Energy Drink/Bureaucracy Review: Red Bull Yellow Edition/Blue Cross Blue Shield

Gang, I don't even want to get started on the tragic story of our missing government-subsidized healthcare, but suffice it to say that through no fault of our own, we have been left uninsured so far in 2015 and I have six Prozac pills left and no refills left on my prescription, so anyway it's been fun. We should officially get coverage this week, so hopefully it'll all work itself out blahblahblah. But anyway, I get to call Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and ask them why they've sent us a $733.72 bill for coverage we never had. HAHAHA SUPERFUN.

This would be too many of this flavor, 7-11.

Anyway, I'm also going to try this Red Bull Yellow Edition (apparently also known as the "Summer Edition" because right now it's probably summer on Mars or something), which is supposed to be "tropical"-flavored. Whatever that means. Probably fucking pineapple. Let's do both of these things!

FLAVOR: Not bad. Not too pineappley. General fruitiness, a tinge of tanginess. Again, not bad. Not great either.

PHONE CALL: "Hang up if this a medical emergency?" Okay. God, voice recognition software is the worst. It keeps making me spell my husband's last name. It starts with a V which is basically impossible to differentiate from any other letter on the phone. They're sending me to a representative. 3 minutes on hold, they estimate. We'll see. Shitty jazzy hold music. Oh, less than 3 minutes! They tell me I have to go back and cancel through MNSure or just let it cancel due to nonpayment OKAY SURE GREAT INSURANCING, GUYS. That was fun how you wanted me to pay you for the two months we've been anxiously waiting for our goddamn insurance cards and paying out of pocket for all our prescriptions and putting off doctor's appointments! (I didn't say any of that stuff to the nice lady who has to answer for terrible corporate decisions, just to Isaac afterwards.)

EFFECTIVENESS: It's hard to say if the energy drink or my righteous indignation is hyping me up more, but I'm pretty sure it's a potent combination. No longer as angry, the drink is doing its job in that my legs are extra shaky and my typing fingers feel especially fast. I keep thinking how silly it is that the pull tab on these Red Bull cans, instead of just the oval, features the outline of the bull. Like, why? It's hard to identify. I keep thinking it's, like, an elephant-fishwhaleman. Look:

Image source.

Right?

OVERALL: Whatever. It's fine. Not my fave flave, but it works good and stuff. DO WHAT YOU WANT, STOP LETTING THE (WO)MAN TELL YOU WHAT TO DO.

There's Nothing Sexier Than Having to Talk Somebody into Sex, I Guess

Guys, at some place called "Reason" there is a nightmare of a blog written by some lady named Shikha Dalmia: "California's Sexual Consent Law Will Ruin Good Sex for Women. (And it won't stop rape)." Go look at it. (Or don't.) Stab something non-living. Then come back and spend some time with me. Here are some of my initial responses:

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS SHIT?

LIKE SERIOUSLY, IS THIS A JOKE?

IS THIS WHAT PEOPLE CALL "TROLLING"? IS SHE DOING A TROLL ON US?

I CAN'T EVEN FORMULATE THE WORDS TO EXPRESS ALL OF THE PROBLEMS HAPPENING HERE.

I WILL EVEN USE THE WORD "PROBLEMATIC" TO DESCRIBE IT.

This is how all of this makes me feel.

Guys, California has a new law! If a college student accuses another student of sexual assault, the disciplinary board of the college or university must apply a standard of affirmative consent to their investigation. "Did (s)he want to have sex?" (new standard) vs. the traditional question of "Did s/he say 'no' out loud?" This is a good development because of how lots of time people (mostly ladies) are taught to be polite and use nonverbal cues or redirection or other methods besides outright refusing a Man. This is also good because even if that issue is not in play or a very minor concern, people who are being assaulted often know or suspect that if they do say "no," things will not go well for them. It can be easier (and even safer!) sometimes to give in. Or, say, you may be unconscious and never even get the chance.

Many rapists don't think that they are rapists, even if they know the things they do aren't okay, so they continue to believe and/or at least argue that the out-loud word "no" is the Gold Standard of All Consent. Or they argue that "She only said no at first" or "She said no to that one thing, so I did this other thing" or "She said yes to some stuff early on, so any other words afterwards I couldn't hear because of how I didn't want to" are legitimate claims to make. These are not legitimate claims to make. The new law does not require that consent necessarily be verbal, but it does have to be "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary" and given at every stage of the sexual encounter. This is like when you are making out with somebody and it's getting hot and heavy and you're pretty sure you both want to have sex, but you are not a mind reader, so you say, "Do you want to have sex now?" And then they say yes or no, and if they say yes, you get out a condom and do it. If they say no, you negotiate whether to keep making out and only making out or to stop and do something else. It is very easy and it even works on strangers (who are not rapists). Even if you are both drunk (I should know)! Shikha Dalmia seems to be confused about a lot of these things, like how rapists and rape culture operate. Perhaps even more troubling (for her personally, anyway), she doesn't seem to understand what "good sex" might actually look like.

Here, I plucked some Choice Passages to yell at on the internet. I will try not to recap her entire terrible essay to you, but there were a lot of bad parts. (Hint: all of it.)

Gem #1: "To the extent that the law works, it will actually ruin both good men and good sex." 

This is a thing that makes no sense and also is not true. And she never argues how it will supposedly ruin "good men," just FYI. I'm pretty sure good men are just, like, good, and aren't rapists anyway, so...?

