I’ve been thinking about this question a lot, over the course of my Joss Whedon and Feminism series and in conversations with people about the fat hatred which seems to be so common to many Bryan Fuller shows. I think that the things people make most definitely reflect the natures of their creators, because art is such a personal expression, and I can’t really see how you can make art without integrating a part of yourself into it.

With television it’s particularly challenging, though, because while a single person’s name may be attached to a production, he or she is not the sole creator. Making television is a group effort which involves the input of numerous people, including writers, producers, studios, and even actors. Yet, we expect people to bear responsibility for the things that are produced and sold under their names; troubling antifeminism in the works of Joss Whedon, for example, is attributed to Whedon himself even if he doesn’t actually bear responsibility for it, because he is assumed to be the dominating creative influence, and more importantly, people assume that he has veto power over content, when in fact the situation is more complex.

Can we read things about people from the things they make? Whedon argues that we shouldn’t, and has expressed irritation with people who judge him or make inferences about him on the basis of his shows. But I think this expectation is a little bit unrealistic. We look at “The Sunflowers” or “The Scream” and we cannot help but make judgments about the artist and the subject, because the piece demands our attention and intrigues us. Because the piece is so compelling, we want to learn more about the person behind it, and we use the piece to facilitate that learning.

Is Bryan Fuller antifeminist and antifat? You might think so from the content of some of his series. But maybe he’s not. Is Joss Whedon antifeminist? Again, you might think so from his work, even though he identifies as a feminist. Maybe the troubling content in television shows is the result of network influences, or other writers, or even short sightedness, and a failure to understand that some of this content could be read in a negative way. Is ignorance an excuse? I want to say no, but the fact is that sometimes I am shockingly ignorant, and when I am corrected, I am genuinely contrite, and it’s a valuable lesson.

The question of whether or not people are what they make is closely yoked with the question of whether or not bad people can make good things, which is something I touched upon briefly a few weeks ago. I’m not sure I know the answer to that question, because I’m not sure that creators can be divorced from their work, or that creative work should be viewed in a vacuum. The intent and beliefs of the creator are entwined with it, intentionally or not.

In gender equality news, Venice just got its first female gondolier, and the PTA got its first male national president!

Is shipping electronic waste overseas for recycling socially responsible, or questionable? I think it’s pretty questionable, due to the fact that electronic waste is usually processed by people who are unqualified and it’s becoming a major pollutant in places in India and China, but other people think it can be done ethically and responsibly.

Woo hoo! Madoff got the maximum sentence for his crimes. Now, to put the rest of the financial criminals in this country in jail, rather than just using Madoff as a scapegoat to appease the angry masses.

Another legal challenge to Prop 8 hits the courts this Thursday.

Remember Iran? Yeah, everyone was all worked up about it for about thirty seconds last week before it was swept away by the next trendy news item? Well, hundreds of people are dead or missing, and the Guardian is collecting their stories.

Last year, the French banned the headscarf, arguing that it conflicted with French values. Now, the French are proposing a ban on the burqa. Both of these bans are ostensibly supposed to promote women’s freedoms while protecting French values, but I believe that they do just the opposite, and I find them troubling and disturbing.

Such bans carry a racial tinge, because the burqa and other forms of hijab are associated with communities in the Middle East. (It’s not just Muslimahs who veil.) France has a very shaky record on racial issues and continuing racial problems, so I’m not quite sure how racist legislation is going to help them fix that. I also feel very strongly that religious freedom should be a French value, although the French appear to disagree, and that choosing to veil or wearing the veil does not infringe of the liberty, equality, and brotherhood of others.

In fact, banning the veil will explicitly restrict women’s rights in France even more, because many women may be forced to stay at home if they can’t veil outside. And not just forced by family members, which is the conclusion many people seem to be jumping to, but forced by their own values and beliefs. For women who genuinely believe that wearing the veil reflects modesty and good Muslim values, walking outside the house unveiled is unthinkable, and these women will either flout the ban to stay true to their beliefs, or be stuck inside for life. How is that liberty?

