![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Buffy Comics Redux....seen a smattering of postings on the topic from flist still. Apparently someone besides myself has finally seen the connection between Alan Moore's Watchmen and the Buffy comics and thinks that Whedon and Meltzer saw the movie and got it into their heads to do a Buffy meets the Watchmen by way of Promethea comic. Except, one little itty bitty thing? Alan Moore pulled it off, Whedon and Meltzer really haven't. Failed miserably in fact. Also, Twangel just doesn't make a very good Ozymandias, yes, I guess if you squint, you can see the similarities, both characters are vain, both are hot, and both are super-rich and sold out to corporate interests with the view they'd better mankind in the process or something like that. Also both appear to be rather immortal. And self-righteous and full of themselves. And give quaint little speechs about how we have elevated ourselves to a higher level, and who cares about the rest of mankind anyhow? But Angel, to be fair, did have the whole - I'm so guilty I can't bear it thing down, and a son. While OZ was just above it all. And obviously I don't care who I spoil on the comics any longer. ;-) Buffy on the other hand, I always preferred over Promethea. And really, a romance between Promethea and Ozymandias is just squicky.
Anywho...this is rather round about way of stating that I've come to the conclusion that television shows, novels, and movies do not translate very well into comic books. I think the reason is that we have in our heads what the people are supposed to look like and if the comic book artist doesn't render that well - it sort of is disorienting. Also, unlike novels, reading a comic book is a bit like reading a screenplay or teleplay, with pictures instead of actual directions. Sort of like reading a story-board, which is why comic books can translate into great movies and tv shows - because the story-board and script have already more or less been written. James Marsters and Sarah Michelle Gellar are forever embedded in our heads as Buffy and Spike. We hear their voices not the words the writers wrote. We hear the music. Star Trek had the same problem, as did Star Wars - I can't read those comics well either. Same deal with BSG - I see the characters as the actors portrayed them. Without the actors...something is missing. Oddly enough - it doesn't bother me all that much with fanfic or with Brian Lynch's Spike - but perhaps that's because they are less ambitious. Or better written? Or better drawn?
Let's face if something doesn't work for you - it isn't going to, no matter what anyone says.
2. Apparently the UK is forming a coalition government, while the US is struggling with increasingly polarizing partisian politics in a non-parlimentary, three branch system - where the whole point is to form coalitions. This is rather amusing.
We're the ones who came up with the whole working across party lines, coalition idea...and here we are polarized and unable to come to any understanding, while the UK who holds an election every time one party or the other is in a minority, is coming up with a coalition and working together. Hmmm, can I trade NY's corrupt government for London's??? I mean, we've both had hung governments, but you managed to resolve your issue in approximately two weeks, it took NY over six months to resolve our stand-still. (We had two Democratic Senators join the Republican Party in return for more power, which gave the Republicans more power in the NY State Senate. The Democratic Party who had been in power in the NY State Senate at the time, got upset, and locked the Republicans out of the legislature, because they still had the keys and could do this. (I am not kidding, they actually locked them out.) And when they were forced to let them back in, they marched out and refused to go to work, leaving the Senate without a quroum in which to vote. This went on for months. They did stop bickering long enough in order to give themselves a pay-raise, and their staffs a pay-raise. As a side note - the two Democratic Senators aren't with the Senate any longer, one got booted after he was charged and convicted of a felony for slashing his girlfriend across the face, even though she forgave him (god knows why), and the other is getting booted for illegal business dealings.) This year? While the UK's government took a 5% pay cut to help get their country back on track, our Governor made the news for giving his staffers a 10% raise while furloughing all the state workers (making they stay home one day a week without pay.) Gee, can I immigrate to the UK or at the very least, could you take Jay Walder (the old CFO of the London Mass Transit and now the new head of the NY MTA)
back? Please. We don't want him anymore. You can have David Patterson as a bonus. Heck, we'll pay you to take them off our hands.
3. Apparently not everyone is as upset with Arizona's new immigration law as we'd like to believe. 59% of Americans are actually for it. This does not surprise me. I've heard the rants at work. Too many to count. And they are to a degree understandable. People don't mind the idea of immigration. They just don't want to pay for people who aren't paying taxes, aren't contributing, particularly when their own taxes are going up, and there are so many Americans who are homeless, hungry, and out of jobs. Considering that our next door neighbor Canada won't let you get a job without proof of citzenship and other countries have similarly and often harsher dictates - one gal at work, who is from the Virgin Islands, ranted for twenty minutes about Sweden and how the US not only helps Swedes get jobs, sets up housing, and provides English classes, without requiring that they have a job first - Sweden wouldn't let her come to the country without proving she could speak Swedish, had a job already, and a place to stay. {ETC: I have no idea if the story about Sweden is factual or true today, the women is in her fifties and this happened when she was in her twenties and it was a rant, which means, half of what she said may not be true and just what she perceives to be the truth, huge difference. I wisely did not argue with her - because, well, it was a rant. If you think it is hard to argue with folks ranting online, just try it in person.) Australia was the same way - when my folks moved there back in 1990 (they didn't stay longer than 2 years, long story), they had to hang out somewhere else for a bit, until they could prove that my father had a job that would not deprive an Australian of a job, and that contributed constructively to the Australian economy. I know people who work in Immigration in the US and I've seen the laws - we aren't THAT strict. Granted we don't have National Healthcare either or as high a tax rate - but that's why. If we did, we would have to make sure that all our citizens were paying income tax and proof of citzenship. This is easier to do if you are an island complete in of yourself or small. The US, it's tricky. We got state borders, we got borders with Canada (and Canada's border police are harsher than the US, from what I've read), and we got borders with Mexico. Plus two oceans. A huge land mass. And multiple governmental entities - none of which agree. And a history of being a country open to immigrants. Sort of difficult to get harsh about this sort of thing - when your motto is give us your hungry, your desperate, your impoverished, striving to be free! Makes you look a bit like a hypocrite.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not in favor of Arizona's law. I think it is a gross infraction of human rights. Also will most likely lead to more crime, more racial profiling, more abuse, and corruption. The law makes it almost impossible for anyone working in unsavory or unjust conditions to cry for help, or for people who are enslaved, beaten, or abused to ask for help. And it makes it difficult for whistle blowers or folks who are seeking a safe haven. It's a cruel law passed by an individual who clearly has had a privileged life that she has taken for granted and needs to spend a few months in Juarez, Mexico building a wall in an impoverished community, while sleeping on the floor of a dusty church. As kids live in houses made of cardboard, and cheerfully help build the wall. But I do understand the thinking behind the law and where it comes from - folks who think they've had it rough, but really haven't. But I keep my trap shut about it at work or nod in agreement, in the hopes the rant won't last more than twenty minutes.