Gem #2: "The obvious problem with the law — which many other states are considering as well — is that it assumes that sexual assault, already a crime under multiple laws, is the result of miscommunication. The assumption is that somehow one partner (and let's be honest, it is overwhelmingly the one with a Y chromosome) didn't ask or realize that the other wasn't into it. But the fact is: Most assaulters know exactly what they are doing. The vast majority of campus rapes are committed by a small minority of repeat offenders who give not a damn about what the woman wants. And if they can threaten violence, they can also lie about obtaining consent."

L;KJAREGPOIAGNJKAG;KAGJKDG. Oh my god, the idea that sexual assault is just "one big misunderstanding OOPS how'd my dick get in there?" is a rape culture myth, not something that feminists/anti-sexual assault activists promote or buy into. Yes, most rapists* are repeat offenders (though they don't like to use the icky "R-word" to describe their actions) who don't care about what women want. Yes, criminals and exploiters can, do, and will lie about what really happened. The thing is, they are now going to have to make a better argument than "I never actually heard the word 'no.'" The point of the law is to kick one of the legs out from under rapists' arguments. They will have to explain how they knew their partner was actively consenting. "She stiffened up and wouldn't make eye contact" or "She said, 'I don't think we should' but not 'no'" or "She asked me to at least use a condom" or "She was pretty drunk, but I could just tell she wanted it" are no longer good arguments either! Those actions do not say "yes."

Maybe the new law won't scare most rapists at all. But knowing that the legal (at least on campus) requirement is affirmative consent is good for everybody! Like, if there is a sweet boy who is shy about talking about sex, but gets scared when he is fooling around with his girlfriend that she is not that into what they are doing right now and he doesn't want to be a rapist, so he forces himself to ask her out loud if it is okay, THAT IS A GOOD THING. More communication is always positive. If she says, "Yes, it feels good!" Yea! If she says, "It's fine," maybe he should ask her more questions about what she would like better. If she says, "I don't really like this, " then he should stop that immediately and also ask more questions about what she would like better. That is how sex works. Good sex, anyway. And I'm not just being reverse sexist! She should ask him the same things. Same goes for partners of any gender/orientation/number. If your partner(s) doesn't seem engaged physically, then use your words. It's called adulting. Like, a good relationship allows for you to be honest that not every sex position or strange Pinterest recipe your partner tries is your jam. Only assholes will be mad that you told the truth.

Gem #3: "So how will the law change anything? But by effectively changing the assumption from 'presumed innocent' to 'presumed guilty,' this new standard will inevitably snag some guys who earnestly meant no harm. Over time, of course, an industry will emerge to coach the accused on how to game the law and get away. "

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? No. No. No. If a guy "earnestly" thinks fucking a girl who clearly isn't actually into it will do "no harm," then he needs to learn that it is NOT OKAY. It is not worse to be accused of assault than to be a victim of it. Go fucking read Mallory Ortberg's opus on victims and what "counts" as a crime and then come back and finish this shit.

But SRSLY, UGGGGGHHHH. Defense lawyers and rape apologists will always be around, this law will just make it harder for them to argue the encounter was consensual. This is the main reason why sexual assault cases aren't pursued/punished: the issue of consent is supposedly "unclear." If there was no consent, it was a crime. These new guidelines make the definition of consent narrower, meaning it's HARDER to slip out of. (And also a college disciplinary committee is not the same as a court of law, so maybe let's not completely conflate the two?) I don't give a fuck how earnest you are if your partner didn't want it. Also, we don't avoid making laws because some people will find away to get around them. That is not how legal codes work, Shikha Dalmia.

Then the really revealing part happens.

Gem #4: "The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited... What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more 'convincing.' And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer 'affirmative' much less 'enthusiastic' consent... initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that."

NO. Negotiating a disparity in desire and sexual coercion are NOT THE SAME THING. Let us discuss how. It is true that rarely are two people exactly in sync as far as desire goes, especially over the course of many years. These things ebb and flow for various reasons, many beyond our control. And what Dalmia is talking about here, the need to be "convinced," seems to be (I'm taking this in good faith) a reference to what amazingly smart and awesome sex educator/scientist Emily Nagoski refers to as "responsive desire." GO HERE NOW READ ALL THE THINGS. Those people who generally experience responsive desire (and it does seem to be more common in women) don't usually want to have sex just spontaneously. Their desire is heavily context-dependent and comes in response (see?) to sexy stimuli. Some of us have always been like, or at least sometimes feel, "It is a Day, I want to bang." But many others sometimes or usually feel like, "I am stressed out or tired or kind of sick or just doing this other thing and I can't imagine feeling sexy right now how could you possibly want to bang at this moment?" This is a great post where Nagoski talks about how to ETHICALLY initiate sex with a partner who experiences responsive desire. It's about creating an environment in which s/he will not just begrudgingly agree, but actually WANT sex. It's also not quid pro quo, though. Just because you did the laundry for your over-stressed partner when it was her turn doesn't mean her underwear is just going to fall off next time she sees you. "Convincing" both in this context and in Dalmia's description has an awfully coercive feel to it.

Responsive partners may not be actively feeling horny, but if they are feeling "open" to sex because you've helped put them in the right frame of mind, then you are working together to make it happen. They will not necessarily feel like having sex until the sexy is already happening sometimes, but that still has to be consensual. Like totally consensual kissing! Eventually, if things are not progressing beyond that on their own, you may want to ask your partner if s/he is still into this. If they're still just warming up, great! If they decide that's all they've got in them for now, that sucks, but that is that. And if your partner is not in the mood, s/he is not in the mood, so maybe ask them what you might be able to do to create the right mood and LISTEN and DO IT WITHOUT EXPECTATION OR IMPLIED OBLIGATION, don't just grope them until they give in. This is just good relationship advice. And as Jill Filipovic pointed out on Twitter earlier, if it's your personal jam to be nagged into sex with guilt, then that's your thing, and is presumably a consensual, pre-agreed-upon kink you've worked out with your partner and is therefore also not rape. If what Dalmia means by "convincing" is actually foreplay, then well, I'm just saddened that she doesn't consider that part of the fun. One still has the ability to consent to particular acts and/or whether things will go further at any point. Still so much not-rape.