The criticism of the veil is that women are forced into wearing it by male family members, but it’s more complicated than that. Veiling is also a cultural decision, and part of a complex religious and ethnic heritage. One of the commenters on Feministe pointed out that for some women who wear the veil, veiling is like putting on a shirt before leaving the house; they are accustomed to it, and they would feel deeply uncomfortable without one. For them, banning burqas is equivalent to banning shirts for women, which I think most of us would agree would be pretty problematic.

I think that the burqa is being attacked as a symbol. If the French actually cared about women’s rights, they would be addressing issues like domestic violence and honor killings. Yet, they choose to fixate on garments which are worn as outward expressions of inward religious beliefs. Are the French afraid for the rights of their women, or are they uncomfortable with expressions of religion? Many people have a visceral response to veiling, viewing it as icky and offensive, but one could also argue that nudists/naturists are offended by clothing, and no one is seriously proposing a ban on clothing for the comfort of people who find clothing unpleasant to look at. If the veil is banned, should we also ban the wearing of modest Christian garments? The cross? The Star of David? Or is this really about targeting people of Middle Eastern descent to force them to assimilate?

The French argue that the veil is alienating, that they are banning the burqa to help people fit in. But is fitting in necessarily a good thing? Not that long ago, Native Americans were forced to attend government schools and they were physically punished for speaking their own languages. As a result, huge swaths of Native American heritage were lost forever, and cannot be reconstructed. Should governments be allowed to dismantle cultural traditions and values just because they conflict with “normal people,” prevent people from “fitting in,” or are personally repugnant?

Any personal messages you’d like delivered to the President?

With all the fuss over the peccadilloes of male politicians, one might reasonably be inclined to ask: where are all the unfaithful female politicians? (And, more importantly, in my opinion: why do we care about the sex lives of politicians?)

Speaking of the sexual adventures of American politicians, here’s an exhaustive lowdown on the investigation into Mayor Sam Adams!

Why is it that men who kill their partners and women who kill their partners are treated differently under the law?

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which means, of course, that police in Texas felt obligated to get their own little piece of history by raiding a gay club. And the famous pink triangle which bedecks Twin Peaks was burned (probably) by a vandal. But there’s also a nice op-ed in the Times talking about gay rights. It’s nice to see the Grey Lady taking an interest in this issue.

Kings was the only thing I watched this week which was worthy of review (other than the first season of True Blood, which I will be discussing later). Talking about this show with Tristan the other day, we were both remarking that it’s a crying shame that it was canceled basically right out of the gate, but I pointed out that I am viewing it as a miniseries, and so far, it’s a kickass miniseries. I really think that they are going to bring the show to a good ending point (presumably David’s crowning), and leave us feeling at least ok with the ending.

“The Sabbath Queen” was a pretty radical departure from the series stylistically, with the blend of flashbacks and current setting (and a pretty major continuity problem in the form of David and Silas meeting in a scene which has yet to be acknowledged by either; perhaps this will be addressed in an upcoming episode). It was also, I think, one of my favourite episodes. It really explicitly brought out the religious roots and overtones of the series in a pretty remarkable way; we have Silas basically making a deal with Death (or the Devil?) while Michelle makes a pledge to God.

The blackout was a great way to bring out the conflicts of the series; it was an entire episode shrouded in darkness which was actually immensely illuminating, because we learned so much more about the characters and their origins in the process. It was interesting to see both Jack and Michelle slipping away from the confines of the royal life and pursuing the lives they want, and seeing both of them immediately turn off as soon as the lights came back on.One of the things that Kings has done really well is force us to imagine the restrictions and confines of royal life in the modern age, where missteps cannot easily be covered up because everyone is so closely watched.

I think it’s intriguing to see how Jack yearns for power, yet pursues a life which essentially bars him from power (within the context of the show). And it’s very telling to see that his character chooses power over love when he’s in the light, but turns to love in the dark, as does Michelle. And, of course, so does Silas, who attempts to reunite with his long-suffering lover at the end of the episode. In a way, the royal family is not very likeable, because we see them all constantly compromising themselves to remain secure.

“Pilgrimage” really highlighted the danger of closeting for the characters, as Jack realized the consequences of silence in a rather grim way. I had a sense that this was an episode in which truths would start to explode, and they did, though not necessarily in a way I expected. David had a chance to come clean about himself and Michelle to Silas, but chose not to break her trust, and in return, she broke his, which pretty much totally screwed him.

