Time to Put the Fire Out

When your house is on fire, what do you do?

If you’re like most people, you call the fire department and ask for assistance. And they come and put the fire out, and possibly investigate the cause, and at the end, do you get a bill? No. Because fire departments are recognized as an important community service. Putting out fires, in other words, directly benefits the community, and so do other services offered by most fire departments, like inspecting buildings for safety, conducting search and rescue operations, and so forth.

The President seems to have shoved reform of the health care system in America to the side in the interest of handing out free money to banks and American corporations, but Americans haven’t forgotten the need for health care. We are still going bankrupt from medical expenses, and we are still struggling to bear the cost of medical treatment, even for those who are privileged enough to have health insurance.

Why aren’t we viewing health care like we view fire departments?

If a house is on fire, the fire could spread to other houses, that’s what makes fire departments different. Actually, a standalone structure fire might not necessarily spread to homes or properties, but fire departments won’t refuse to go out on a call to such a fire. They also won’t send a bill. And, in fact, health care is a lot like a house fire in a crowded region. If someone has a contagious disease, he or she could spread it. If a disease is caused by environmental exposure, a single patient could be the canary in the coal mine. And even if a disease isn’t contagious, might even be congenital, the patient could suffer from lost work and earnings, and the community would be deprived of the patient’s skills, personality, and services. So, actually, the need for health care is a lot like the need for fire departments.

Some fire departments have volunteers who provide their services free or at low cost. So do some medical clinics and hospitals. In fact, the only way for a lot of Americans to get health care is to use a free clinic staffed by volunteers who are willing to donate time and energy to helping other people feel better.

Controlling fires is necessary for public safety. And so is health care. Healthy communities are safer communities, in addition to being more productive communities. And not just from a public health standpoint.

The fire department model has been working really well in the United States for a really long time. In fact, we pretty much invented the volunteer fire department. Early versions of fire departments were indeed paid, and firemen would either charge after the fact, or refuse to attend fires until they were paid, or if the fire took place in a building that belonged to someone who wasn’t a subscriber to the department.

But that model, it was determined, didn’t work. Providing services only on the basis of ability to pay turned out to be damaging in the long term, and therefore this system was abandoned in favor of a system which provides services to everyone who needed them. Rich and poor alike, people get help from the fire department for free, because some things have an intrinsic value which is too important to wait for money.

People who commit fraud against a fire department can face legal penalties, including fees, just like I think that people who commit fraud against a health care system should. But beyond that, the service is free, and the same level of care is provided to everyone, which I find delightfully egalitarian. Models seem to suggest that the current system is in place because it works, and because it’s cheap.

So why aren’t we adopting a similar model for health care? We need single payer nationalized health care. Call it socialized medicine. Call it whatever you want. But that doesn’t erase the fact that we need it, collectively as a nation and as individuals.

People should not be seeking medical treatment under a false name so that it won’t show up on their medical records. They should not be ignoring medical problems because they know they can’t afford to treat them. They should not be sacrificing everything to pay for health care, or going bankrupt due to inability to pay. The costs of maintaining the current system have spiraled out of control. We need to dismantle it, and start all over again from the bottom.

Doctors need an incentive to practice, and to practice well. They cannot cower under the fears of huge student loan debts and monstrous malpractice premiums. Hospitals should not be making treatment recommendations on the basis of how much they can wring out of patients. Patients should know that when they seek medical attention, they will get attentive, personalized care from a provider who really cares, and will make recommendations based on need, not quotas and billing.

Now more than ever, with the threat of a pandemic flu on the horizon, it’s time to get serious about health in America.

Mr. Obama, it’s been 100 days, and so far I haven’t seen you do a fucking thing for the American people. Time to pony up with all that change you clamored about. Time to put the fire out.

30 April, 2009 – 10:42 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in economy, Everything, health, politics |

Green Canoes

Woah to the nelly: pandemic alert level raised to five.

Over at Shakesville, Melissa tears into Obama’s totally lackluster and crappy response on abortion from last night’s press conference.

Have I linked to the Official White House Photostream yet? Because it’s rather neat. It’s a collection of candid photos which provide an interesting glimpse into what life at the White House is like, and for a President who is famously controlling about his portrayal in the media, it’s pretty neat to see how open these photos are. I especially love this shot of Michelle, Malia, and Sasha on the swings.