Gem #5: "The reality is that much of sex is not consensual — but it is also not non-consensual. It resides in a gray area in between, where sexual experimentation and discovery happen."

No. If many of your sexual encounters are "gray" or not-NOT-consensual, then maybe you should reevaluate your life choices.

Gem #6: Obligatory reference to women's "sexual liberation" and then, "It won't help their sexual actualization now to enchain their partners in ill-advised lines that limit their moves."

ENCHAIN? How dare we venture to SHACKLE THE DICKS OF AMERICA'S COLLEGE MEN? Kill me now. SRSLY. If women and men are all sexually liberated, then anybody can initiate sex or particular sexual moves, so why do we have to worry about "limiting" dudes? For the sake of the Sexy Gay Jesus, lady, "limiting" men (and women! All people!) to sexual conduct that is consensual and therefore legal is not a real limitation, anyway. It is what a civilized society does to protect its citizens from exploitation. How does making exploitation harder hurt anyone? Oh boo hoo hoo, it's not cool for a dude to just "accidentally slip it in"! Have we destroyed experimentation by having to ask first? No. Even scientists have to ask first before they do an experiment. Mostly for funding, but the analogy stands. If you're sexing with other humans, their needs and desires are no less important than your own. Why would you want to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to have sex with you anyway? (Unless you are an actual rapist, in which case, go to hell, and I hope we're making your business more difficult.) Agreeing to fuck is great! Let's all do it!


*Here's some stats and facts from Science about sex offenders.

Pluggers are to blame for Watergate.

Also, a large part of the Vietnam War. THX, PLGRS.

Mormons and the Gays Part 1: Why you gotta be hatahs?

Listen, Mormons: Have we or have we not been over this before? Hating on the gays is so not cool. I know you think homosexuality is, like, against god's plan or whatever, but I have a hard time believing that if god is who everybody says he is,* that anyone could be born in a way that violates his plans. (Anyone who claims homosexuality is a "choice" is stuck in pre-1990s-era homophobia--update your arguments, people!) Maybe god makes some people gay as their big "challenge" in life. Some people have to overcome physical or economic hardship, some people have to go on missions to Idaho, and some people have to deal with a basically sinful nature** and must be celibate and alone forever. And even if they do that, they totally don't get to the top tier of the Celestial Wedding Cake or whatever unless they get polygamized to somebody in the afterlife (and that's only if they are lesbian ladies; gay men are apparently screwed. Or something. I don't care to research it.). Despite the church being Ye Olde Institution of Heteronormativity (and Jesus (and Cookies)), gay members exist. Obvs. And unfortunately, they have been just as brainwashed as the rest of us were and often choose to try and fit in (at least for a time). If you don't know about the horrifying electroshock aversion therapy for gays at BYU in the '70s (and possibly up through the '90s), you need to look into it. That shit is fucked up. I realize that homosexuality was only then beginning to be considered anything besides deviance by the broader medical community, but seriously? Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the people who were willing to undergo the "treatment." Indoctrination is a very, very strong force. And when you're Mormon, the church seeps into every single aspect of your life. This is on purpose. It makes you feel like if you leave it, you'll have nothing left of yourself. Fuck that shit. Highly recommended is the documentary Anyone and Everyone that interviews a bunch of families about what it was like to have a child come out. It prominently features a well-to-do Mormon family who took it in stride and though they're still members, are willing to call bullshit on the church's view of their son's sexuality. Anyway, Mormons, you don't do anybody any favors by continuing to toe the party line on this one. If enough people in the church start to protest, I'm sure some sort of "clarifying" revelation will be forthcoming. Just you wait. I'd like to think so, anyway. I myself gave up on the whole thing, but there are people who are still in your wards who are gay and are trying to hide it or change it or are resigned to a totally un-sexy, lonely life. I do not approve. Not so much love, Lauren & a bunch of totally Word of Wisdom-violating beverages COMING SOON: Part 2: In which I (once again) chastise the church for sticking its homobigoted nose into California's political business. *An old, conservative white man. OMFG John McCain is the Christian god! I'm quitting life. **Violating the 2nd Article of Faith much?

I Hate John McCain: A Rant, Or: In Which I Get All Liberal and Elitist on Your Ass

I don't "hate" you, I just want to "control" you. Super-scary photo via Shakesville.

In what is sure to be a shocking revelation, I'd like to officially state that in my objective opinion (totally not an oxymoron): JOHN MCCAIN SUCKS. You may say, "But Lauren, shouldn't we be trying to raise the level of our political discourse by engaging in substantive discussion of the issues and not resorting to ad hominem/feminem attacks?" And I would reply, "Hominem? What is that--gay or something?" And then you would cry. But ANYWAY, so John McCain. Crazy, angry, old, belligerent, geographically unknowledgeable, etc. Let us count the ways: 1. JOHN MCCAIN HATES WOMEN He thinks our "health" is being used to promote the "pro-abortion" agenda. Whereas I think his espousal of "pro-life" beliefs are really just the same old "misogynist bullshit used to control women's sexuality up to and including putting our physical and mental health at serious risk and forcing us to become pregnant and give birth against our wills." But whatevs. My lady parts are probably causing me to lose control of my emotions again. And we all know that I've got mental "health" issues already, so I should probably just be sterilized to play it safe. Or maybe if I just got married and started having lots of unprotected sex and getting pregnant, motherhood and wifery would make everything ALL BETTER. Also: WTF IS A "FAILED ABORTION"?!! Does this happen? Is it common? How is it even possible that such a rare and unlikely medical situation should be subject to national legislation? All about the "babies," eh? More like "all about the keeping women from full bodily autonomy and/or any agency or choices at all." Ahem. Fuck you and your scare quotes around the concept of women's "health," John "Maverick" McCain.* 2. JOHN MCCAIN AND HIS CAMPAIGN ARE A-OKAY WITH (BEING) RACIST ASSHOLES Not that he or Sarah Palin or the Republican Party have ever tried to appeal to the most hateful, ignorant demographic of U.S. citizenry by implicating that Barack Obama is a Communist/terrorist/Muslim/unpatriotic/scary black dude or anything. Nope. Not a-once. 3. JOHN MCCAIN IS A RAGE-AHOLIC Watch and cringe (via Crooks and Liars): 4. JOHN MCCAIN WILL PROBABLY HOOVER IT UP OVER THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

