Category Archives: Media and Culture

9/11 isn’t special; I must be un-American

On the way to work this morning, my local country radio station dedicated their morning show to remembering 9/11. Every song they played was somehow geared towards making you remember (think Toby Keith “American Soldier”, Alan Jackson “Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning”, Ray Charles “America the Beautiful”, and even Taps played on a bugle). All of the songs were cut with quotes from President Bush and other folks who spoke against the attacks on the WTC that day and rallied American patriotism to a frenzy.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this sort of thing. It’s good to remember past tragedies so that we can learn from them and move on. It’s good to remember those we have lost.

What I don’t understand is why 9/11 is so special.

The attacks of that day were heinous and tragic, there’s no arguing that point. But these events are not the only events of this nature that we have experienced in this country. So why are they the only events that are consistently and constantly remembered?

Why don’t we remember the WTC basement bombing from February 26, 1993 that killed 6 and injured more than 1,000 others?

Why don’t we remember the Oklahoma City bombing from April 19, 1995 that killed 168 people, injuring many more?

Why don’t we remember the Columbine High School massacre from April 20, 1999 that killed 13 people, injuring 25?

Why don’t we remember the sniper attacks in Washington, DC during October 2002 that killed 10 people and injured 3 others?

Why don’t we remember the Amish school shooting from October 2, 2006 that killed 5 girls, injuring 5 others?

Why don’t we remember the Virginia Tech massacre from April 16, 2007 that killed 32 and injured 25 others?

And these are only the high profile events that I can remember off the top of my head.

What makes the events of 9/11 so much more special than these events? Did the lives of those lost in the WTC have a higher value than the lives of those lost in these other “lesser” events?

Ernest Willis Finally Convicted and Sentenced for Rape

When Tina Anderson was fifteen years old, she was raped by a male member of her church. Then she was forced to stand before the church and apologize for adultery. I’ve written about this twice before.

Ernest Willis was convicted of three counts of forcible rape and one count of felonious sexual assault in late May – fourteen years later.

Yesterday, he was sentenced to 15-30 years for his crime. Before the sentence was read, Willis read an apology. While he never admitted to rape, he apologized for “sexual misconduct”.

I am thrilled that this man is finally paying for his crime against Tina. But what about the rest of the church leadership who helped cover up the rape? When will those folks be held accountable for their actions?

The Porcelain Unicorn

There was recently an international short film contest called “Tell It Your Way.” Contestants were given six lines of dialogue to use any way they wished, and the films could be no more than 3 minutes long.

This beautiful piece was the winner:

 

I am a woman; I do not fear rape

I’ve tried really hard to stay out of the whole “Elevatorgate” issue. The rhetoric coming from both sides has far exceeded what is either rational or relevant. But after reading a few of the new posts from the weekend, I just can’t keep my mouth shut anymore.

The background:

Rebecca Watson, Skepchick and frequent atheist panel speaker, posted a video update a few weeks ago and in the middle made a comment about an encounter she had in an elevator.

You were all fantastic and I loved talking to all of you guys. All of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on that panel because, um, at the bar, later that night – actually at 4 in the morning – we were at the hotel bar, 4 am, I said you know, I’ve had enough guys, I’m exhausted – going to bed. Uh, so I walked to the elevator and a man got on the elevator with me and said, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”

Um, just a word to the wise here guys, uh, don’t do that. Um, you know, uh I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that as a single woman you know… in a foreign country… at 4am…in a hotel…elevator…with you. Just you. And… don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

That’s the entirety of the comment that started this entire maelstrom of craziness that has infected the interwebs for the past week.

Not long after that, Stef McGraw criticized Rebecca for overreacting:

It’s possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I’ll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn’t there, and don’t know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough. My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

A response I find to be perfectly reasonable and rational. But somehow, this is where the shit hits the fan. Rebecca takes offense to this criticism and, in her keynote address at the CFI Student Leadership Conference, makes an example of Stef and quotes her by name in a slide of her presentation in an effort to “call out the anti-woman rhetoric my audience was engaging in.” All of a sudden the word misogyny is being thrown around and rape and sexual assault are now being discussed.

Wait a minute… what?

Where did rape, sexual assault, and misogyny come from?

Let’s look at the original incident one more time.

I walked to the elevator and a man got on the elevator with me and said, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”

Oh I see… rape, sexual assault, and misogyny.

No. No, I don’t see it. At all.

There was an article on Salon that skewers Richard Dawkins for the comments he made about the whole hullaballoo:

Clearly, Dawkins has never experienced what it’s like to carry around the fear of sexual assault, as most women do on some level.

I’m sorry, what?

Am I to read this as saying that as a woman, I should carry the fear of sexual assault?

That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my entire life.

Not to mention one of the most sexist statements I’ve seen.

I wholeheartedly believe that woman and men are equals and should be treated as such. Women are strong and independent and fully capable of making their own decisions, despite the fairly patriarchal society we live in. Some would say that this makes me a feminist.

But in reading all of the responses that have turned a simple flirtation into a thwarted rape attempt, I have learned that feminism is about overcoming female oppression in such a manner that all men are subsequently demonized.