The New York Times has your recommended daily dose of objectification covered right here. And let me tell you, I very rarely say “wow” out loud when reading an article, but I said “wow” many times when I read this.

Oh, the Prius. Status symbol for the rich, smug, and self-entitled. But is it really all its cracked up to be? And should people in Priusus (Priusi?) be allowed to feel so very smug about their purchase?

Ok, people. Seriously. “African” fashion? It doesn’t exist. “Instead of talking about geometric prints, the use of found objects as jewelry items, and color choices in a way that could be deemed appropriate and less offensive, they shade their words with sweeping generalizations and talk about “Africa” like a one trick pony.”

Online pharmacies have exploded in recent years. Most of them seem extremely shady, and a few clearly cross the line into illegal activity. It sounds like a few attorneys general are getting fed up with them.

As long as we’re promoting a “separate but equal” (pffft) status for same sex couples, why stop there? Scroll down to “a modest proposal” to learn more!

30 April, 2009 – 10:03 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Tell It Like It Is

As promised, after much mulling and editing, my thoughts on rape in Dollhouse, the framing of the show, and Whedon’s presentation of it. I should note that this post may be triggering for some readers, and they may opt to skip over it.

A lot of criticism has been swirling around Dollhouse and the world it establishes. Much of the harshest and most valid criticism involves the depiction of human trafficking. Interestingly, Whedon himself admitted that he didn’t really think that the show dealt with human trafficking until someone pointed out that trafficking was pretty much the premise of the entire show. I think this really illustrates a major blind spot which probably played a role in how the show was framed and presented, and I am a bit aghast that a self-proclaimed “feminist” didn’t realize that he was making a show about human trafficking.

But, Whedon says this is “not a feminist show.” So, how can you be a feminist and set out to make something which is explicitly not feminist? In fact, a lot of the criticism of the show surrounds the fact that in some ways, it can be read as antifeminist. I think that if you’re a feminist and people are calling your work antifeminist, you have a serious problem; the fact that Joss missed the human trafficking angle and has so far expressed no understanding of the fact that Dollhouse is about sexual abuse is extremely troubling.

Defenders of the show tend to view critics very narrowmindedly. They say that critics are “missing the point” and that the show is not glamorizing human trafficking, but rather showing viewers how terrible it is. They compare Dollhouse to Dexter, arguing that you can make a show about terrible people doing terrible things, and still establish sympathy for the characters, while reminding viewers that the things depicted in the show are horrible, and really should not be happening.

But I think that defenders are the ones missing the point. Critics aren’t saying that Dollhouse is a bad show because it depicts awful things, or even that it’s glamorizing human trafficking. Many of those critics in fact like shows in which the characters are awful people, and they enjoy subtlety and an exploration of human emotions just as much as everyone else do. They have absolutely no problem with shows in which sympathies are established with bad people.

What critics are angry about is not necessarily the content of the show, but the way in which the show is framed. Most importantly, a lot of critics are concerned with the way in which people, including Whedon, view the Actives. Many supporters of the show seem to be missing the fact that Actives are not consenting to what is happening. They are coerced and in some cases forced to join the Dollhouse, they clearly don’t fully understand how their bodies will be used during their terms of service, and, critically, they lack the ability to consent to each engagement.

Actives are not “having sex,” as Whedon puts it. They are being raped. When you cannot consent to sexual activity, and your body is being used for sex, you are being raped. Period. It doesn’t matter that the Actives are loaded with personalities which do want to  have sex: their  bodies are being raped, that small part of their consciousness which still exists inside that body is being raped, and the personalities with which they are loaded are also being raped, because they are programmed to have sex, and they are not spontaneously expressing themselves. Having sex with an Active is rape, just like having sex with someone under the influence who lacks the ability to consent is rape.

But nowhere in the show do you see this being addressed. Yes, there is a plot line which deals with rape in “Man on the Streeet,” in which Sierra is raped by her handler. But this plot line actually compounds the problem, because it is the first time that rape is explicitly labeled and discussed, and it sets up a dichotomy in the show: Sierra is raped, but what happens on engagements, evidently, is not rape. And this is what people are angry about, is the normalizing of rape within the context of the show.

Yet, critics who raise these points are being repeatedly silenced and pushed to the margins of discussion. Their discussions are being totally shut down as “missing the point,” when means that their voices are not being heard at all, and this is a disservice to them and to the critical discussion of the show.