4. Newsweek has gotten themselves into a heap of trouble over a column by a gay writer named Ramin Setoodeh. The article was entitled "Straight Jacket" and the writer complained that it's distracting and a big pink elephant in the room when gay actors play straight roles. Gee, I wonder how he must have felt watching old Rock Hudson and Doris Day films, or for that matter any film with James Dean, Montgomery Clift, Richard Chamberlain, or Barbara Stanwyck. All of whom were gay. Although they didn't tend to say much about it back then. Apparently that's what this writer wants - he wants them to stay quiet about it, to keep it private. Because you know that's what straight people like Tom Hanks and Will Smith are doing. Funny, I don't remember anyone being distracted by Tom Hanks or Will Smith's heterosexuality when they played gay men in the films Philadelphia and Six Degrees of Separation. People are weird about this. I remember ten years ago, sitting at Library Conference with the head of Marketing at the company I was working for back then - this gal said that she couldn't handle Richard Chamberlin in love scenes after she found out he was gay. Before that point she thought he was hot. I looked at her as if she was nuts. Honestly, why's it matter? You aren't going to be dating the guy, even if he was straight. Plus he is playing a role. He is ACTING. Actors aren't into the people they are kissing on-screen or on-stage. Half the time they'd rather be kissing a pillow. Imagine being told to kiss that co-worker in the cubicule or office next to you, no not the cute one, the other one - and having to have it filmed, in front of twenty people, and you are naked. Alrighty then. Hardly sexy. Vivian Leigh hated Clark Gable - he had rotten teeth and bad breath and made her skin crawl - yet she was able to make us think that she loved him in Gone with the Wind. That's acting folks. I love what Mark Harris stated about this stupidity in EW:
For all its uptight grousing about who's queeny, and who isn't, the real ugliness of this argument is its suggestion that the very act of coming out is a kind of self-sabotage for which you need to atone by making sure you never again do anything that will remind anyone you're gay. On second thought, don't bother - if you've come out, it's already too late. We may not be past this kind of thinking yet, but we're getting there. Actors who come out aren't distracting except to those who are invested, for emotional or ideological reasons, in remaining distracted by them. But in 2010, if seeing a gay actor play a straight character is still so unsettling that it can our whole night, perhaps the fault lies not with our stars but with ourselves.
Anyone want to chip in and send a cartoon of Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, and James Dean DVDs to Ramin Setoodeh? (Joking, okay maybe not entirely.)
5. Another oddity that I stumbled upon during a lunch break at work, but didn't, thankfully, have much time to really investigate - the Wincon/SPN kerfuffle that took over a bit of the general fandom and found it's way onto Buffy fans posts on my flist. I caught smatterings of it, and folks - just so you know - vague allusions to fan kerfuffles are only clear to people who are actually reading the kerfuffle, the rest of us are sort of scratching our heads in bewilderment.
This brings up another question that I've been pondering of late, which really has zip to do with said kerfuffle - and this is, are you aware of who may be reading your post when you post on your lj? And by who may be reading - I mean the vast array of readers, not just the fifty people who you read and chat with. And if so, to what degree do you write with them in mind? Do you edit things that you think may piss them or someone off? Do you care? Do you forget they exist? Are you careful? Does it depend on mood? Is this even a question you can realistically answer?
(For myself? Most of the time. Yes, the vast array - which makes posting difficult, because I've got people reading me who basically fall across a wide spectrum of tastes, cultures, genders, politics, etc...as a result, while I do edit with their blood pressure in mind, often cut-tagging and warning them to stay away from posts that may make them nuts, I also tend to not worry too much over things - because otherwise I wouldn't be able to post about anything but well what I did each day and the weather - which isn't all that interesting to me, and I can't really post about work - since a) I'd get fired (and sorry no interest in that, blogging ain't worth the risk) and b)it is work and I don't want to dwell. So, am careful, but within reason, am polite, also within reason, does depend on mood, often screw up and misjudge/misread audience, and no, it's not a question I think anyone can realistically answer.)
Back to the kerfuffle - because I'm willing to bet there's someone out there reading this, thinking, kerfuffle? what kerfuffle? what the heck is Wincon? You hypocrite! Explain yourself. (OR maybe not. One never can tell, little Johnny may have died and then fell in the well...oops sorry, channeling my Granny there for a moment.)
Took me a while to figure out what the heck a Wincon was. I thought, silly me, that they'd misspelled Wiscon. But no, it's not Wiscon - that's the sci-fantasy academic conference that half my flist flies off to, once a year in Wisconsin. No, it is a Supernatural fan convention.
Then I had to figure out what the problem was - from the posts - I originally thought it was kerfuffle about the sexual consent issues in the Buffy comics. [By the way, is it just me or are we all incredibly obsessed with sex? And I mean obsessed. Probably just me. There were quite a few posts on my flist that were just talking about pets, work, kids, food, and the weather. Did I focus on those? No. I can hear about those things at work. ] But no, apparently it was about sexual consent issues at fan conventions. A specific fan convention - Wincon.
So, okay, what happened? This was a mystery for a bit - gleaning facts from kerfuffles is a bit like gleaning needles from haystacks. After a while - you can't tell the facts from the friction. (No that's not a misspelling, it's a play on words, aren't I punny tonight. Or maybe just brain dead.). That's the problem with the internet and the information revolution in general - figuring out what is true from what has either been grossly exaggerated, embellished, twisted for effect, made up, or confused with something else. We all do this, I do it, you do it, your best friend does it - okay maybe you don't do it. We misremember things. Not surprising, considering how much crap we are pushing into our heads on a daily basis and how little sleep we are getting to store it. Plus the multi-tasking. Ack. It's a wonder we can keep anything straight.