Will not someone provide cigarettes for these poor children?

See Jesse Taylor on how this "Joe the Plumber" nonsense is really evidence of a) a poorly-run campaign and b) the Right's continued attempt to get working- and middle-class Americans to vote against their own interests. John McCain hates you (us) almost as much as he hates women, affordable health care, and taxes.** And while I have to say that I am pleased to be somewhat sheltered from this economic collapse of the whole world or whatever by being a poor graduate student who wouldn't have any money anyway, it would be nice if we could try and fix it for the sake of, well, pretty much everybody else. And me, when I'm done with school. Or if I'm ever to afford groceries. Now it's your turn! Name all the reasons you think John McCain would be the worst thing for America since the last couple of elections' winner. *See previous. **For rich people.

Pluggers? More like DRUGGERS!

Every time I think Gary Brookins* can not get more blatant with his advocacy of prescription drug abuse, he does it again. Let's set aside the fact that everybody totally uses expired medication in real life (even liberal elites), okay? How is this a joke? When Plugger Jean Krauklin turns up hospitalized because she consumed some pills that had gone bad or something, where will Gary Brookins be then? Probably still laughing his ass off all the way to the bank to cash his Plugger checks and use the money to buy shit at Wal-Mart. God I hate Pluggers. Past evidence of drug addiction to be found here, here, here, and here. *BTW: Check out his political cartoons for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Apparently there's something going on with the economy or something?

Cream cheese wontons: food of the gods... and stoners

NOM NOM NOM.

Cream cheese wontons are fucking delicious. I got some with my order of pad cashew nut with chicken today as a special treat and they are just fried cheesy tasty awesome magic. Apparently, though, this magic is not widely available. (!) When I was home for Christmas, my friends and I went to a Chinese restaurant/karaoke bar in Portland after we were done with our family obligations. Besides drinking delicious cocktails, singing awesome songs, and leading the charge to the dance floor, our "Power Table" wanted to order some cream cheese wontons. We tried. The server told us that all their wontons had meat in them. W. T. F.? It was then that I learned that this was an amazing regional variation. I mean, I was never under the delusion that fried balls of cream cheese were some sort of traditional Chinese delicacy, but I thought it would be one of those things that is on EVERY Asian restaurant's menu. They are in Minnesota!

Anyway, I just consulted the Wikipedia "wonton" article and found out that cream cheese puffs are mostly made in Minnesota, Louisiana, California, Florida, and "parts of Iowa." Fuck that noise. I feel like it's up to me to spread the word:

Dear Friendly Asian Food Restaurateurs,

You know wontons? Yeah. Well, instead of tossing some meat or veggies inside those dough wraps, just try a delicious dollop of cream cheese. No, seriously. Then fry that shit up. Seriously, it's the best thing ever. Another good idea: offer a free order of them when you spend above a certain amount of money on a takeout order. High people will take advantage of it every time and buy more shit. (As long as somebody involved in the process is in a state to do math.) People everywhere deserve cream cheese wontons. Do us all a favor and add them to your menu.

Love and fried dumplings,

Lauren

Why my health insurance is stupid: A Tuesday morning rant

I'd like to go ahead and apologize to my friends who have already heard me complain. I realize that my problems with my insurance are very small indeed, and I kind of feel like I should just STFU and be grateful that I've even got insurance, but THAT IS HOW THEY GET YOU, my friend. That is how they get you. Two recent incidents and the fact that I will soon be quitting my job and hoping that my student insurance will give me decent coverage have brought this whole situation to a head.

1. TEETH. No, not my favorite fucking movie. Faithful readers and anyone in my office who was around after any of my six successive midday dental appointments will recall that I recently had eleven (or was it twelve?) fillings done. Apparently dumping Sparks, Diet Coke, and generally being predisposed to lots and lots of cavities in my teeth and then not having dental coverage for like a year and a half is a bad combination. Anyway. Because insurance booklets are complicated and have lots of little writing, I'm not going to go and read all the particulars about my coverage. Okay? Who has time for that? Okay, I do, but it's not exactly a make-a-cocktail-and-make-an-evening-of-it type of activity. So it's not going to happen. So the dentist people were telling me that my insurance should cover all the metal fillings, but the composite (white-ish) ones that we were doing in places that would show, I would have to cover a small portion of out-of-pocket. Well, turns out, after I've had all my fillings done (FINALLY, GOOD GOD), my insurance cut me off a long time ago and most of my claims had been denied. So on top of the, like, $300 or so I'd already paid up front for these fillings, I now owed $750 MORE. I was thinking about buying a new camera before my Scandinavian adventure. One that doesn't give everyone ever constant red eye. Perhaps I still will because I am financially irresponsible. But damn, keeping your teeth from rotting out of your head is really expensive! No wonder I'm only paying $25 a month for this crap coverage. /teeth rant