Because when you don’t tell it like it is, you aren’t serving your viewers well. And viewers are evidently not understanding that what is happening with the Dollhouse, the services that the Dollhouse offers, this is rape. Now, perhaps the show is going to spell this out at some point, but it had better do it in a hurry, because there is obviously a huge gulf in understanding occurring here.

(I’m editing this to add some links related to this issue: “Joss Whedon Has Not Earned My Feminist Trust: Dollhouse is a Rapefest” on The Angry Black Woman, and “Working in the Dollhouse” at FeministSF.)

(I’m editing this again to note, for people who  may be seeing this out of context, that I love Dollhouse. I think it’s a great show, and I am really enjoying it. I wrote this post because I happen to agree that what is happening in the Dollhouse is rape, and I was really frustrated by the dismissive attitude towards people who raised this criticism. I thought that by approaching the show as a fan who loves it, yet still recognizes that it depicts terrible things, I could perhaps help the show’s ardent apologists and defenders recognize that there are some valid criticisms to be made, both of the events which occur in the show, and the way in which they are presented. I view the show like “Guernica.” It’s a kickass painting/show, but that doesn’t change the fact that it depicts something very disturbing, and we should be talking about why it’s disturbing, because the whole intent of the artist was to get us to confront and think about the disturbing.)

29 April, 2009 – 10:54 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, Joss Whedon, social justice, Social Justice and Joss Whedon, television | Tagged |

Shorn Bowties

Apparently it’s News of Interest: Swine Flu Edition today. Not quite sure how that happened. Sorry about that!

No fear mongering about swine flu going on in the British media, that’s for sure! Nope, just balanced reporting which provides useful information without frightening people or whipping up sentiments.

First death in the United State: cue panic and absurd rhetoric in 3…2…1

Speaking of swine flu, evidently the naming of flus is a difficult matter. Not least of which because, uhm, no swine may have been involved in the making of this flu.

You know what happens when you try to block funding to public health measures? A potential pandemic appears within mere weeks, smearing egg all over your face. Yes, I’m talking to you, Susan Collins.

Uhm, you shouldn’t be stocking up on antibiotics anyway, because that would be stupid, and none of you are stupid. But, just in case, be aware that the newest trend in cybercrime is phishing scams aimed at people trying to order antibiotics online. Ah, opportunism.

WHO officials are generously inviting countries to “take the opportunity to prepare for a pandemic.” Oooh, I hope it’s black tie.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like we shouldn’t be publicizing information about the suspected Patient Zero. Especially since he may not even have had swine flu.

29 April, 2009 – 10:01 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Weedy Matters

Kids, it’s time to talk about an important issue: marijuana legalization. Rumor has it that legalization discussions are in the wind in numerous regions of the United States, and although the President denied any plans to consider legalization, I think it’s something which bears some serious discussion.

My arguments for legalization have absolutely nothing to do with marijuana usage. Quite frankly, I don’t really care, personally, if it’s legal or not. But I do care on a social, environmental, and economic level, and so should you, even if you personally don’t use marijuana, or even are opposed to its usage.

Let’s talk economics. Legalization would generate tax revenues. Straight up. Around seven billion, assuming that prices dropped once marijuana became legal (more on this in a moment). That’s a pretty respectable amount, and a lot of it would be going directly into communities via sales tax, which is good. Assuming that marijuana would also be subjected to sin taxes like alcohol and cigarettes, this estimate could be skewered upwards. So, from an economic point of view, legalization has some merits. Right now, marijuana is a huge shadow economy, and the government isn’t getting a slice of that pie.

The government also wouldn’t need to waste funds on enforcing marijuana laws. Oodles of people wouldn’t be ending up in prison every year for marijuana violations, which would reduce strain on the system. Benefits in terms of investigation, enforcement, and prosecution could be quite significant from an economic point of view. And a public safety one, because law enforcement could focus on actual problems, instead of pot heads.

From an environmental level, legalization is something which needs to happen. The problem right now is that because marijuana is illegal, it can’t be openly cultivated and sold. Because it can’t be openly cultivated and sold, a lot of growers, including cartels (more on them in a moment too), utilize public lands such as state parks for growing. They often use harsh chemicals and other practices which are not very environmentally friendly. The natural environment could benefit hugely from legalization, because people could grow it openly, pursue organic certification, develop hydroponic facilities, and so on. Environmental degradation due to marijuana cultivation is a definite issue, although not as serious as meth.