At any rate, I couldn't make heads or tails of the thing, until a friend sent me a link - which lead me to an actual summary of what did happen. [ETA: Okay actual might the wrong phrase - a summary of what happened based on the perception of the individual who started the whole thing to start with, and is probably now regretting saying anything at all and wishing she'd let it go, which happens a lot on the internet. Also from the comments, the woman who started the whole thing was so wasted during the actual events tha her memory of them is questionable at best. So getting the actual facts to what happened? Not as easy as you'd think.] According to the summary, which was provided by way of apology, by the individual who had more or less started the whole kerfuffle to begin with (the source is always the best place to start -[ETA: except when it is an unreliable source (sigh) - welcome to livejournal folks], we shall call her thex (because I can't remember her name and have no interest in hunting it down) - in 2008, a couple of women got very drunk. They were approached or accosted, not sure which, by a couple of men who attempted to coerce or persuade the two inebriated women into accompanying them to what amounted to an orgy in thex's room upstairs. [ETA: apparently the two men in question were thex's husband and a friend, which sort of puts a whole new twist on the issue - if it is actually true. Because, they can't exactly claim mere negligence in this, that's malicious intent. They intended to take two women to an orgy, that they were hosting, knowing full well the women were inebriated at the time and unable to make an informed consent.] A couple of good samaritans aka Wincon staffers noticed what the men were doing, and intervened, then they shut down the party and booted the party-holder and her husband for creating a potentially unsafe environment in the hotel.[ETA: the plot thickens, apparently they didn't shut down the party, because they didn't know it was actually an orgy, until two other women reported it to them. Apparently two women, not the two in the lobby, went to the party, caught an eyeful, got uncomfortable (don't blame them - I'd have been running for the exit), were blocked from leaving by a naked woman, moved the naked woman (hey could have been worse ladies, it could have been a naked man) and immediately reported the situation to the hotel and Wincon staffers. See comments for details. ]
When Thex applied to return to Wincon in 2009, the conference organizers turned down her application and refunded her money, stating she was not welcome. [Gee, I wonder why?] She got upset and ranted about these two inebriated women and the situation. Stating something to the effect that they obviously consented to joining in on the fun, and being drunk wasn't an excuse or something to that effect (I have no idea what the woman said, but whatever it was - it was enough to start what amounted to an internet flame war that crossed fandoms and is highly offensive to anyone, and I mean anyone, who has ever found themselves in a situation of this nature.) At any rate, in her apology, she states that she didn't know what was happening in the lobby, didn't know any men were doing that, and felt that she was being unjustly accused of something that she was not involved in. [ETA: According to the comments - She left out quite a few details in that apology, which are sort of major and were most likely the reason the staffers chose not to let her return. My guess is that she didn't know her husband accosted two women in the lobby, and only knew about the two women who actually came to the party and were made uncomfortable. That actually makes sense, if she was wasted the whole weekend and has very little memory of any of the events, let alone the orgy. And I seriously doubt her hubby told her about the women in the lobby. Or maybe he did, but she was too drunk at the time to remember it. ] At least that's how I read it - it was admittedly a quick read that I did at work, during my lunch hour, or for the fifteen minutes I gave myself to get my head off work and relax a bit - I'd have taken a walk, but no time.
I have not had the time to read all the links on this. There are quite a few. Nor
have I read all the arguments. Nor do I know all the facts - outside of this summary statement. So I may have gotten some of them wrong. [Apparently more than I thought.] It's hard to tell. That's the problem with these things, most of the commentary is from people who weren't there, didn't know the participants personally, and are commenting on what they think happened. And keep in mind - this happened two years ago. In 2008. That's a long time ago. Not recent. Which means the facts as they are, are fairly blurry. And we got a lot of subjective interpretation going on. Another thing, I love about the internet - how we scream at total strangers, people we've never met face to face, never seen, and never heard their voices - and therefore have no clue what they look like or who they really are or what they do. We assume things based on often a quick cursory reading of their post. I've lost count of the number of times, that I either humilated myself or someone got humilated by misreading something I wrote or I misread something they wrote. Add to that the number of languages people are speaking. Not everyone is fluent in English. Even if that's the language everyone appears to be posting in (although I've read French a few times on my flist, which I appreciate, since it is the only other language I can read - nice of people to choose that one to write in as opposed to Spainish or Chinese.) So misunderstanding do occur, and far more often than we'd like to admit. Add to this, we don't think the same or process information the same way. At any rate, it is not at all surprising that kerfuffles happen. It's surprising they don't happen more often. I guess we should pat ourselves on the back for that, eh?
My interpretation of the facts? As far as I can figure - a woman and her husband, who have stressful jobs [according to one comment they both have high-level security clearance - so work for the government? A lot of people have high-level security clearance, so it could be anything. Defense contracting comes to mind. OR the SEC - they recently discovered that 90% of the people working at the SEC had lots of porn videos on their computers and were spending quite a bit of time watching them, men and women.], were at a fan convention for Supernatural, and invited a few fans to their room for what amounted to a sex orgy. Without their knowledge, a couple of men (who may or may not have been guests) tried to coax a couple of drunk women to the party, in order to have sexual relations with these drunk women.[ETA: no, apparently the men involved were the host of the party and a friend of his.] Concerned staffers intervened and shut down the party - possibly to avoid further problems. Wise move both from a legal and humanitarian standpoint. Because thex would not have been sued, the hotel, convention organizers, and staffers would have been if anything had happened to those two women or anyone else on that property. [Actually, thex and her husband would have been sued in a counter-suit and possibly had charges filed against them. ] Thex doesn't see how she is responsible for what happened, nor apparently did a few other people, since she didn't tell the guys to do this, wasn't present at the time, and was just hosting a party in her rooms. [I guess whether or not she's responsible for her husband and friends actions, or her own while wasted, is another issue?] Except, from a legal standpoint - she is culpable - she provided the venue, was not checking to make sure only people who wanted to come and were capable of consent had done so, and was not providing a safe environment. She also did so, possibly (I'm not sure about this but from the Convention Organizers Reaction - I'm guessing it's true) without asking permission of the convention - where she was a guest.[I seriously doubt the convention would okay a full-out sexual orgy in a hotel room with liberal amounts of alcohol.] Her hotel room was not her private property, it was not her home. Can someone consent to sex if they are drunk or inebriated or on drugs? Not legally they can't. If you can't drive, you can't consent. One of the news magazine shows - had a clip on a "what would you do if you saw an inebriated (drunk) woman in a bar being coaxed or hit on by a guy who obviously wanted to advantage of her drunken state, would you interfer or allow it to happen?" A lot of people unfortunately looked the other way. The statement the clip made - was how horrible this action was. This by the way happens a lot in college, I lost count of how many girlfriends lost their virginity to a frat boy during a frat party, where they got drunk, ended up in his bed, with little memory of what had happened the night before - outside of blood on the sheets. Yes, it is a cliche - but a rather sad and disturbing one. It wasn't until months later, that they realized what had happened to them was most likely rape. But here's where it gets foggy, they went to the guy's room by themselves, they got drunk, they went to the party, and the guy was most likely drunk to. What thex did was the same thing that whomever was in charge of the frat party did - they enabled it to happen, they created an environment where people could and most likely would be made to feel "uncomfortable", be "assaulted", and/or "raped". That most likely was not their intent. My guess is like most people they didn't think beyond their own desire to have fun or a great time. The potential consequences of their actions never occurred to them. Being inherently selfish - they could not see past their own personal gratification. It was not deliberate, thex most likely did not mean to hurt anyone, she just didn't really think about anyone other than herself. She did not know the two girls in the lobby existed. It never occurred to her they could. She was oblivious. That is, until, it affected her, shut down her party, booted her out of the convention and prevented her from returning. Unfortunately, that does not mean she wasn't responsible - she was - she hosted the party. It was in her room. If those girls had been raped or killed, thex would have been held responsible along with the conference staffers, convention organizers, and hotel owners. As well as anyone else who enabled it to occur. We are, like it or not, responsible for the safety of those around us. We are not islands in of ourselves. And we pay dearly when we forget that as we should. That's what being part of a peaceful and safe society is all about. A lot of libertarians have a tendency to forget that.
