"Synecdoche" usually applies to a single thing taken to represent a larger class of things. I'm going to stretch that definition a bit. We all know that celebrities and other public figures come to represent much more than just another person who happens to have an exceptional talent or two. We start to associate them with positive or negative traits or attitudes. We can even invest them with representation of aspects of our own personalities and our most deeply-held beliefs. We get invested in their perfection. We idolize them. They become objects, representing things much bigger than they are as individuals.
And then they let us down, by proving that they are not representations, but people. And that sets the hook of shenpa, defined here as the thing that fuels our knee-jerk responses, the goad that drives us along well-worn paths of anger, fear, and hopelessness.
The Assange mess is the latest enactment of these two difficult concepts colliding and feeding each other. Public figures carry so much of our needs and dreams, that a threat to one of them can feel like a threat to our selves. And if the offense committed by a hero is large enough, wrong enough, frightening enough, we can turn instead on the accusers--a last-ditch attempt to deny the cracks in the shell of our heroes, who contain our beliefs, pieces of our selves.
Sady Doyle of TigerBeatdown found a way to take her anger and emotional triggers and convert them to meaningful action. #Mooreandme made her and its other supporters targets of the anger of the betrayed. But she stayed with it. She stayed awake through fear and anger and desperation. She didn't hide what she was doing and why, and as she faced first stonewalling, then contempt in return, she continued to examine not only the actions of those she was facing, but her own assumptions and reactions.
"And then he came down."
Sometimes the trap is sprung and we escape it anyway. Some days it works.
23 December 2010
20 December 2010
More About What I Said I Didn't Want to Talk About
The one part of the Assange affair that I keep coming back to is the idea that what he is accused of is sort of "bizarrely rape" because "Swedish laws are so strict and weird."
"That wouldn't be rape anywhere else," argue (some of) his supporters. "Not in America or the U.K. or Australia. The Swedes are just messed up about sex."
To clarify: I'm talking about the allegations that Assange's accuser said she didn't want to have sex unless a condom was used, and that he then penetrated her without one; and that he penetrated her while she was asleep.
It is true that Sweden has more specific laws on this topic than other countries do. That doesn't mean they're wrong, however.
I've been thinking about this, and it all came up again because of the Naomi Wolf/Jaclyn Friedman debate, which I haven't had a chance to read all the way through (I'm sort of putting it off, to tell you the truth).
And then Thomas, over at Yes Means Yes, said it way better.
Sex being okay under certain conditions and not under other conditions -- that's normal. That's acceptable. That's why you can decide to break up with someone -- they used to be meeting conditions that they are now no longer meeting! So you can choose to stop sleeping with them! Until/unless they meet those conditions again! (Or you can decide that you never will, because they never will.)
All human interaction, really, is about setting conditions. Sometimes, you are very close with someone, or have a long history, or close ties, and your conditions are minimal, and basic. (You still have them, though, yes, you do. Even if they're just, I will interact with this person as long as they are not violently stabbing me while I do it.) Other times, you have specific relationships that are formed for specific periods, specific reasons, and with specific goals and specific sacrifices in mind. And when someone else isn't meeting those goals, or making those sacrifices, and forces you to do things that were not in your criteria -- that's a boundary violation. That's unacceptable. And when they violate specifically stated boundaries around sex -- that's rape.
Anyway. That is what I have to say about that.
In future-blogging news, I finally found the outlines for some essays I want to write about entertainment, and what I think about it, and how other people, who do it for a living, could do it better. So I believe that January will be my Entertainment Month, as in, I will try to write four semi-serious, sort-of-thought-out essays in a row on media and entertainment. So stay tuned for that. Over the next couple of weeks my blogging may be sporadic, as I have holiday commitments.
May your own holidays be cheery and bright and less stressful than you hope.
"That wouldn't be rape anywhere else," argue (some of) his supporters. "Not in America or the U.K. or Australia. The Swedes are just messed up about sex."
To clarify: I'm talking about the allegations that Assange's accuser said she didn't want to have sex unless a condom was used, and that he then penetrated her without one; and that he penetrated her while she was asleep.
It is true that Sweden has more specific laws on this topic than other countries do. That doesn't mean they're wrong, however.
I've been thinking about this, and it all came up again because of the Naomi Wolf/Jaclyn Friedman debate, which I haven't had a chance to read all the way through (I'm sort of putting it off, to tell you the truth).
And then Thomas, over at Yes Means Yes, said it way better.