Legalization would cause a drop in prices, because the difficulties would be removed. This could contribute to a huge public safety boon, because it would take the incentive out for big time growers, like the drug cartels. There’s no reason to have a plantation in a state park guarded by pit bulls and scary dudes with guns when your crop is legal, and that makes national parks safer. It also makes the streets safer, because people won’t be using violence to manage the trade and sale of marijuana. Again, big savings to law enforcement, and big improvements in public safety. These are all very good things.

Some people claim that legalization would cause a radical increase in smoking. To which I ask: who cares? And, more importantly, where’s the evidence? In areas where full legalization has been tried, like the Netherlands, there wasn’t really a big increase. A brief uptick once it became legal and that was exciting and novel, and then a fall to below previous usage levels. Because when it’s legal, where’s the fun in it.

Legalization would also allow for the regulation of marijuana. There are valid concerns about children and teens being exposed to the drug, as it does appear to affect developing brains. As cigarettes and alcohol have shown, banned substances are always obtainable to people who want them and aren’t supposed to have them, but bans and regulation really do decrease access. They also increase safety for consumers. No sale of adulterated marijuana, for example, or labeling product as “organic” when it’s not.

There are lots of things that are legal that I don’t really think that people should be doing, but I don’t necessarily think that these things should be banned. Conversely, for those who think that people shouldn’t use marijuana, does that necessarily mean that it should remain illegal, when legalization has clear benefits?

28 April, 2009 – 10:47 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in environmental issues, Everything, politics |

Punchy Croutons

I feel the need to respond to this video which has been making the rounds, but I’m trying to come up with a response which isn’t patronizing and silencing. The thing is that what is happening on Dollhouse is, in fact, rape. I’m not arguing with that in the slightest, and I am glad to see people talking about it. But I don’t think that this makes the show bad, or even that Whedon is betraying my trust (as someone else wrote), because of the depiction of rape on Dollhouse. I think that the real problem here is not necessarily the way in which the show is framed, although it may be problematic, but the fact that many ardent fans are apparently unwilling and unable to recognize it as rape, and to call it what it is. I believe, in fact, that the show is explicitly shoving the wrongness in the faces of fans and that this is a good thing. The bad thing here is that fans are apparently too dim to recognize it. I will probably have more to say on this in the future.

The pandemic alert level has been moved from stage three to stage four. That’s right below “OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.” So, is the WHO panicking, or is this really serious?

Oh, are we having a doctor shortage? Maybe we could address that by making medical school less prohibitively expensive, or by dealing with the out of control malpractice insurance premiums. Or, say, listening to doctors about how to reform health care, rather than the insurance industry.

In areas which welcome the film and television industry, there can be a lot of real, tangible benefits to residents and artisans in the region. Which, of course, begs the question of why some places (like, say, Mendocino) make it so hard to film, given all of the benefits which can result.

This post on Jezebel makes an excellent point: the burden of the current craze for ethical eating seems to be falling primarily upon women. Is it still ethical when it reinforces patriarchal norms?

Speaking of film and television and production obstacles, the sneaky production crew on Angels and Demons got around a Vatican ban on filming by posing as tourists. Which, of course, means that the Vatican will now be cracking down on actual tourists to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

When cemeteries are in foreclosure, you know that you have a very serious economic problem.

How come Iowa got same sex marriage before California? Because Iowans are long time subscribers to Butting Out of Each Other’s Business, that’s why. I’ve always been a firm believer in leave well enough alone myself.

Oh my sweet lord. Seriously? You really want to go there?

28 April, 2009 – 10:08 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Mistaken Identity

The calls started at around one in the morning. It’s possible that they occurred earlier in the day, but my father and I were both out of the house, so neither of us was aware. Since I slept downstairs, mere feet from the phone, it fell by default for me to answer it when it rang in the middle of the night.

When the phone rang for the first time, I staggered to the phone as quickly as I could, trying to answer it before the ringing woke my father.

“Hello,” I said.

“YOU RACIST MOTHERFUCKER,” an angry male voice on the other end of the phone announced.

“Er, excuse me?”

“Is this [my father]‘s house?”

“Uhm, yes?”