Anywho...this is rather round about way of stating that I've come to the conclusion that television shows, novels, and movies do not translate very well into comic books. I think the reason is that we have in our heads what the people are supposed to look like and if the comic book artist doesn't render that well - it sort of is disorienting. Also, unlike novels, reading a comic book is a bit like reading a screenplay or teleplay, with pictures instead of actual directions. Sort of like reading a story-board, which is why comic books can translate into great movies and tv shows - because the story-board and script have already more or less been written. James Marsters and Sarah Michelle Gellar are forever embedded in our heads as Buffy and Spike. We hear their voices not the words the writers wrote. We hear the music. Star Trek had the same problem, as did Star Wars - I can't read those comics well either. Same deal with BSG - I see the characters as the actors portrayed them. Without the actors...something is missing. Oddly enough - it doesn't bother me all that much with fanfic or with Brian Lynch's Spike - but perhaps that's because they are less ambitious. Or better written? Or better drawn?
Let's face if something doesn't work for you - it isn't going to, no matter what anyone says.
2. Apparently the UK is forming a coalition government, while the US is struggling with increasingly polarizing partisian politics in a non-parlimentary, three branch system - where the whole point is to form coalitions. This is rather amusing.
We're the ones who came up with the whole working across party lines, coalition idea...and here we are polarized and unable to come to any understanding, while the UK who holds an election every time one party or the other is in a minority, is coming up with a coalition and working together. Hmmm, can I trade NY's corrupt government for London's??? I mean, we've both had hung governments, but you managed to resolve your issue in approximately two weeks, it took NY over six months to resolve our stand-still. (We had two Democratic Senators join the Republican Party in return for more power, which gave the Republicans more power in the NY State Senate. The Democratic Party who had been in power in the NY State Senate at the time, got upset, and locked the Republicans out of the legislature, because they still had the keys and could do this. (I am not kidding, they actually locked them out.) And when they were forced to let them back in, they marched out and refused to go to work, leaving the Senate without a quroum in which to vote. This went on for months. They did stop bickering long enough in order to give themselves a pay-raise, and their staffs a pay-raise. As a side note - the two Democratic Senators aren't with the Senate any longer, one got booted after he was charged and convicted of a felony for slashing his girlfriend across the face, even though she forgave him (god knows why), and the other is getting booted for illegal business dealings.) This year? While the UK's government took a 5% pay cut to help get their country back on track, our Governor made the news for giving his staffers a 10% raise while furloughing all the state workers (making they stay home one day a week without pay.) Gee, can I immigrate to the UK or at the very least, could you take Jay Walder (the old CFO of the London Mass Transit and now the new head of the NY MTA)
back? Please. We don't want him anymore. You can have David Patterson as a bonus. Heck, we'll pay you to take them off our hands.
3. Apparently not everyone is as upset with Arizona's new immigration law as we'd like to believe. 59% of Americans are actually for it. This does not surprise me. I've heard the rants at work. Too many to count. And they are to a degree understandable. People don't mind the idea of immigration. They just don't want to pay for people who aren't paying taxes, aren't contributing, particularly when their own taxes are going up, and there are so many Americans who are homeless, hungry, and out of jobs. Considering that our next door neighbor Canada won't let you get a job without proof of citzenship and other countries have similarly and often harsher dictates - one gal at work, who is from the Virgin Islands, ranted for twenty minutes about Sweden and how the US not only helps Swedes get jobs, sets up housing, and provides English classes, without requiring that they have a job first - Sweden wouldn't let her come to the country without proving she could speak Swedish, had a job already, and a place to stay. {ETC: I have no idea if the story about Sweden is factual or true today, the women is in her fifties and this happened when she was in her twenties and it was a rant, which means, half of what she said may not be true and just what she perceives to be the truth, huge difference. I wisely did not argue with her - because, well, it was a rant. If you think it is hard to argue with folks ranting online, just try it in person.) Australia was the same way - when my folks moved there back in 1990 (they didn't stay longer than 2 years, long story), they had to hang out somewhere else for a bit, until they could prove that my father had a job that would not deprive an Australian of a job, and that contributed constructively to the Australian economy. I know people who work in Immigration in the US and I've seen the laws - we aren't THAT strict. Granted we don't have National Healthcare either or as high a tax rate - but that's why. If we did, we would have to make sure that all our citizens were paying income tax and proof of citzenship. This is easier to do if you are an island complete in of yourself or small. The US, it's tricky. We got state borders, we got borders with Canada (and Canada's border police are harsher than the US, from what I've read), and we got borders with Mexico. Plus two oceans. A huge land mass. And multiple governmental entities - none of which agree. And a history of being a country open to immigrants. Sort of difficult to get harsh about this sort of thing - when your motto is give us your hungry, your desperate, your impoverished, striving to be free! Makes you look a bit like a hypocrite.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not in favor of Arizona's law. I think it is a gross infraction of human rights. Also will most likely lead to more crime, more racial profiling, more abuse, and corruption. The law makes it almost impossible for anyone working in unsavory or unjust conditions to cry for help, or for people who are enslaved, beaten, or abused to ask for help. And it makes it difficult for whistle blowers or folks who are seeking a safe haven. It's a cruel law passed by an individual who clearly has had a privileged life that she has taken for granted and needs to spend a few months in Juarez, Mexico building a wall in an impoverished community, while sleeping on the floor of a dusty church. As kids live in houses made of cardboard, and cheerfully help build the wall. But I do understand the thinking behind the law and where it comes from - folks who think they've had it rough, but really haven't. But I keep my trap shut about it at work or nod in agreement, in the hopes the rant won't last more than twenty minutes.