2. GLASSES. So I decided I should get new glasses because I'd had my other pair for a couple of years, and I don't know when I'll have decent insurance again. Well, turns out I don't really have decent insurance now! My eye exam was free. Once a year I get a free one. Huzzah. I knew they didn't cover contacts, and I could have SWORN they covered new glasses once every couple years, but after I'd already ordered a pricey new pair, I called my insurance provider to be like, "Aren't you going to kick in a few bucks for this?" and they were like, "No. We don't cover glasses for you. At all." So another $450 down the drain. You may say, "Lauren, but you NEED glasses for watching TV and checking out the top shelf liquor behind the bar." And I would say, "Yes, but had I known I wouldn't get ANY help paying for them, I would have gone somewhere MUCH CHEAPER." But at least my new glasses are cute. In a "so expensive I'm kind of afraid of breaking/losing them at all times" sort of way. (I got the "tortoise"-colored ones.) Fucking fuck. Another bump on my road to a new camera.

3. Yes, ADDITIONAL RANT. I have to go to a follow-up appointment with the therapist I was seeing for a while today. I do not want to go. You know why? She wasn't particularly helpful. Not completely UNhelpful, mind you, but I only kept going to her because I thought I should go to SOMEONE and she is located at my regular doctor's office that I can ride my bike to and only costs the $25 copay. But if she uses that same Wizard of Oz metaphor to describe my life one more time, so help me Sexy Gay Jesus...

But I should be thankful for what I have because at least I know that when I get nearly hit by a car on my bike at least three times a week, my insurance will probably cover up to, like, 40% of the ambulance cost. Right? Damn it, maybe I should call them and make sure.


ADDENDUM: They'd better figure this whole health care mess before I'm old, because I am so already over it, and I don't even have an excuse to be cranky and misanthropic yet.

Pluggers: Have you no SHAME?!

As previously documented here and here, Pluggers have a well-established prescription drug addiction. What I'm wondering, however, is why does Gary Brookins feel it is in any way appropriate to celebrate this on the comics page? THINK OF THE CHILDREN, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Besides the fact that the concept of a giant, old mutant-dog-man who has so many health problems, that he can no longer even leave his house, for fear of forgetting an important dosage is incredibly depressing. He's so pathetic, he is forced to use the ubiquitous prescription bottles littering his household to build props for his escapist fantasies (enhanced by the contents of the bottles, obvs). Also, does he only have THREE fingers on his left hand?! WTF, Brookins? He looks even more freakish than usual. But this doesn't even cover the obvious wink-wink acknowledgement of the recreational use of controlled substances (see the DEA for specific schedules).

But anyway, for the benefit of the kids, I'm going to provide some tips from the FDA on the proper use of prescription drugs:

Use Prescription Drugs Safely

1. Always follow medication directions carefully.
2. Don't increase or decrease doses without talking with your doctor.
3. Don't stop taking medication on your own.
4. Don't crush or break pills.
5. Be clear about the drug's effects on driving and other daily tasks.
6. Learn about the drug's potential interactions with alcohol, other prescription medicines, and over-the-counter medicines.
7. Inform your doctor about your past history of substance abuse.
8. Don't use other people's prescription medications and don't share yours.

I know, kids, I know. It's CONFUSING to be told not to share, and I know Mommy crushes up your Ritalin into yogurt so she doesn't have to explain what's wrong with you, even though you know all your teachers and peers hate you and that yogurt tastes damn funny, but the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION knows what it's talking about. Just play it safe.*

And YOU, Chief Plugger and prescription drug trafficker** Gary Brookins: Do you have no conscience? How can you make light of such a serious problem? I have no choice but to interpret your flagrant and repeated celebration of Plugger pill-poppers tantamount to an endorsement of prescription drug abuse. (You can get us all the hookup, though, right?)



*You know where Mommy keeps the Ritalin, right? I'll give you a candy bar if you bring it to me. You love candy!

**I just assume he sells, too. There's no way someone with that kind of expertise hasn't dabbled in the pharmaceutical mercantile arts.

Quote o' the Day: Angry Feminist Edition

"Progress ain't fueled by rainbows and gumdrops." -Melissa McEwan, (Feminism 101: On Anger) Shakesville. And BTW, for the record, I am a feminist.

WTF, Marmaduke?

If by classy you mean "lazy and pretentious (though not as pretentious as a limo)," then yes, yes it is classy. I also like how Marmaduke can somehow pay for a taxi but can't afford luggage and has to use a classic hobo bundle on a stick. Is that the bone of one of his hapless victims sticking out of that bandanna? Another question: why does that cab have suicide doors? And how do they know he's running away? He could just be off for an illicit rendezvous at a trashy motel, but doesn't want to risk having his car seen in the parking lot. I think Brad Anderson just gets stoned and draws Marmaduke doing ridiculous shit. Then he puts the comics in a drawer and forgets about them for a while. Later, he gets stoned again and writes the captions, totally cracking himself up the whole time.