“THAT PIECE OF SHIT! I’M GOING TO FUCKING KILL HIM!”

“Ah,” I said. “Er, well, thank you.”

I hung up, and went back to bed.

Mere seconds later, the phone rang again. This time, I didn’t even get a chance to answer.

“YOU BIGOTED ASSHOLE,” a woman shrieked. “WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THINGS LIKE THAT IN A PUBLIC FORUM?”

And then she hung up.

At this point, my father had woken, and I briefly relayed the content of the two calls. We were both utterly perplexed. As far as we knew, my father hadn’t even been present at a public forum in the last few days, and he certainly wasn’t a bigot or a racist.

The calls kept coming. Call after call after call in which people alternately threatened my father with death, shrieked obscenities, or expressed shock and horror. When I informed one caller that it was the daughter, not the father, on the line, the caller informed me that the spawn of assholes like my father deserved to be publicly burned at the stake. Finally, around three in the morning, we unplugged the phone and went back to bed, completely mystified.

The next morning was cold, and we shivered over the woodstove while our clothes warmed on the stove pipe and the kettle burbled away, waiting for the water to boil so that we could make coffee. The peculiar calls seemed like a strange dream, and we wondered if we were the victims of mass hysteria.

I duly took the bus to school. I remember I was in the sixth grade then, because my homeroom teacher was also the art and history teacher, and she seemed to have taken a liking to me. This morning, though, she was cold and short with me, as in fact were all of my teachers until lunch, when I retreated to the womb of the library.

The librarian, normally a perfectly lovely woman, frowned when I walked in.

“I can’t believe your father,” she said.

“Er, what did he do?”

The librarian pulled out a copy of the paper, which had been published the day before, and the answer to the mystery suddenly became painfully clear. There was an incoherent, largely illiterate, poorly punctuated diatribe which managed to be more offensive than one would think physically possible within the confines of the letters to the editor, and it was signed with my father’s name.

“Ooooh,” I said, laughing.

The librarian was still frowning.

“It’s not my father,” I explained. “There’s this guy who lives in Boonville who has the same name.”

As indeed there was, and because my father was the only one listed in the phone book, that was why everyone had called us. We had experienced cases of confusion before, with people looking for one and finding the other, but never before had the situation blown up in such an astonishing way. The librarian, however, did not believe my perfectly rational explanation. In fact, no one else did either, and I finally gave up trying.

My father also figured out the answer, and he sent a polite letter to the editor discussing the situation, pointing out that we had received so many nasty calls that we finally resorted to leaving the phone unplugged. Furthermore, he said, with an air of insult, how could anyone possibly think that something so illiterate and poorly written could possibly come from him?

The editor duly printed the letter, after verifying the facts of the story, and she even included a disclaimer on the front page of the newspaper, explaining that the letter from the week before had come from someone else with the name name, not my father. The calls tapered off, my teachers started liking me again, and we assumed that the episode was over.

But it wasn’t. Every few months, it would recur. A letter to the editor, a call-in to a radio show, ludicrous statements at a public meeting (before the editor started adding “the other [person with my father's name] said this” to quotes). It started to become sort of a running joke for a lot of people, as the community gradually started figuring it out, but it was a living nightmare for us at times. We were hit with fruit at the farmers’ market and sent nasty letters through the mail. Copies of the horrific letters were sent to my father’s boss, who fortunately understood what was going on, and people would glare at us and scatter when we walked through the aisles of the grocery store.

The case of mistaken identity finally ended when the other man died. As it turned out, he was the same age as my father, and as a result, I got a number of letters of condolence from distant old family friends who heard about the death through the grapevine and thought it was my father, along with a few sympathy calls from people in the community who had my father and this man confused.

The headline in the Anderson Valley Advertiser describing the death was the perfect coda: “OTHER [PERSON WITH MY FATHER'S NAME] FINALLY DIES, ENDING YEARS OF TORMENT FOR PERFECTLY NICE AND RESPECTABLE PERSON WHO HAPPENED TO SHARE HIS NAME.”