I want no part of this.

Rebecca had every right to feel creeped out by a stranger asking her to his hotel room at 4am, but that is where this should have stopped. There was nothing misogynistic about the incident. There was no threat of sexual assault. And by turning this into a discourse about those things, we have done both men and women a real disservice.

This world may have creepy criminals in it. But not every man who speaks to a woman is hoping to commit a crime.

And women, you should be smart enough to know that.

Is Obvious Mag the new Cooks Source?

Some of you may remember the brouhaha surrounding blatant copyright infringement by Cooks Source Magazine. The controversy caused the editor to shut down the magazine. The lesson that Judith Griggs learned the hard way is that just because you find something on the internet does not mean it’s fair use and up for grabs.

Last night, the issue of copyright infringement hit me a little too close to home.

Three and a half years ago, I got my first (and only) tattoo. Lately I’ve been obsessing over my next tattoo so I was wandering the interwebz last night in search of inspiration. I Googled “literary tattoos” and was quite surprised to see my own wrist staring at me from the first page of Google image results. At first I thought my blog must have gotten a ton of traffic to result in this prominent placement, but when I clicked on it I was taken to an online magazine I’d never even heard of – Obvious Mag.

Prominently featured at the top of the page was the photograph I’d taken of my own wrist the day I got the tattoo done.

The photo was not attributed to me. None of the photos were attributed to anyone. I poked around the site some more and found their Terms of Service which states:

The Website and included content (and any derivative works or enhancements of the same) including, but not limited to, all text, illustrations, files, images, software, scripts, graphics, photos, sounds, music, videos, information, content, materials, products, services, URLs, technology, documentation, and interactive features (collectively, the “Website Content”) and all intellectual property rights to the same are owned by us, our licensors, or both. Additionally, all trademarks, service marks, trade names and trade dress that may appear on the Website are owned by us, our licensors, or both.

Except… my image is not owned by them nor was it ever licensed to them. The image in question was posted on my personal blog, which is covered under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

If a different sort of site, like Fuck Yeah Tattoos or The Word Made Flesh, had posted my photo, I wouldn’t mind as much (not that they would have stolen an image and posted it without credit). But Obvious Mag is supported by advertising revenue.

I emailed them last night requesting the photo be removed, and to my surprise, it was. Sort of. I wish I’d thought to take a screenshot last night but I didn’t. Today, the article in question has replaced the photo of my tattoo with a different one – and they even semi-attributed the photo by adding a caption indicating that it belongs to “Sophia of Barcelona”.

But my photo still appears as the accompanying thumbnail.

I’m not sure if I should raise a stink about this or not. On the one hand, it’s a single photo. But on the other, this ad-supported website used the photo without permission and it looks as if they have a habit of doing so while claiming ownership of the images.

Just because you find something on the internet does not mean it’s fair use and up for grabs.

Just Effing Terrible

I really need to start paying more attention to politics. But then again, I’d probably get angry so maybe I shouldn’t.

For once in my life, I agree 100% with Jon Stewart.


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up – 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Depression Era Photos in Color

I love it when I see old photographs in color. It brings them to life in ways not possible through a black and white print.

The Denver Post is featuring a collection of color photographs from 1939-1943. I first came across this collection in 2007, but I found myself as riveted to the screen today as I was several years ago.

I think we have a need to connect to generations of the past, and color photographs of those times allow us to do that in ways we haven’t had before.

The Faro Caudill family eating dinner in their dugout. Pie Town, New Mexico, October 1940. Reproduction from color slide. Photo by Russell Lee. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress

Keep the Change

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m a big fan of country music. Quite frankly, it’s in my blood. I can’t not love it. But I’ve been getting frustrated by the rise in political messages found in the music. It started with 9/11 (Stars and Stripes by Aaron Tippin, Red, White, and Blue by Toby Keith, and Have You Forgotten? by Darryl Worley, just to name a few), and it seems to have continued with Darryl Worley’s new song that is a direct message against our President.

The song is called Keep the Change and would be clever, had that phrase not already been worn out since Obama first began campaigning.

Let me be clear on one thing before I take a look at the lyrics. I don’t fault him for using his voice to say what he wants. We all have the right to say and think what we want to – even when it’s inappropriate. My purpose here is to show how arrogantly ignorant the lyrics are – not to say the song shouldn’t have been recorded or played on the radio (funny thing though, I haven’t heard it on the mainstream country station here in the Triangle – I heard it on the very conservative small town station from a few towns away).

If you see me hold my hand over my heart
Before I start the pledge of allegiance
There’s a reason
It’s to honor those who died

I can’t really say anything negative about this part. It’s a great way to catch your attention for the song though – declaring how patriotic you are.

And if you see me close my eyes and bow my head
Before I break bread with my family
It ain’t a habit, it’s important
It’s my right

Yes. It is your right to do so. Just like it’s my right not to do so. For some reason, you never see the good God fearin’ man standing up for my right not to believe in God.