Some links... or whatever

I've fallen a bit behind on my blog reading due to actually having work to do, and thus my blog writing inspiration has fallen quickly into neglect. Also, I'm still waiting for my upped dosage of Prozac to finally kick in, and I've been lacking much motivation beyond just willing the time to pass more quickly for a while now.* So, everything's coming up dandelions. Though I do have more sweet presidential blogging in store for tomorrow, so get excited. Or at least start thinking about getting excited. But so since I'm lacking the ability to create my own content, I will point you towards some good stuff other people wrote: -The awesome (published! Have book, reading and review forthcoming. Someday.) Amanda Marcotte points out the injustices being wrought on America's prison population. Apparently risks of mail-borne "terrorist" substances warrant keeping prisoners from receiving mail on anything but postcards (I believe this is in Texas). We don't let these people vote, and now they can't even get letters from their families? What if their kids drew them pictures larger than a postcard? How are they supposed to carry on affairs with women who look for prisoners in the personal ads? But seriously, the way we treat people who have been convicted of crimes in this country is obscene. Luckily, as a middle-class white lady, unless grad school doesn't work out and I'm forced to turn to a life of crime to survive, I'll probably never have to go to prison. And that's kind of the problem. It's so easy to believe that chipping away at prisoners' rights doesn't affect the freedoms of non-convicts. But it's all part of the same oppressive system. So write Uncle Jim that letter on a series of twelve postcards (hope he gets 'em all!) and enjoy receiving your free American mail, for the time being, anyway. Prison looks askance at stable source of human dignity. (Pandagon) -At Shakesville, William K. Wolfrum responds to claims that he has anger issues. Choice quote: "I was once a fisherman. That's right, a fucking fisherman. I brought home food. I'm a fucking hero and anyone who has a problem with how I express myself can fuck themselves." Read the whole thing for more LOLs.** "Listen assholes, I don't have a temper problem, got it?" (Shakesville) -MENSTRUATION. Just wanted to get all the squeamish boys off the pages so us girls can have a chat. No, not really. I hate how many grown men are "grossed out" by periods. I mean, bloody tampons are kind of icky, but some of them freak out if they even KNOW you're bleeding. As if acknowledging a biological process will somehow rub off gross girl germs on them.*** But anway, M. LeBlanc at Bitch Ph.D. wrote an awesome post about periods and the constant social pressure to pretend we don't have them. Sometimes you've just got to be frank about how shitty you feel and why, and I think if we were more honest about these things, there wouldn't be so many misconceptions about how PMS works, etc. Anyway, I'm also glad to give a shout-out to another ex-Mormon so go read it. Coming out of the menstruation closet (warning: features possibly NSFW picture of someone's ass). (Bitch Ph.D.) *Is this information awkward for other people? Wait, this is my blog, I don't give a fuck. I think it's best just to be upfront about these sorts of things. Mostly I apologize for being lame; I'm working on it. **This rhymes with "rolls," (duh) like the bread. Mmm, carbs... ***Remember the fucking menstrual blood scene in Superbad? Yeah, it would be gross to get someone's period blood on you, but I'm pretty familiar with the biology and physics of menstruating, and there's NO FUCKING WAY a chick could get that much blood on your leg without it soaking through her own clothes (apparently she wasn't wearing underwear or any sort of tampon or anything) and have it dripping down her legs. I mean, COME ON. Another reason I would have liked that movie a lot more had I ever been a teenage boy. I realize this scenario is incredibly unlikely and represents misogyny at its dumbest.

Pluggers leads me to advocate legalizing assisted suicide*

HOW ARE PLUGGERS EVEN STILL ALIVE?! If they have so many doctors' appointments, maybe they should be hospitalized, or at the very least, residing in some sort of assisted-living facility. I mean, I realize a PDA would be WAY too fancy and newfangled for a plugger, but what happened to regular old paper day planners or calendars? Is this plugger just particularly bad a cleaning out his wallet, or does he really have to go to the doctor that much? If it's the latter, he should probably just show up every day and hang around the waiting room until it's his turn. Or maybe he should just look into getting euthanized. Just a suggestion. We do it to animals all the time, and really, it might be time to just cut his losses.** Goddamn pluggers.


*I actually already support this. But especially for pluggers.

**As well as the taxpayer's. That freak of nature must be sucking on the teat of social welfare if he's so poor and still able to get constant medical care.

I write to Al Franken: Why no love for the ladies?

This would be a picture of me and Al Franken instead of him from really far away if I weren't so awkward and shy. Also, I would have said the following things in person instead of emailing them to his campaign. I rule.

Dear Al Franken,

I think you’re missing a great opportunity by not specifically addressing women’s issues on your website. Any truly progressive political platform must include stands on women’s and feminist concerns. Obviously, we should all research candidates, but not everyone has ample spare time to surf the internet at their overpaid data entry jobs like I do to try and decipher all your views through search results. Granted, it took very little Googling to discover that you have done benefits for both Planned Parenthood and NARAL, but I don’t think voters should have to either make the assumption that you’re pro-choice or do a bunch of research to find out. I caucused for you at the Senate District 65 Convention, and I’m assuming that as a U.S. Senator, you would vote to renew and improve legislation like the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Violence Against Women Act, but I don’t actually know. Because your website doesn’t tell me.

Norm Coleman has a zero percent pro-choice score from NARAL. He is squarely in the pocket of the forced-pregnancy movement. I emailed him about the Brownback Amendment (Global Gag Rule), and got back some ludicrous form letter justifying his yes vote by citing the old “promoting family values” argument. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to think that most Minnesotan families don’t particularly value increasing worldwide AIDS infections and maternal death rates by de-funding health and humanitarian organizations that have the gall to mention the word “abortion.” In the Senate, Coleman has also consistently shown himself to be unconcerned about women’s lives and health through his confirmation of various judicial and political nominees who use extreme religion and conservative ideology to limit and deny women everything from adequate reproductive health care (Plan B, “partial-birth” abortions) to the ability to sue for pay discrimination (Ledbetter v. Goodyear). Members of Congress have power over laws involving parental-notification and interstate transportation for abortion, the funding of (sexist and medically inaccurate) "abstinence-only" education, welfare reforms and efforts to reduce poverty, providing child care and early childhood education, universal health care, sexual harassment and employment discrimination, and other matters of direct (and disproportionate) concern to women and their families (see a nice complete list from the policy agenda of the National Council of Women's Organizations). Pro-woman candidates and elected officials should make their views known and commit to fighting for women on the floor of Congress.