27 April, 2009 – 10:43 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, history |

Misty Sands

Swine flu! When the news on this started breaking, I had to go re-read the swine flu section in The Coming Plague, in which the fiasco of the last major swine flu scare is discussed in detail. (Short version: the government panicked and took a bunch of emergency measures, nothing happened.) It’s hard to tell at this point what is going to happen, although if this turns into a pandemic, I think it could highlight the huge inequalities in America, from education levels to access to healthcare. I also want to briefly address the anti-immigration rhetoric which is already popping up: immigrants, illegal or not, are not responsible for swine flu. It may not even have originated in Mexico City, that’s just where the most cases have been reported/discussed, and we won’t know where it started until WHO gets its investigation on. Swine flu has absolutely nothing to do with the “hygiene” of the Mexican people (as I saw in one New York Times comment thread) or anything else about Mexicans, and walling off the Mexican border or shooting Mexicans on sight or any of the other cockeyed bullshit I’ve been seeing will not prevent swine flu and other infectious diseases from spreading. Instead of freaking out about “them illegals,” how about some compassion for the Mexican nationals living and working in the United States who are very concerned about their families in Mexico right now?

How can women get ahead in politics? Evidently, by happening to live in Iceland during one of the most epic economic collapses in recent history. I’m glad to see someone making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear here.

Speaking of Iceland, everybody say hello to the world’s first openly gay elected head of state, Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir!

And, speaking of women, in Saudi Arabia, women are about to find it a lot harder to exercise, because the government is cracking down on women’s gyms. Exercising in a gym is really the only option for a lot of Saudi women, because they can’t wear exercise clothes outside, and because it’s bloody hot out, so even if you could wear appropriate garments, you’d still roast and risk heat stroke.

With every recession comes new money-making schemes. Including, of course, predatory schemes to take advantage of people who think that they can grab their piece of the American Dream without actually doing anything.

Double injustice: a child is murdered, and a developmentally disabled man is taken into prison on suspicion of the crime. The only problem is, he pretty clearly didn’t do it. After spending three years in jail, he was finally released, and now he’s filing a civil suit.

Wow. Anti-abortion activists are taking the fight into the world of new media, and setting traps for care providers in the hopes that they can trick them into saying things which sound unethical and highly questionable, especially out of context. Sheesh, people, can’t you think of something more productive to do with your time, like say agitating for more social services so that children have access to health care? (Also, I love that the Los Angeles Times staunchly refers to the “anti-abortion” movement, rather than using that mealy-mouthed idiotic term “pro-life.”)

27 April, 2009 – 10:03 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

The Week in Television

Kings

I’ve decided that I am going to view this show as a miniseries. It actually makes total sense as a miniseries, and that way I won’t feel so terrible when NBC announces that they are not picking it up for another season. Allegedly, Kings is really expensive to produce, although I don’t really see why that would be, and this paired with the show’s poor ratings is pretty much a death sentence. If anyone’s in doubt, moving the show to the summer schedule is a pretty sure sign that it’s over.

Speaking of which, how about “Judgment Day.” An interesting intertwining of stories of justice and the legal system, eh? We’re starting to see little pieces of the puzzle coming together, including the infamous absent nephew, and we got to see David faced with some hard choices, ultimately deciding to go for what was right, rather than trying to work the system, which I find rather quaint and admirable.

Given that the show is basically a retelling of the Biblical story of David, it’s interesting to see how they interpret the story and the characters. There have already been some fairly significant modifications, evidently in the interest of making better television, such as radically changing Jonathan’s character. (Far from being a supporter of David, he’s actively working against him, although I note that they kept the whiff of homosexuality.)

It’s kind of interesting to imagine a modern absolute monarchy in North America, which is clearly the setting of Kings even if they don’t admit it. The idea of warring monarchs seems very logical, given that the continent is so huge, and it seems unlikely that a single king could possibly control it all. I think of monarchies as antique-type things, so it’s very jarring to see the tools of the modern world employed by the monarch. (Yes, I know that there are monarchies and even absolute monarchies elsewhere in the world, people.) What would the vicious battles in the Bible have been like with tanks? Or nuclear weapons?

Chuck

A suspicious number of loose ends were tied up in “Chuck Versus the Colonel,” like enough loose ends to make me think that NBC made it clear that the second season would be Chuck’s last. Morgan went out in a blaze of glory, the Intersect was removed from Chuck, Ellie and Awesome are finally getting married in the next episode, Chuck’s father has been revealed and found…I suspect that this is the end.