4. Newsweek has gotten themselves into a heap of trouble over a column by a gay writer named Ramin Setoodeh. The article was entitled "Straight Jacket" and the writer complained that it's distracting and a big pink elephant in the room when gay actors play straight roles. Gee, I wonder how he must have felt watching old Rock Hudson and Doris Day films, or for that matter any film with James Dean, Montgomery Clift, Richard Chamberlain, or Barbara Stanwyck. All of whom were gay. Although they didn't tend to say much about it back then. Apparently that's what this writer wants - he wants them to stay quiet about it, to keep it private. Because you know that's what straight people like Tom Hanks and Will Smith are doing. Funny, I don't remember anyone being distracted by Tom Hanks or Will Smith's heterosexuality when they played gay men in the films Philadelphia and Six Degrees of Separation. People are weird about this. I remember ten years ago, sitting at Library Conference with the head of Marketing at the company I was working for back then - this gal said that she couldn't handle Richard Chamberlin in love scenes after she found out he was gay. Before that point she thought he was hot. I looked at her as if she was nuts. Honestly, why's it matter? You aren't going to be dating the guy, even if he was straight. Plus he is playing a role. He is ACTING. Actors aren't into the people they are kissing on-screen or on-stage. Half the time they'd rather be kissing a pillow. Imagine being told to kiss that co-worker in the cubicule or office next to you, no not the cute one, the other one - and having to have it filmed, in front of twenty people, and you are naked. Alrighty then. Hardly sexy. Vivian Leigh hated Clark Gable - he had rotten teeth and bad breath and made her skin crawl - yet she was able to make us think that she loved him in Gone with the Wind. That's acting folks. I love what Mark Harris stated about this stupidity in EW:
For all its uptight grousing about who's queeny, and who isn't, the real ugliness of this argument is its suggestion that the very act of coming out is a kind of self-sabotage for which you need to atone by making sure you never again do anything that will remind anyone you're gay. On second thought, don't bother - if you've come out, it's already too late. We may not be past this kind of thinking yet, but we're getting there. Actors who come out aren't distracting except to those who are invested, for emotional or ideological reasons, in remaining distracted by them. But in 2010, if seeing a gay actor play a straight character is still so unsettling that it can our whole night, perhaps the fault lies not with our stars but with ourselves.
Anyone want to chip in and send a cartoon of Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, and James Dean DVDs to Ramin Setoodeh? (Joking, okay maybe not entirely.)
5. Another oddity that I stumbled upon during a lunch break at work, but didn't, thankfully, have much time to really investigate - the Wincon/SPN kerfuffle that took over a bit of the general fandom and found it's way onto Buffy fans posts on my flist. I caught smatterings of it, and folks - just so you know - vague allusions to fan kerfuffles are only clear to people who are actually reading the kerfuffle, the rest of us are sort of scratching our heads in bewilderment.
This brings up another question that I've been pondering of late, which really has zip to do with said kerfuffle - and this is, are you aware of who may be reading your post when you post on your lj? And by who may be reading - I mean the vast array of readers, not just the fifty people who you read and chat with. And if so, to what degree do you write with them in mind? Do you edit things that you think may piss them or someone off? Do you care? Do you forget they exist? Are you careful? Does it depend on mood? Is this even a question you can realistically answer?
(For myself? Most of the time. Yes, the vast array - which makes posting difficult, because I've got people reading me who basically fall across a wide spectrum of tastes, cultures, genders, politics, etc...as a result, while I do edit with their blood pressure in mind, often cut-tagging and warning them to stay away from posts that may make them nuts, I also tend to not worry too much over things - because otherwise I wouldn't be able to post about anything but well what I did each day and the weather - which isn't all that interesting to me, and I can't really post about work - since a) I'd get fired (and sorry no interest in that, blogging ain't worth the risk) and b)it is work and I don't want to dwell. So, am careful, but within reason, am polite, also within reason, does depend on mood, often screw up and misjudge/misread audience, and no, it's not a question I think anyone can realistically answer.)
Back to the kerfuffle - because I'm willing to bet there's someone out there reading this, thinking, kerfuffle? what kerfuffle? what the heck is Wincon? You hypocrite! Explain yourself. (OR maybe not. One never can tell, little Johnny may have died and then fell in the well...oops sorry, channeling my Granny there for a moment.)
Took me a while to figure out what the heck a Wincon was. I thought, silly me, that they'd misspelled Wiscon. But no, it's not Wiscon - that's the sci-fantasy academic conference that half my flist flies off to, once a year in Wisconsin. No, it is a Supernatural fan convention.
Then I had to figure out what the problem was - from the posts - I originally thought it was kerfuffle about the sexual consent issues in the Buffy comics. [By the way, is it just me or are we all incredibly obsessed with sex? And I mean obsessed. Probably just me. There were quite a few posts on my flist that were just talking about pets, work, kids, food, and the weather. Did I focus on those? No. I can hear about those things at work. ] But no, apparently it was about sexual consent issues at fan conventions. A specific fan convention - Wincon.
So, okay, what happened? This was a mystery for a bit - gleaning facts from kerfuffles is a bit like gleaning needles from haystacks. After a while - you can't tell the facts from the friction. (No that's not a misspelling, it's a play on words, aren't I punny tonight. Or maybe just brain dead.). That's the problem with the internet and the information revolution in general - figuring out what is true from what has either been grossly exaggerated, embellished, twisted for effect, made up, or confused with something else. We all do this, I do it, you do it, your best friend does it - okay maybe you don't do it. We misremember things. Not surprising, considering how much crap we are pushing into our heads on a daily basis and how little sleep we are getting to store it. Plus the multi-tasking. Ack. It's a wonder we can keep anything straight.