Sex being okay under certain conditions and not under other conditions -- that's normal. That's acceptable. That's why you can decide to break up with someone -- they used to be meeting conditions that they are now no longer meeting! So you can choose to stop sleeping with them! Until/unless they meet those conditions again! (Or you can decide that you never will, because they never will.)
All human interaction, really, is about setting conditions. Sometimes, you are very close with someone, or have a long history, or close ties, and your conditions are minimal, and basic. (You still have them, though, yes, you do. Even if they're just, I will interact with this person as long as they are not violently stabbing me while I do it.) Other times, you have specific relationships that are formed for specific periods, specific reasons, and with specific goals and specific sacrifices in mind. And when someone else isn't meeting those goals, or making those sacrifices, and forces you to do things that were not in your criteria -- that's a boundary violation. That's unacceptable. And when they violate specifically stated boundaries around sex -- that's rape.
Anyway. That is what I have to say about that.
In future-blogging news, I finally found the outlines for some essays I want to write about entertainment, and what I think about it, and how other people, who do it for a living, could do it better. So I believe that January will be my Entertainment Month, as in, I will try to write four semi-serious, sort-of-thought-out essays in a row on media and entertainment. So stay tuned for that. Over the next couple of weeks my blogging may be sporadic, as I have holiday commitments.
May your own holidays be cheery and bright and less stressful than you hope.
19 December 2010
Tony Porter is fabulous
Sorry about the lateness of this; thought I'd sorted it to post on Friday but clearly not. (I was otherwise engaged with family drama)
It's not the best of all posts, but it really makes me happy to watch this. After the ragefulness of the last couple of weeks, this guy gets it. He gets it in an articulate way that everyone can respond to!
Don't know that these things embed, but go ahead and click!
So There's This Kerfluffle? In the Internets? Maybe You've Heard About It.
I don't want to talk about the mess surrounding Julian Assange and the rape charges against him. I never met the man. I never read Wikileaks. I have no idea, really, what kind of person he is or what he does in his spare time, though I've heard enough to where if I ever met him I would make sure not to be alone with him.
I'm still examining my own beliefs about who has the "right" to do what -- though obviously, obviously everyone has the human right to not be raped --, and what I think about his alleged actions, and his accusers' alleged actions, and his defenders' alleged actions. I don't actually have the information I need to begin to understand what "really" happened. (I don't know of a place I could really get this information, either; everyone seems to be calling everyone else a liar.) I know that even being as neutral as I am -- I don't think true neutrality is possible -- is a choice, and that a lot of people on both sides see this choice of neutrality as a betrayal. I think my line wouldn't please anyone; my line doesn't please me and it will probably move. It is a betrayal, maybe; civil rights and human rights shouldn't be negotiated and compromised and there isn't a lot of space for neutrality on them.
I'm not going to rattle on and make my very confused feelings about this into a whole post. I think that would be a betrayal. This isn't about me. But I'm also not ignoring it.
There seem to be so many reasons why this case is a Bad Example, and we should be fighting over a Good Example, if we want to fight rape culture. (In a lot of ways, the Roman Polanski case was a Good Example; it certainly seems far less ambiguous.) Maybe, though, a bad example is the best kind of example. I know it's pointed out a lot of my own prejudices to me.
I do want to point you somewhere, to people with more bravery and more conviction than I have right now. Some very, very, brave women are taking a stand on Twitter, and making this case an example, and using its publicity to fight rape culture. You should read about what they're doing here, but please, count this as a trigger warning. The link goes to the first blog post explaining the protest; a lot has happened since then that you can read about on the same blog. The protest has been going on for four days now. The latest posts and updates are especially powerful, and therefore get an especially strong trigger warning.
There are a bunch of ways to get involved in that protest, whether you're on Twitter or not; some of them -- and some supporting arguments for the protest -- are here, and there's a trigger warning on that too.
I don't know what Assange did or did not do. I can't imagine anyone accusing him for fun. I know that rape culture is more pervasive than I can describe, and that any ideas I have about Assange will be colored by it. I'm trying to figure out what that coloring is doing to me.
What's it doing to you?