The flashy budget, what with all the new sets and explosions, was also a pretty big tip off. I guess it’s better to wrap a show up well than to leave it hanging with all of its guts dangling out. The ratings have been falling steeply, which makes it hard to justify continuing to air it, although to be fair I think that being under the threat of the axe tends to depress ratings, because people tune out, since they know that things are coming to an end.

Which I suppose is ok, because you can only drag a show out so long before it gets tedious. And maybe, there wasn’t much more to milk in Chuck, although it would have been interesting to see where the show went. Chuck joining the CIA officially? Moving to Hawaii with Morgan? Who knows. I suspect that we never will.

Numb3rs

Ok, so Numb3rs partially redeemed itself after the fiasco of “Animal Rights” with this week’s episode, in which one of the characters takes a strong stance against the abuse of prisoners in FBI custody, going against “the way things are done” to stress that it’s important to do thing right. I personally really appreciated that, because it allowed us to develop doubts about Don, one of the main characters, and we got to see David standing up for himself, and showing how different his leadership style would be.

I think it also highlighted the moral shift which is going on in American law enforcement right now in response to the torture debacle. If Colby and David’s scene mirrors real life in any way, I find it heartening to think that people are starting to reject the way that things have always been done in the interest of treating people properly and with respect. And I think it’s important to occasionally force viewers to see their heroes in a new light.

Dollhouse

Creepiness upon creepiness! After a week’s hiatus, I would say that “Ghost” was a strong episode out of the gate  to build up to the final two of the season. (Season, not series, if Fox is good to us.)

I find it very interesting that we have seen Adelle utilize and s0rt of abuse the services of the Dollhouse twice now, and I can’t help but wonder how her higher ups would feel about this. Using Victor might have been marginally ok, but loading her dead friend’s mind into Echo? That has to be against some sort of policy. However, it did allow us to explore the idea of immortality through the Dollhouse. Boyd was right to feel deeply uncomfortable with it, because it was uncomfortable.

The idea of the Actives being used temporarily to achieve various means is unsavory enough, but to think that their real personalities could be permanently erased and replaced with another person? That is scary. Really, really scary. It’s akin to the science fiction idea of raising people to use for organs. In fact, it basically is exactly the same, except that instead of being cannibalized for organs, the body is being stripped of its mind so that someone with wealth and power can have a new body. I can’t honestly say that I had thought about that potential use of the Dollhouse until it was presented to me, and when it was, it was very sobering.

I also found it interesting to see Topher sort of, uhm, using the services of the Dollhouse as well. One thing I would really like to see is how the Houses in other cities are run, to see whether Adelle has her house in order. It seems like a lot of extreme irregularities are going on here, even given the fact that the Dollhouse is already highly irregular.

Speaking of which, no Dr. Saunders? And where was Echo’s handler? I’m curious to see how that dynamic plays out.

Another facet of “Ghost” which really disturbed me was the ongoing relationship between Mellie/November and Ballard. Ballard is obviously extremely uncomfortable with this whole situation, and Mellie’s speech in which she basically said “do whatever you want with me” was very chilling, because that’s essentially what she agreed to when she became an Active. All the more uncomfortable to see her saying that, and have Ballard follow it up with very intense, somewhat violent sex. Which makes him feel so dirty that he needs to stand in the shower the next morning to try and wash it all away.

Dollhouse is continually challenging us as viewers and forcing us to confront very unpleasant situations and moral quandries. Ballard has to keep using Mellie, because if he doesn’t, he may be killed, but does that make it right? Is it abuse when he’s using someone’s body, divorced from her mind? Do the potential benefits, such as shutting down the Dollhouse, outweigh the sliminess of what’s going on?

And, as we learn, Dollhouse employees are not just complicit in what’s going on. They’re actively taking part in it. We could take the scene between Topher and Sierra as sweet and endearing, as someone who is deeply lonely and socially inept reaches out and finds a friend, but it is also extremely disturbing, because he had to program that friend. And, I note, his friend was clearly not concerned with the moral issues in the Dollhouse, referring to the Actives as “sleepies” and suggesting that they be used, literally, like toys.

Joss is taking us into a very bad and very dark place, and I am loving every minute of it.

My one complaint about this episode is one which stands for pretty much the whole series thus far: Eliza Dushku just does not have the range. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Other actors have demonstrated that they do, and it makes it all the more glaring that all of Eliza’s characters move and speak in exactly the same way. It makes it hard for me to buy into the premise, because it basically just feels like Faith (Dushku’s character on Buffy/Angel, for those of you who for some reason have not watched those shows) every freakin’ week.

