reassurance that their worst instincts are, in fact, good to have. "