And David is pretty royally (ha ha) screwed here. Silas opened his life to David, and I got the sense that Silas was starting to think about handing over the reigns, especially with making David his adviser. In return, David was asked for honesty, something he has openly given in the past, and he chose secrecy and lies. It’s been really sad to watch David’s corruption in the court, as he goes from someone with immense self integrity who always does the right thing, even if it is difficult, to someone who behaves like everyone else in the court. I doubt that Silas is going to take this betrayal lying down, even if David does have the power to ruin him.

Rose’s callous ruling style was also really highlighted in “Pilgrimage,” as Katrina Ghent quite rightly started to fight back against her. There were any number of ways that could have gone, and in fact we still didn’t know at the end of the episode if Jack agreed to marry her, or if he insisted on having the compromising video of his lover released.

I would that he would have gone for the video, because I’m actually, in a strange way, starting to respect Jack as he awakens, and a willingness to go public with the video would definitely reinforce that. On the other hand, if he took advantage of Silas’ knowledge of David and Michelle to let the pictures get released instead, he’d be back to his usual self. Spoiler (highlight to read): Alas, according to the NBC’s promotional summary for next week’s episode, he instead opts to marry Katrina, which brings up an interesting question: how much does Jack hate his mother? Because I get the sense that he is really not a big fan of Rose, especially after her comment about his relationship. While he may be acting in self interest to protect himself here, I think he’s also getting back at his mother (in a pretty epic way).

Rose’s determined manipulation and control is clearly coming back to bite her in the rump in a major way. I am curious to see where the show takes us in the next four episodes: will David regain his self integrity? Will Jack come out of the closet? Will the King tell David about his bargain with Death and set the wheels in motion to put David in power? Will the King and David be able to reconcile?

I recently decided to stop reading two websites I had previously greatly enjoyed, because their authors both decided to discuss, at length, how disgusting freaks like me are. How we look repulsive, and undoubtedly horrify and shame our parents. How people who look like me are all mean and rude and snotty. And, of course, the commenters all chimed in with their personal stories about how disgusting/rude people like me are, and that was it, for me, the end, no more reading, because I have better things to do with my time than to be insulted by people I don’t even know.

Being a tattooed and pierced person in this society is a very interesting thing. Even as we become more widespread and inevitably more socially acceptable, we still face a lot of prejudice, which includes rampant misinformation and fear. My visible body modifications are not very extreme, so I experience the low end of the discrimination scale, but it still fascinates me, even as it horrifies me.

It constantly amazes me that people think they can make a snap judgment about me, my personality, my motivations, on the basis of how I look. Mothers cross to the other side of the street with their children when they see me, sometimes. People give me filthy looks when I stand in line at the bank. When something invisible under a sweater or coat becomes visible, people draw back. I have actually had people say that I am “surprisingly nice” for “someone who looks like that.”

Very rarely am I actually personally confronted or insulted; most of the people who actually approach me about my body modifications do so to compliment them, or because they are curious about them. And as a visibly tattooed and pierced person, I feel a sort of obligation to act like an ambassador, to be courteous and kind even when I am asked stupid questions, and to accept compliments with grace. To show children that people with tattoos are not scary, or mean, or cruel. To demonstrate that I am a good citizen, that I pay taxes and volunteer on Coastal Cleanup Day and donate to charities just like everyone else, that my physical appearance is not necessarily an indicator of who I am.

In fact, I became a nicer person after I received body modifications, because they were part of my exploration of self, and an affirmation of who I was. I was no longer hiding or pretending to be something I wasn’t, but living in the open, and it made me more relaxed, more friendly, generally better. I am part of a rich and complex social and historical tradition which has endured for thousands of years, and that makes me proud. I like the silent fellowship of my tattooed brothers and sisters, the knowledge and heritage that we share in our markings.

One of the things about the Internet is that people do not necessarily know what you look like. Some of my readers may be surprised to learn that I have body modifications, because they may not fit with their image of me and I haven’t written about them before, while others may have envisioned me as the “kind of person” who would have body modifications, whatever that kind of person is. Much like members of the LGBQT community, tattooed and pierced people are often marginalized out of fear and ignorance, and actually meeting someone who speaks openly is sometimes enough to break down a barrier, to change minds, to show people that an experience with which they are unfamiliar is not necessarily frightening. Thus, I feel a sort of obligation to “come out,” as it were, to discuss what is readily visible to people who meet me because most of my readers have never seen me.