At any rate, I couldn't make heads or tails of the thing, until a friend sent me a link - which lead me to an actual summary of what did happen. [ETA: Okay actual might the wrong phrase - a summary of what happened based on the perception of the individual who started the whole thing to start with, and is probably now regretting saying anything at all and wishing she'd let it go, which happens a lot on the internet. Also from the comments, the woman who started the whole thing was so wasted during the actual events tha her memory of them is questionable at best. So getting the actual facts to what happened? Not as easy as you'd think.] According to the summary, which was provided by way of apology, by the individual who had more or less started the whole kerfuffle to begin with (the source is always the best place to start -[ETA: except when it is an unreliable source (sigh) - welcome to livejournal folks], we shall call her thex (because I can't remember her name and have no interest in hunting it down) - in 2008, a couple of women got very drunk. They were approached or accosted, not sure which, by a couple of men who attempted to coerce or persuade the two inebriated women into accompanying them to what amounted to an orgy in thex's room upstairs. [ETA: apparently the two men in question were thex's husband and a friend, which sort of puts a whole new twist on the issue - if it is actually true. Because, they can't exactly claim mere negligence in this, that's malicious intent. They intended to take two women to an orgy, that they were hosting, knowing full well the women were inebriated at the time and unable to make an informed consent.] A couple of good samaritans aka Wincon staffers noticed what the men were doing, and intervened, then they shut down the party and booted the party-holder and her husband for creating a potentially unsafe environment in the hotel.[ETA: the plot thickens, apparently they didn't shut down the party, because they didn't know it was actually an orgy, until two other women reported it to them. Apparently two women, not the two in the lobby, went to the party, caught an eyeful, got uncomfortable (don't blame them - I'd have been running for the exit), were blocked from leaving by a naked woman, moved the naked woman (hey could have been worse ladies, it could have been a naked man) and immediately reported the situation to the hotel and Wincon staffers. See comments for details. ]
When Thex applied to return to Wincon in 2009, the conference organizers turned down her application and refunded her money, stating she was not welcome. [Gee, I wonder why?] She got upset and ranted about these two inebriated women and the situation. Stating something to the effect that they obviously consented to joining in on the fun, and being drunk wasn't an excuse or something to that effect (I have no idea what the woman said, but whatever it was - it was enough to start what amounted to an internet flame war that crossed fandoms and is highly offensive to anyone, and I mean anyone, who has ever found themselves in a situation of this nature.) At any rate, in her apology, she states that she didn't know what was happening in the lobby, didn't know any men were doing that, and felt that she was being unjustly accused of something that she was not involved in. [ETA: According to the comments - She left out quite a few details in that apology, which are sort of major and were most likely the reason the staffers chose not to let her return. My guess is that she didn't know her husband accosted two women in the lobby, and only knew about the two women who actually came to the party and were made uncomfortable. That actually makes sense, if she was wasted the whole weekend and has very little memory of any of the events, let alone the orgy. And I seriously doubt her hubby told her about the women in the lobby. Or maybe he did, but she was too drunk at the time to remember it. ] At least that's how I read it - it was admittedly a quick read that I did at work, during my lunch hour, or for the fifteen minutes I gave myself to get my head off work and relax a bit - I'd have taken a walk, but no time.
I have not had the time to read all the links on this. There are quite a few. Nor
have I read all the arguments. Nor do I know all the facts - outside of this summary statement. So I may have gotten some of them wrong. [Apparently more than I thought.] It's hard to tell. That's the problem with these things, most of the commentary is from people who weren't there, didn't know the participants personally, and are commenting on what they think happened. And keep in mind - this happened two years ago. In 2008. That's a long time ago. Not recent. Which means the facts as they are, are fairly blurry. And we got a lot of subjective interpretation going on. Another thing, I love about the internet - how we scream at total strangers, people we've never met face to face, never seen, and never heard their voices - and therefore have no clue what they look like or who they really are or what they do. We assume things based on often a quick cursory reading of their post. I've lost count of the number of times, that I either humilated myself or someone got humilated by misreading something I wrote or I misread something they wrote. Add to that the number of languages people are speaking. Not everyone is fluent in English. Even if that's the language everyone appears to be posting in (although I've read French a few times on my flist, which I appreciate, since it is the only other language I can read - nice of people to choose that one to write in as opposed to Spainish or Chinese.) So misunderstanding do occur, and far more often than we'd like to admit. Add to this, we don't think the same or process information the same way. At any rate, it is not at all surprising that kerfuffles happen. It's surprising they don't happen more often. I guess we should pat ourselves on the back for that, eh?
My interpretation of the facts? As far as I can figure - a woman and her husband, who have stressful jobs [according to one comment they both have high-level security clearance - so work for the government? A lot of people have high-level security clearance, so it could be anything. Defense contracting comes to mind. OR the SEC - they recently discovered that 90% of the people working at the SEC had lots of porn videos on their computers and were spending quite a bit of time watching them, men and women.], were at a fan convention for Supernatural, and invited a few fans to their room for what amounted to a sex orgy. Without their knowledge, a couple of men (who may or may not have been guests) tried to coax a couple of drunk women to the party, in order to have sexual relations with these drunk women.[ETA: no, apparently the men involved were the host of the party and a friend of his.] Concerned staffers intervened and shut down the party - possibly to avoid further problems. Wise move both from a legal and humanitarian standpoint. Because thex would not have been sued, the hotel, convention organizers, and staffers would have been if anything had happened to those two women or anyone else on that property. [Actually, thex and her husband would have been sued in a counter-suit and possibly had charges filed against them. ] Thex doesn't see how she is responsible for what happened, nor apparently did a few other people, since she didn't tell the guys to do this, wasn't present at the time, and was just hosting a party in her rooms. [I guess whether or not she's responsible for her husband and friends actions, or her own while wasted, is another issue?] Except, from a legal standpoint - she is culpable - she provided the venue, was not checking to make sure only people who wanted to come and were capable of consent had done so, and was not providing a safe environment. She also did so, possibly (I'm not sure about this but from the Convention Organizers Reaction - I'm guessing it's true) without asking permission of the convention - where she was a guest.[I seriously doubt the convention would okay a full-out sexual orgy in a hotel room with liberal amounts of alcohol.] Her hotel room was not her private property, it was not her home. Can someone consent to sex if they are drunk or inebriated or on drugs? Not legally they can't. If you can't drive, you can't consent. One of the news magazine shows - had a clip on a "what would you do if you saw an inebriated (drunk) woman in a bar being coaxed or hit on by a guy who obviously wanted to advantage of her drunken state, would you interfer or allow it to happen?" A lot of people unfortunately looked the other way. The statement the clip made - was how horrible this action was. This by the way happens a lot in college, I lost count of how many girlfriends lost their virginity to a frat boy during a frat party, where they got drunk, ended up in his bed, with little memory of what had happened the night before - outside of blood on the sheets. Yes, it is a cliche - but a rather sad and disturbing one. It wasn't until months later, that they realized what had happened to them was most likely rape. But here's where it gets foggy, they went to the guy's room by themselves, they got drunk, they went to the party, and the guy was most likely drunk to. What thex did was the same thing that whomever was in charge of the frat party did - they enabled it to happen, they created an environment where people could and most likely would be made to feel "uncomfortable", be "assaulted", and/or "raped". That most likely was not their intent. My guess is like most people they didn't think beyond their own desire to have fun or a great time. The potential consequences of their actions never occurred to them. Being inherently selfish - they could not see past their own personal gratification. It was not deliberate, thex most likely did not mean to hurt anyone, she just didn't really think about anyone other than herself. She did not know the two girls in the lobby existed. It never occurred to her they could. She was oblivious. That is, until, it affected her, shut down her party, booted her out of the convention and prevented her from returning. Unfortunately, that does not mean she wasn't responsible - she was - she hosted the party. It was in her room. If those girls had been raped or killed, thex would have been held responsible along with the conference staffers, convention organizers, and hotel owners. As well as anyone else who enabled it to occur. We are, like it or not, responsible for the safety of those around us. We are not islands in of ourselves. And we pay dearly when we forget that as we should. That's what being part of a peaceful and safe society is all about. A lot of libertarians have a tendency to forget that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 05:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 07:16 pm (UTC)Still not sure what to make of the whole thing - since there appears to be a lot of contradictory stories. How do we know which one is true? By the way? I always wanted to ask that question...whenever I read stuff like this. How do we know any of this happened? And that it's not just a story that's been embellished?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 04:41 am (UTC)But those assumptions are exactly the sort of thing that make it so difficult for victims of rape or sexual harassment to come forward and tell someone what happened to the. And that's what this whole kerfuffle was about. If the default assumption in this society is "But they could be lying, so let's not take them seriously" then nothing will ever change.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 12:29 am (UTC)And I'm sorry, but the last time I checked we live in a society in which you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The information that has been provided to me to date - is hearsay, from third parties who were not at the convention and do not know the parties involved. So I can't determine from this what happened. My guess? Is that while no one was actually raped, there was a potential for rape and the Wincon organizers were justified in shutting the party down and throwing the hosts out of the con and making it clear they would not be welcomed back. That was within their rights and they were correct to do that. But again, I am not in a position to judge what happened here since I was not there and do not know the people involved.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 06:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 08:44 pm (UTC)The second situation - is two women who chose to go to the party and got more than they bargained. What I don't know is : A) how much they knew about the party ahead of time. B)Why they chose to go to it. c)What condition they were in at the time they went. D) if they had been invited or were crashing out of curiousity.