Guess who also doesn’t address women’s issues on his campaign website? That’s right, Norm Coleman. But his voting record leaves no room to speculate about what his stances are. Assuming you get the DFL’s nomination next month in Rochester, it’s up to you to let Minnesota’s women and pro-woman voters know just how far apart your views are. Speaking to at least a few specific issues that concern us on your website would be a great start. Besides, anyone who’d be turned off by a progressive/feminist agenda is probably not going to vote for you in November anyway. See John Edwards’ archived campaign site for a great example. He seems like a nice guy, maybe he’d just let you copy and paste it. I hope you and/or whatever passionate but underpaid staffer who actually reads your emails take this into consideration. I’m a supporter, but I know I’m not the only one who would be even more vocal and enthusiastic if you’d take a stand and add some (sincere) nods to the ladies in your already well-defined and progressive platform.

Sincerely,

ME

Pluggers Rage: I reveal a conspiracy of stupid

Dear Pluggers cartoonist and "Chief Plugger" Gary Brookins,

Please try to make it less obvious next time that you've completely given up.

EXHIBIT A: Pluggers Sunday March 2, 2008


EXHIBIT B: Pluggers Monday March 3, 2008


BRAIN ASPLODE. Don't get me wrong Sr. Jefe Plugger, I wouldn't want to put the effort required into actually drawing a different picture of Harvey Rhino or whatever this character's name is gorging himself on large amounts of fattening foods every day, and I realize the Sunday and weekday strips may be submitted at different times, but SERIOUSLY. Don't you think maybe someone should've checked to make sure you weren't essentially running the same "Pluggers are fat/here's a picture of a fat rhino licking his lips" panel two days in a row? Or did you think your real-life Plugger/fans wouldn't remember from one day to the next what abomination you've wreaked upon the comics page? Well, some of us use this thing called "the internet," and I don't mean a "Plugger internet," which would probably have something to do with badminton or some other such net sport that requires little physical effort. No, the real internet reveals all, including the fact that you just reuse the same panels over and over. Not that that wasn't obvious before. You've just fulfilled your own definition of "plugger": "They represent the 80 percent of humanity who unceremoniously keep plugging along." This is certainly without ceremony.

Love always,
YOUR BIGGEST FAN

I personally prefer the Pluggers Randomizer for an honest sampling of life in Pluggerville (just keep refreshing, the laughs never end). Dear god, I still hate Pluggers. But it would be a tragedy to not have it around to get angry about.

On blogs: In which I discuss why me and the internets are best friends and then borrow heavily from my own grad school essays

Put down that media! Did I say you could touch that?

So, obviously I've given in. I've committed to this blogging thing after probably a year and a half of considering, occasional posting, occasional deleting, and indecision. But just reading blogs wasn't cutting it for me anymore. And besides, I can only update my Facebook profile with the ridiculous stuff I find online so often before it starts to get sad. So: blogging. Working, as I do, in a job with constant internet access and not really enough to do a lot of the time, I found myself becoming more and more involved in the current feminist/progressive blogosphere. I became a politics and news junkie. I actually developed opinions of my own. I honed my views by loading myself up with information and reading the endless commentary of other people with opinions who were willing to put them on the internet. What happened to my apathy? I guess I just applied it to my actual job. Haha.

But so on to how blogging relates to my proposed course of study in American Studies graduate programs (applications in, fingers crossed): I think it's really an exciting time to be doing any sort of media studies. I'm interested in how the expansion of digital communication and the internet in the recent past has affected how we construct and transmit contemporary folklore (folklore in a broad sense—I’m mostly referring here to what I'd consider cultural narratives, which I really don't feel like defining, so go take a class in the humanities building and get back to me). With the popularity of weblogs comes an increased accessibility to public discourse. Blogging and other new media give more people access to the shaping of public narrative. You only have to listen to the disdain "mainstream" media types express for bloggers and the netroots in general to realize that a fundamental shift in media, information, and access is going on.

People with journalism degrees are no longer the only ones considered qualified to report and analyze current events. There's an egalitarian movement going on right now that moves much faster than traditional newspaper or TV news reporting. We've created a 24-hour news cycle, and the internet is a highly responsive site for commentary and analysis that actually works as quickly as the news is made. A huge variety of people are now publicly interpreting the news. A valuable project would be to look at how the broad viewpoints represented by blogging affect our ideas of what makes up American culture, and how that may begin to change the ways politicians and journalists talk about it. Some of the most comprehensive and insightful analysis of contemporary politics is going on online, among relatively unknown bloggers. I think of the well-documented coverage of the Scooter Libby trial provided by the folks at Firedoglake last year. They were thoroughly covering a story the news networks were underreporting, filling a gap in competent journalism that has been widening over the past decade or so. I'd really like to study how the broadening of sources and analysts influences how stories get told and how it can affect what the story itself is.

I was thinking about this while I read a post by Chez of Deus Ex Malcontent about his sudden firing from CNN for blogging. He talks about how through its reporting, CNN "pays more lip-service to bloggers and their internet realm than any other mainstream media outlet, but in the end that's really all it is—lip-service." Apparently, blogging is a trend that’s popular enough to be covered, but somehow still too unseemly for the network’s own employees to participate in. Chez goes on to say that, “As far as CNN (and to be fair, the mainstream TV press in general) believes, it still sits comfortably at the top of the food chain, unthreatened by any possibility of a major paradigm shift being brought to bear by a horde of little people with laptops and opinions. Although the big networks recognize the need to appeal to bloggers, they don't fear them—and that means they don't respect them.”