Freaks like me are psychoanalyzed by people who are not like us. Primarily, I find it amusing to see people who do not know me, who have never really talked with or attempted to know someone like me, announcing that we should be “locked up” and that we are all “self destructive.” But I also find it hurtful, cruel, and wrong. We freaks aren’t so different from those of you who have chosen to keep the bodies you were born with, honestly, and if people talked to us instead of lashing out in fear, they might learn that.

So it is that I stop reading websites when people make careless, ignorant, hateful comments, because I have enough to deal with as it is. Perhaps some day, those people will know better than that. As Bill Compton says, you cannot be frightened of everything you do not know in this world.

Have you seen Wonderfalls? Because if you haven’t, you definitely should. It’s another masterwork from the mind of Bryan Fuller, and it is excellent and dark and strange in a way which is different from Pushing Daisies, but also very different from other kinds of television, which is what made it brilliant. And, of course, what ensured that it would fail, because television viewers in general do not enjoy shows which are challenging.

Watching Wonderfalls, I can identify a number of reasons why the show failed, although these reasons are also what makes the show good. Wonderfalls is slow, by which I mean that it develops in a leisurely fashion. It’s not sluggish by any means, but it’s not fast paced. People can watch episodes independently, but they will get more out of it by seeing all of them, and television viewers seem to resent that. And the show lacks violence, explicit sexuality, and action, the things which are apparently needed to attract viewers, because you can’t just make it about the story any more.

I think part of the reason that the show appeals to me so much is that I can totally see myself in the lead character’s shoes. Jaye is a degree-holding smartypants who has returned to her tourist-trap hometown to work in a dead-end retail job. (Sound familiar?) She’s adrift, not really sure she knows what she wants to do with her life, and over the coarse of the series, we watch her struggle with this, and we also see her fail to resolve it. I would say that one of the great things about the ending of the series is that it doesn’t resolve the question of who Jaye will become and what she will do (although, in classic Fuller-style, the story is “resolved” in the sense that Jaye manages to find herself a man to love forever and ever, and in Fuller’s opinion, perhaps that’s all that matters).

She’s indifferent about her crappy job, deals with horrible customers on a daily basis, and is severely isolated in many ways, in addition to being tragically socially inept. Periodically she encounters former classmates who wave their accomplishments over her head and try to use them to shame her, but more often than not, those classmates are hiding misery and failure of their own.

And, of course, like all lead characters in Fuller’s shows, she has certain powers. Specifically, toy animals talk to her, providing directives and advice which influence the lives of others in addition to her own life. It’s interesting to contrast her treatment with that of Ned in Pushing Daisies. Jaye assumes that she must be mentally ill, and even ends up in therapy, and the people around her also believe that she is probably mentally ill. Ned, on the other hand, does not think he is mentally ill, and hides his ability, but has a select circle of friends who are aware of it, and think he’s just dandy. (Likewise, George in Dead Like Me has powers which bring her into the company of a limited group of people.)

In a lot of ways, Fuller explores ingroups and outgroups in his shows, even if they all have supernatural elements which might render them difficult for ordinary people to relate with. Social isolation and quirky behavior are the centerpieces of his shows, and I find it interesting that many of them share a slightly dreamlike, hyper-real quality ( in Pushing Daisies most of all). It’s also interesting to see that his superpowers don’t magically improve the lives of the people they settle on, and in fact make their lives quite difficult and contribute to depression and isolation. The mythology of his shows doesn’t take long to grasp (unlike, say, Whedon or Abrams), but it’s definitely not palatable to everyone. Rather than being set in a strictly fantasy or science fiction world, Fuller’s shows are squarely in the real world (or a version of it), and they feature unique individuals who break the boundaries of reality, rather than taking viewers outside of reality altogether.