The answers to those four questions are crucial to understanding the responsibilities of the people involved. An orgy in of itself isn't illegal or horrible. It's only a bad thing if you are coercing or persuading or tricking people into coming, who do not know it is an orgy, do not know what is happening, and have not consented to be involved with it. If the women knew it was an orgy when they entered?
Then hello, what were you expecting? If they did not know it was an orgy and thought it was just a cocktail hour, with drinks and hors-doevres, then...yes, they had reason to be upset. Particularly if the hosts told them it was merely a gathering of friends.
I'm guessing it was most likely the latter? At any rate, this whole thing reminds me a great deal of frat parties in college. I remember a fraternity house getting kicked off campus, and 50% of the members being
suspended, when 10 of the members reported to authorities that the frat had not only been dealing LSD to other students, but putting LSD and ecstasy in the punch, without telling any of the party-goers. (ie. People did not know they were ingesting ecstasy and/or LSD when they drank the punch.) People did this a lot in college - because they thought it was funny, and it was a good way to get a girl in the sack. Sick. Very sick people. Veronica Mars actually covered this situation rather well in it's third and second seasons.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 08:01 am (UTC)From what I can garner, I believe this was the case.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 01:03 am (UTC)In any event, if what you relate above is true? I'm glad the Wincon organizers threw Thex out and did not permit her to return. To do otherwise would have set a bad precedent.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 07:50 am (UTC)FTR, this person has no idea what she's talking about. Possibly, she's talking about Switzerland.
ETA: That came across a little harsh, sorry. Just woken up. But while I wouldn't presume to know all the challenges faced by immigrants in my own country, I do know that at least one of those statements (the language one, which was the cause of a huge political shitstorm a few years ago) is simply Not True. And I'm sort of confused about the first part - it's not like there's a huge influx of poor Swedish immigrants (who cannot speak English) to the US now. 150 years ago, yeah.
Sorry. End rant. I watched the Watchmen movie again yesterday, and yeah, when you're looking for them the parallels really are obvious. That doesn't mean that having one set of characters in one 'verse play out a storyline written for a completely different set of characters in a completely different 'verse is necessarily a good idea. But on the plus side, it's made me want to re-read Vonnegut's Mother Night.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 07:52 pm (UTC)Anyhow, I'll give more information on the rant. I know it was Sweden.
The co-worker who was ranting is a black woman from the US Virigin Islands, who is in her fifties. She was a student at the time that she wanted to move to Sweden and study for a couple of years, and around 21 or thereabouts. She's currently in her early 50's. So that would place the events she was ranting about in the late 1960s/early 1970s or thereabouts. I'm guessing 1970s.
She worked with US Immigration in the 1980s or 1990s. And was heavily involved with Swedish immigrants (well not really immigrants, mostly kids wanting to work and study in the US for a couple of years after high-school - apparently that's a hot thing to do in Europe.). A lot of Swedes come here at the age of 20 or thereabouts - and work for software and internet companies, as well as design companies. I've met quite a few.
Anyhow, according to her "rant" and it was a "rant". (sigh). Sweden wouldn't let her study and work in their country for two years like she wanted to. Note - she wasn't visiting the country or really immigrating to it, she just wanted to basically go there, find a job, see the sights, study and work in Sweden for two years - since she had friends and family from Sweden. Also it would be a good way to learn the language, which she had a passing understanding of. Apparently it was rather traumatizing, because she is still upset about it, over twenty years later, that she wasn't permitted to go to Sweden and play around - while students from Sweden can come to the US without already having a job in place and without knowing the language fluently and would be set up with a job and English classes. (Now, I have no idea if any of this is actually true and isn't just her interpretation of what happened. I'm guessing from what you've stated? Most likely the later. Which is good to know.)
How did this happen? Oh, I was attempting to defend socialism and national health care - and brought up Sweden as being an example of how it works. And...got an earful on the horrible Swedish Immigration Policies and of course Sweden can do these things because unlike the US, they don't let anyone else in, so they aren't supporting all these people who don't pay income taxes, heck they won't even let people come who are willing to pay income taxes...etc, etc. (I've since learned not to discuss health care and politics with people at work. Far less headache inducing. I was relating the story - to attempt to explain the anti-immigration attitude in the US and how many Americans perceive other countries policies on immigration.)
I watched the Watchmen movie again yesterday, and yeah, when you're looking for them the parallels really are obvious. That doesn't mean that having one set of characters in one 'verse play out a storyline written for a completely different set of characters in a completely different 'verse is necessarily a good idea.
Oh the whole speech Twangel makes in Issue 35 is right out of the Watchmen comics - even the scenery.
Agreed. Pushing the Buffy characters into the Watchmen plot line/verse does not work. The Angel characters...maybe? Since Angel was at least trying to be a noir series. But no, you are correct, this was not a good idea.
But on the plus side, it's made me want to re-read Vonnegut's Mother Night.
Hee. I need to read that book. The only two Vonnegut's I've read are Cat's Cradle and Welcome to the Monkeyhouse (at least I think that was a Vonnegut.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 11:38 pm (UTC)And Vonnegut was amazing, one of my all-time favourites (yes, Monkeyhouse is one of his short story collections). I'd very much recommend reading more of his - Mother Night isn't one of his very best, but it's quite good and deals with the Twangel storyline a lot better than Whedon is currently doing. And obviously, everyone should read Slaughterhouse-Five at some point.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 08:01 pm (UTC)But, I think the reason there are a lot of people in support of it, is also fear, fear of losing their jobs, fear of paying higher taxes, fear that they will have to support the illegals (although I can't see how that will happen), and misinformation. In most cases it is just plain old misinformation.