I work half the year for me
The other half for Uncle Sam
While he’s bailin’ out those sinkin’ ships
And drownin’ the little man

I watch the news and have to wonder
If this country’s goin’ crazy
Talkin’ ’bout how much they love it here
But how they want to rearrange it

Okay, I get it. You’re questioning why we want to change something we claim to love so much. But, maybe that’s why? Progress is inevitable. Change is inevitable. And those who are seeking change are trying to make things better. It doesn’t always work out like that, but there are definitely a lot of things about this country that *do* need changing.

I’m just your average Joe
And that makes me smart enough to know
There’s a bunch of us out here
That feel the same

Wanna keep our God, our freedom
A little money in the bank
Y’all can keep the change

No one is trying to take anything away from anyone. Ever. That’s the exact opposite of what the majority of people want. Okay let me rephrase – no one this song is directed at is trying to take anything away from anyone.

We want you to be able to keep your God. Just like we want you to leave us be and not force your God into our living rooms. The point of keeping church and state separate? It’s so that you can live and worship your way and I can live and not worship mine.

It’s that simple.

Now the fat cats on the hill acting so brilliant
Ain’t smart enough to notice
That we’re angry
And that America’s in trouble

If they don’t wise up and stop
Bustin’ out the blocks that were laid
As a foundation well our nation
Could wake up in a pile of rubble

I can only assume that he’s referring to the belief that this country is a Christian nation founded on the principles of the Bible. See above.

They say we’re making progress
But it’s a big old shame to me
Common sense ain’t near as common
As it used to be

Finally! He said something I agree with 100%!

The rest of the song is mostly repeating the chorus and other lyrics. To what end? Clearly his message is anti-Obama and anti anything that doesn’t involve faith.

I really wish that people would stop being so defensive long enough to see things objectively and realize that just because someone doesn’t believe in the same things it doesn’t mean that they want to oppress or subdue you and yours.

Snookered My Ass

I’ve been following the story of Ms. Sherrod and her forced resignation and then the eventual apology she received (along with an offer of a new job in the Agricultural Department).

The day the story broke, I was watching the news with my stepdad who agreed that she should have been fired. And me, being me, laid into him because obviously no one did their homework and she was being punished for something that happened in a different context a quarter of a century ago.

I was reminded of the conversation when I read this article in today’s Times:

By Tuesday, Ms. Sherrod’s forced resignation was the talk of cable television news, and it was becoming clear that the Breitbart video clip had been taken out of context. After seeing the full video, the N.A.A.C.P., which had initially applauded Ms. Sherrod’s resignation, reversed itself, saying it had been “snookered” into believing that she had been acting with racial bias.

Bullshit. This is just an excuse to justify lazy reporting and obvious bias. It’s an excuse not to take responsibility for what the N.A.A.C.P. initially said.

This whole experience is a substantial example of the effects of bias in the media. And it’s pretty ridiculous.

And you wonder why I don’t watch the news.

**UPDATE:

Of course, I find someone who says what I mean in a much more concise and succinct way.

Here’s Blair Scott, of American Atheists, referring to the Shirley Sherrod incident:

Critical thinking skills and the ability to use rational thought are vital to the survival of the species. We saw that break down this week as every politician (right, left, and center) and every news outlet (right, left, and center) took the word of a single person and ran with it. There was no verification of facts, no burden of proof, no skepticism, no questioning of the source, etc. The accumulation of logical fallacies was like watching an algae bloom in the Gulf of Mexico: spreading its devastating effects the bigger it gets.

Well put, don’t you think?

Mosques in America

I am loving this clip from The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren’t Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

It’s been a long time since I’ve watched Jon Stewart. And, at least in this case, he’s the only one saying what needs to be said.

He’s the only one drawing the necessary comparisons and standing up for those who need a voice.

It’s great.

The Friendly Atheist also tells about a Christian’s response to the clip and the situation at large.

Today, I read a response to this story from Rachel Held Evans — she’s a Christian who recently published the book Evolving in Monkey Town, about her upbringing in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

She saw that clip and this ABC News report and wrote the following (emphasis hers):

But what brought me to tears was the fact that, according to the report, there were “no public comments in favor of the mosque.”

None.

No one spoke up for their neighbors.

No one stood up for the oppressed.

No one was willing to face the inevitable disdain that would have followed had they done the right thing.

The Muslim community, however, often suffers in silence. And around here, I get the sense that the hatred runs deep. It amazes me that the same folks who so loudly champion their rights to guns and free speech guaranteed by the constitution seem to think freedom of religion is negotiable.

As Christians, we must speak up, for it is no coincidence that when Jesus was asked, Who is my neighbor? he chose the most hated religious-ethnic group of the day — Samaritans — to tell his story.

Yes! That’s the type of response more Christians ought to be giving. If they’re going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, standing up for minorities is a good lesson to get behind. Many pastors talk about this in church, but how rarely do we see Christians actually following through on it? Certainly not the ones opposing the mosque.

(For what it’s worth, speaking up for the rights of others isn’t limited to Christians — it’s just a decent, human thing to do and atheists do it all the time — but if her faith makes her do something positive, fantastic.)

Love. It.