I like that. It’s what makes me enjoy his shows despite their certain issues, of which fat hatred is probably the most notable. It’s interesting to me that both Wonderfalls and Pushing Daisies feature obsessions with food, and at least one episode in which the fat are denigrated and used as objects of mockery. Between that and the racism and sexism, it’s safe to say that Fuller is not progressive or even particularly enlightened, which raises the eternal question for me: can bad people make good things? Is enjoyment of good things tainted by the knowledge that the person who produced them is bad?

Queers for Economic justice has a story up on New York City’s attempt to commercialize the Stonewall Riots, and why that’s particularly offensive given the fact that the city just announced that it wouldn’t be funding shelters for queer homeless youth.

Fillyjonk over at Shapely Prose has a really great post up talking about the use of women’s bodies as symbols in art. Go read it. Seriously. Go.

Woo hoo! The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of a 13 year old girl protesting a strip search.

And, in other legal news, a federal appeals court just upheld a “partial birth” abortion ban in Virginia.

Wallabies in Tasmania have evidently developed a taste for opium. (And really, who can blame them?)

California’s budget crisis appears to be attracting more and more attention as the state flounders. Our situation is apparently every bit as delicious and appealing for public consumption as the fate of the auto companies, despite the fact that it involves almost 37 million people who are about to be in a very dire situation because of unwise decisions made by our legislators and governors.

The legislature is petulant that voters threw out a series of crappy ballot propositions in the most recent special election, and the media lectures us that passing those measures would have “solved” the budget crisis. Evidently no one in the media actually read said ballot propositions, or they would have clearly seen that they would have done absolutely nothing for us other than shuffling small amounts of money around in a tragic attempt to hide budgetary inefficiencies. And they were a vain and pathetic attempt by the legislature to try and pawn off their duties to balance the budget and make difficult choices in the process. They were, in short, a shell game.

All of our problems can be traced to 6 June, 1978, when almost 70% of registered voters in California turned out, and over two thirds of them voted yes on a little ballot proposition we know by the number 13. Prop 13, the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation,” effectively beggared the California government, and ensured that a budget blowup like the one we are currently enduring would eventually occur.

What brought about the passage of Prop 13?

Greed, pure and simple. California has been associated with a culture of greed for centuries, from the Spanish enslaving the Indians to work in the Missions to the Russians exploiting Northern California for its wood and furs. The Gold Rush, a seminal event in California history, is perhaps the most flagrant and widely-studied example of California’s greed, but this is a state in which people have been cheating, stealing, and flouting the law for everything from water to celebrity since we were a territory, and the successful passage of Prop 13 was a brilliant triumph for the forces of greed, and for California’s middle and upper class, which has been reaping the benefits ever since.

California is a peculiar state, because while it is widely perceived as “blue,” it’s actually quite conservative. Despite pushes in regions like San Francisco (good old San Francisco values), most Californians are conservative, and they were certainly pleased to see Prop 13 pass, because conservatives do hate taxation. But the liberal elite of California was equally pleased, because liberals have a contradictory craving for social services paired with a fervent desire to pay as few taxes as possible and to maintain the highest property values they possibly can, for personal benefit. Even as they scream for more funding for schools and health care, they viciously attack any attempts to raise taxes to pay for these services.

And this is why Prop 13 is the elephant in the room. The Republicans have absolutely no interest in bringing it up because they have no intention of repealing it, and Democrats have no intention of bringing it up…because they have no intention of repealing it. Yet, a repeal or radical adjustment of Prop 13 would solve California’s budget problems in one fell swoop.

It would also, of course, put an end to California’s wildly overinflated real estate market, which means that the people who profit from real estate here would no longer be able to claim such gross profits. But that also means that people like me, who were born and raised in California and have no realistic expectation of owning property, might be able to afford it. And isn’t property ownership supposed to be the American dream?

Fulfill the American dream, solve the budget crisis, and undoubtedly set up a very comfortable rainy day fund, all at once. Think about it.

Ears are evidently more important than we ever imagined.

This is kind of neat: evidently evolution progresses at a faster rate in warm climates.

In shocking news, most Americans want health reform.

Man, and I thought this was just a story on House: a physician famously diagnosed herself with breast cancer (and took her own biopsy!) at the South Pole in 1999 has unfortunately lost her battle with cancer.

Ergh. Female AIDS patients in Africa are being coerced into sterilization procedures.