Same thing happened in Kansas. There's a book out entitled "What's The Matter With Kansas" - it's about how the Rich Conservative Right Wing Party won over the libertarian working poor Kansans. Pretty much through folks like Rush Limbaugh and misinformation.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-16 06:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 12:42 pm (UTC)1. I'm thinking I'll avoid discussing BtVS until the next comic comes out... or even until next Fall when Joss starts in on them again....
2. I don't really understand all the ramifications of UK politics or NY politics for that matter! lol
3. I find it very hard to believe that 59% of the US population are that xenophobic, and/or are willing to be harassed by the police their own selves... I know that Fox Cable news have tried to make illegal aliens the reason for all of the US problems, but I think Fox also floats manipulative polls asking leading questions that give false results supporting their insano positions...
or maybe I just live in an increasing insane society? THAT thought scares me more than millions of illegal aliens does.
4. Maybe Ramin Setoodeh agrees with Sue Sylvester:
I think the self hatred of some Gays is tragic, and I have to say that Bebe Neuwirth has real chemistry with Nathan Lane in 'The Addams Family'. lol
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 08:20 pm (UTC)That makes two of us. Although I made so many horrid typos in the post above, I'm surprised you could make heads or tails of it. Wish I didn't have to understand the ramifications of NY Politics, but alas, my job is unfortunately affected by them.
3. I find it very hard to believe that 59% of the US population are that xenophobic, and/or are willing to be harassed by the police their own selves... I know that Fox Cable news have tried to make illegal aliens the reason for all of the US problems, but I think Fox also floats manipulative polls asking leading questions that give false results supporting their insano positions...
I'm not sure xenophobic is the right word. The rants I heard at work really weren't about immigration, they were about paying for the healthcare, feeding, and employment of illegal immigrants with our tax dollars, while the illegals aren't paying anything. Everyone at work has no problem with immigrants (considering 85% of them are actual immigrants, often first generation, this makes sense), their problem is with illegal immigrants - who aren't paying taxes, aren't learning English, and aren't contributing to our society and instead making us pay their way. My co-workers feel that we should be supporting people who have retired after putting lots of money into income tax and are struggling to find health insurance because they lost their 401K or
lost their savings, or Americans who lost jobs and are living on the streets, and not supporting illegal immigrants who don't and never have paid taxes. They have a point. And it is a major problem. A lot of employers are hiring illegals to avoid paying benefits and at cheaper rates - which does deprive people who are legal immigrants and Americans of similar jobs. So the reaction isn't against foreigners and it isn't racism per se, it's more an anger towards people who are living here and not paying taxes like the rest of us. As one co-worker stated - I don't care if they immigrate here or not, the more the merrier, I just want them to pay taxes and become Americans or get a green card and pay taxes.
That's all.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I wish it was. But I know a little about immigration - and it's not a matter of - oh, I'll apply to be a US Citizen, take a test, and voila! You have to get sponsership. Also green card? Same deal - a company has to sponser you. People tend to think it's simple - you just apply and voila! I'm a citizen. Doesn't work that way. It's complicated and time-consuming, and hard.
4. I think the self-hatred of some Gays is tragic and I have to say that Bebe Neuwirth has real chemistry with Nathan Lane in The Addams Family.
What did you think about Scean Hayes in Promises, Promises? That's what the article was about apparently. And agreed. The self-hatred unfortunately is a by-product of our society. As is the self-hatred of many women, and many people who are or can be considered over-weight.
We buy what the media and our friends and family and acquaintances tell us - far too often. Instead of questioning it. I think.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 10:02 pm (UTC)#4: REALLY? I had no idea that Sean Hayes might be Gay, I know he played one on 'Will and Grace' but he appeared totally straight when he played Jerry Lewis.... So when I saw Promises, Promises I didn't think of him as Gay at all... I thought he was bringing a really wonderful Dick Van Dyke kind of lively slapstick charm to the role. He is a brilliant comic, and I totally think he deserves the best actor Tony for that performance.
#5: Yeah, I did skip that... the only thing ickier than the shenanigans of drunken people at conventions is the self righteous condemnation of those who weren't even there and don't really know what happened. But I agree that online kerfuffles are always entertaining.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 12:58 am (UTC)Also, if an illegal did have a fake social, they wouldn't use it to pay income taxes. That's a bit like declaring to the government - hey look, here I am. Nor would the company they are working for declare them.
The reason many rich people hire illegals as nannies and help is they don't have to declare them on income tax forms or register them - saves them money. Also if they lay them off - they don't have to pay unemployment taxes. So win - win. (Of course if the government catches them at it - they do have to pay a hefty fine and may be sent to jail. But that's the risk you take.)
In short, yes you can be hard working, but that doesn't mean you necessarily pay taxes. From their perspective - they have no choice and don't have the money anyhow. They are often making far below minimum wage (since they have no rights, being illegal), working in piss-poor conditions, as little more than indentured servants and no benefits. While those who employ them state - well, they are better off here, working for us than in their own country starving, we're giving them food and shelter. All parties justify their actions and don't see that they are doing anything wrong. From their perspective - they are being victimized by the government.
4. Yep, Scean Hayes has been OUT apparently for quite some time. I think it was during Will & Grace. The article was complaining about Scean Hayes' status as a gay man being too "distracting" and that he shouldn't have come out or rather not been cast in a heterosexual role. The other actor the writer of the article was whining about was Josh Groff - who plays Rachel's hot and smug heterosexual boyfriend Jesse on Glee - and happens to be gay in real life.
5. True. And normally I'd agree. But in this case, the drunken shenagians involved are disturbingly similar to something that happened in the 1980s and 1990s, and continues to happen in certain areas of the armed forces as well as college campuses. I think it was the late 1980s, can't quite remember when, but the air force got themselves in a lot of trouble and a huge sexual harrassment case - where they were hosting drunken orgies, coercing drunken female cadets to private rooms with male officers who would proceed to sexually molest, degrade, and possibly rape them. It had been going on for quite some time. The kerfuffle regarding the Wincon conference was about a similar event or an event that is reminiscent of that one.
The difficulty with the kerfuffle is it is hard to tell what the facts are, since most of the people have not given real names and are speaking second or third-hand or anonymously about it. Also it's about something that happened over two years ago. At the moment I can't tell if they are bunch of talking dogs from planet neptune. ;-)