I think Chez is right that bloggers aren’t respected by establishment media types, but I do think they are feared. I can’t think of why else otherwise perfectly respectable journalists and politicians would waste their time putting down bloggers (just Google “disdain for bloggers,” and you’ll find plenty of discussion of this phenomenon—written mostly by bloggers!). If we (I can include myself now, I suppose) blogging-types are just a bunch of weird liberal Cheeto-munching geeks hiding in basements, why bother acknowledging us at all? I think corporate TV and print media outlets are terrified of the free-for-all that is the blogosphere. Rupert Murdoch (that hottie pictured above) has yet to figure out how he can buy it, control it, and fit it in his expensively-tailored pocket (Is he well-known as a good dresser? I have no idea, but I assume his clothes are not cheap since I’m pretty sure he owns everything including my right arm by now.).

There’s also the very real issue of political “bias.” CNN implied that Chez was fired not just for writing for non-CNN sources (his own blog and others), but for the content of his writings and how they would reflect on the network. People need to stop listening to the Bernard Goldberg types. Corporate media conglomerates are NOT bastions of liberalism. Any entity that can be described as a “conglomerate” is automatically out of the running for “most progressive point of view.” I don’t think I should have to explain why. And yet, the right-wing media complains that the “mainstream” is too liberal, and the mainstream responds by becoming more and more conservative. (As Stephen Colbert says, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”) The fact is that the evolving political netroots are dominated by liberals and progressives, who have built their online communities in response to their views being at best ignored, and at worst demonized in the mainstream media. I think the powers-that-be resent the blogosphere’s demographics and see their efforts to be heard as an upstart power-grab. “Surely those commie interwebs whippersnappers are up to no good! But in the meantime, we’ll just attempt to mock and discredit them and maybe they’ll go away.”

As Chez concluded:

"CNN fired me, and did it without even a thought to the power that I might wield as an average person with a brain, a computer, and an audience. The mainstream media doesn't believe that new media can embarrass them, hurt them or generally hold them accountable in any way, and they've never been more wrong. I'm suddenly in a position to do all three, and I know now that this is what I've been working toward the last few years of my career."

I do think they're starting to feel threatened. As well they should.

Ralphie: You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

Why is a real small child being used for this demonstration?

So the Naderator is throwing his hat into the ring again. He must have, like, a lot of hats that he compulsively tosses whenever he sees a presidential election. Many Democrats are annoyed. But then some of them just create amusing extended Candyland-esque metaphors to make fun of his supporters. I do have a special place in my heart for everybody's favorite spoiler (sorry, Ron Paul, maybe someday). He gave the motherfucking commencement speech at BYU's alternate graduation last year (protesting Dick Cheney as the school's official commencement speaker) that I generously donated $10 to and also: seatbelts and shit. I watched some something about him on PBS once, and he had a really interesting upbringing. His parents were Lebanese immigrants (Thanks, Wikipedia!) and his family was always discussing politics and stuff around the dinner table. Also, apparently he's kind of an asshole to deal with. Principles before people and all that. Reminds me of the Pretentious Ex-Boyfriend a little. Anyway, TBogg's post cracked me up, and so I thought I'd link to it and ramble about Ralph Nader and call my posting duties fulfilled for the day.

OMG! Jane Fonda is a big potty-mouth!

I read about this incident on Jezebel earlier today and was like, "Blah, blah, blah, cunty cunt cunt cunt, who cares?" But then I was at the Yahoo! entertainment page to read the latest installment of Dear Margo (advice columns = awesome), when I saw this headline: "Jane Fonda uses vulgar slang on 'Today'" "Vulgar slang?" For cereal? They couldn't even bring themselves to mention the word in the article. Come on, guys, CUNT is one of those words that is so overly stigmatized. Ahem.

Let me clarify:
I'm not like, "Hey guys, just call me a cunt anytime you want and I will be all, 'I'm so post-feminist and don't even care. Giggle!'" But I am so totally down with the re-appropriation by the ladies for our own purposes. And you know what, DEAL. The powers that be are so icked-out by our lady parts, they don't even like VAGINA. Think of all those stories about people complaining about advertisements for "The Vagina Monologues" that I am too lazy to link to, because apparently correct medical terms are offensive. And it's not like we don't expect this kind of awesomeness from Jane Fonda on a regular basis anyway. Calm down.

So, to conclude:
Dear Patriarchy,
Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt.

I highly recommend some wacky Inga Muscio for desensitization purposes. Works like a charm.

Yours Truly (and cuntily),
Lady McAwesome Who Is Blonder and Thinner than You

This may become a regular feature

Now, far be it from me to step on the toes of one of the world's awesomest bloggers, Josh the Comics Curmudgeon, but Pluggers is a terrible cartoon. I have a lot of rage stored up about this, and annotating the comics page of The Pioneer Press in response to particularly heinous panels is just not going to cut it anymore. Goddamn, do I hate Pluggers. Forget the italics, though. Too lazy to do that all the time. Fucking waste of space that I love to hate. Champion of "everyday" working-class killjoys who are fat, elderly, cheap, anti-elitist, and anthropomorphized freaks of nature.* Anyway, I was especially horrified by yesterday's:

PLUGGERS ARE ADDICTED TO PRESCRIPTION PAINKILLERS.

I knew Rush Limbaugh had to be involved somehow.



*This statement should not be taken to mean that I think there is anything wrong with being working-class, fat, or elderly. The other things, though, definitely.