26 April, 2009 – 10:02 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged , , , , |

Sharing the Sandbox

One of the things which activists, especially white activists, seem to have a great deal of difficulty doing is accepting criticism and respecting the safe spaces of other people. I notice this issue coming up again and again in the endless wars in the blogging community, and I think that it bears some closer inspection, as I too am guilty of this upon occasion.

The first thing to understand about social justice activism is that it must incorporate intersectionality. Without intersectionality as a starting point, it’s really problematic to advocate for social justice. Feminists can’t just be feminists. They also need to be anti-racists, and they need to think about the racial components of feminism, and the unique situations faced by women of color. LQBQT activists also need to be anti-racists, and feminists, for much the same reason. And so forth. Activism cannot take place in a vacuum.

Activists also need to accept that sometimes they are wrong. They are often wrong out of ignorance. I, for example, didn’t really understand what womanism was until I read more about it and got more perspective, and when I finally did get a clear definition, it was a very eye opening experience. By being open to criticism, I opened myself to correction, and I learned more in the process. I am wrong on a daily basis, and I accept that, and I also understand that I need to be proactive about correcting that, and that when someone corrects me, the response should be “ah, I didn’t know that, please teach me more,” rather than taking a silencing tack which totally ignores very valid criticism.

Silencing is a huge issue, especially with people of colour and people with disabilities (PWD). Silencing is almost always a mechanism of privilege, in which someone with privilege rides roughshod over someone else, often not realizing what they are doing. It is extremely harmful, both to the people being silenced and to activist movements in general, because it puts you in situations where people who could be working together are instead at odds, because they feel like they are not being respected. And silencing can occur between members of marginalized communities, as when a feminist silences a PWD, or when someone in the queer community silences someone in the Black community.

For marginalized populations, safe spaces are critical, and those safe spaces need to be protected. What’s a safe space? It’s a space where people feel comfortable, where they can talk and discuss issues in freedom. Safe spaces can be constructed for people of colour, people with disabilities, transpeople, and anyone else.

And, guess what? Sometimes, you’re not wanted in someone else’s safe space, not even as an observer, because some issues are extremely sensitive. And while I know it drives people batty to have doors slammed shut in their faces, sometimes this needs to happen, because it allows people to talk freely in a protected environment, to hash issues out, and to talk about things which need to be brought up in the community in general. Consider it a closed door meeting, if you will.

And when you are invited into someone else’s safe space, you should consider yourself a guest, and you should behave like you would in someone’s home. Sometimes, that means that you need to sit down and shut the fuck up. It definitely means that when someone says something which you think is hurtful, or that you disagree with, that instead of having a knee jerk reaction, you need to explore that reaction and think about it, and you need to frame your response very carefully, to make it clear that you are exploring the issue, not trying to silence people.

Often, I find that I read something which upsets or offends me, but when I start reading through the comments, I gain a deeper understanding. And, along the way, I usually find out that my reaction came from a place of personal hurt, rather than a place of genuine criticism and recognition. Hey, we aren’t going to agree on everything, but again, I say that safe spaces need to be protected, and that means that when someone makes a genuine complaint or observation, it needs to be treated with respect, not derision. I learn something every time I read something which I am not totally comfortable with and then go through the comments thread to see the issue unpacked and discussed. This is a great example of how silencing works, and why it shouldn’t happen.

We white activists often seem to demonstrate a need to be coddled and reassured that we are the “good” white people, and that we aren’t like those “other” white people. And yes, anti-racist allies are important, and should be recognized as such, but the fact of the matter is that they can still do stupid, hateful things, and a refusal to recognize that is a rejection of all that being an ally should be. When you claim to be supporting a community and members of that community question you, you need to LISTEN UP.

People don’t have time to coddle you, especially when you don’t need to be coddled. And, quite frankly, when white activists lash out and get all petulant, all that anyone else can see is their privilege, in all its shining whiteness.

Thus, I think it’s important for people to think about rules for sharing the sandbox if they want to play with the big kids. Because this constant infighting and flaring up between activist communities online is starting to drive me completely insane.

25 April, 2009 – 10:31 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in commentary, Everything, LGBQT, race, social justice |