I'm still examining my own beliefs about who has the "right" to do what -- though obviously, obviously everyone has the human right to not be raped --, and what I think about his alleged actions, and his accusers' alleged actions, and his defenders' alleged actions. I don't actually have the information I need to begin to understand what "really" happened. (I don't know of a place I could really get this information, either; everyone seems to be calling everyone else a liar.) I know that even being as neutral as I am -- I don't think true neutrality is possible -- is a choice, and that a lot of people on both sides see this choice of neutrality as a betrayal. I think my line wouldn't please anyone; my line doesn't please me and it will probably move. It is a betrayal, maybe; civil rights and human rights shouldn't be negotiated and compromised and there isn't a lot of space for neutrality on them.
I'm not going to rattle on and make my very confused feelings about this into a whole post. I think that would be a betrayal. This isn't about me. But I'm also not ignoring it.
There seem to be so many reasons why this case is a Bad Example, and we should be fighting over a Good Example, if we want to fight rape culture. (In a lot of ways, the Roman Polanski case was a Good Example; it certainly seems far less ambiguous.) Maybe, though, a bad example is the best kind of example. I know it's pointed out a lot of my own prejudices to me.
I do want to point you somewhere, to people with more bravery and more conviction than I have right now. Some very, very, brave women are taking a stand on Twitter, and making this case an example, and using its publicity to fight rape culture. You should read about what they're doing here, but please, count this as a trigger warning. The link goes to the first blog post explaining the protest; a lot has happened since then that you can read about on the same blog. The protest has been going on for four days now. The latest posts and updates are especially powerful, and therefore get an especially strong trigger warning.
There are a bunch of ways to get involved in that protest, whether you're on Twitter or not; some of them -- and some supporting arguments for the protest -- are here, and there's a trigger warning on that too.
I don't know what Assange did or did not do. I can't imagine anyone accusing him for fun. I know that rape culture is more pervasive than I can describe, and that any ideas I have about Assange will be colored by it. I'm trying to figure out what that coloring is doing to me.
What's it doing to you?
14 December 2010
Linky link: Gender Bias Bingo!
Fun and infuriating.
This is part of a UC Hastings Law project doing research into gender bias in the workplace. I'm listening to Joan Williams, one of the heads of the project, talking on NPR's Forum right now. (OK, actually yesterday morning, but I might have gotten so excited I accidentally originally posted this on the wrong damn blog. Maybe. Because I'm smooooooooth like that.) Her book, Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter is on order for me through interlibrary loan as of this morning. Watch this space for my review.
This is part of a UC Hastings Law project doing research into gender bias in the workplace. I'm listening to Joan Williams, one of the heads of the project, talking on NPR's Forum right now. (OK, actually yesterday morning, but I might have gotten so excited I accidentally originally posted this on the wrong damn blog. Maybe. Because I'm smooooooooth like that.) Her book, Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter is on order for me through interlibrary loan as of this morning. Watch this space for my review.
13 December 2010
Read This Not That: Feminist Young Adult Retellings of Cinderella
Read THIS:
Not THAT:
The fairy tale of Cinderella is apparently a compelling one for YA novelists. I sort of get that. I think a lot of women find the idea of rising out of a mundane, chore-filled existence and becoming beautiful and high-ranking at sought-after to be kind of compelling. (I do. Where do I sign up to quit doing mundane chores?) But the original tale of Cinderella is not feminist, not even in a sort of PC feminist-lite, non-progressive but non-offensive kind of way. Think about it. Evil stepmother. Life of drudgery. Pretty pretty princess moment. Love at first sight. Shoe shopping. (Yeah, I went there.)
And of course, everyone knows that story. So you want to write a YA novel, you want to jazz it up a little but keep it familiar, maybe include a more empowering message. Well, maybe you don't. But these ladies do.
Both books are retellings of Cinderella, and they're both intended for the 12-15 age group. Life of kitchen drudgery makes an appearance, so do glass shoes, so do evil(-ish) stepmothers. Princes are wed. (Spoiler!) Both writers also put in feminist story elements, sending their heroines on quests and giving them goals. (Ever notice how in the original fairy tale, Cinderella is less adventurous even than Snow White? You have to work hard to be less adventurous than Snow White.) Now, full disclosure, I read Ella Enchanted lo these many years ago, back when I was in the target demographic. And I read Bella at Midnight last week. So maybe I've edged out a little bit, but Ella is still a comfort book for me and I'm always looking for new comfort books. And I really feel that Bella didn't live up to its potential.
Ella sticks much closer to the original fairy tale in its structure. Ella's father is a wealthy merchant, and the story picks up when her mother dies, when Ella is in her early teens. Ella is eventually saddled with an evil stepmother who makes her do chores, and she does eventually go to a ball, wear glass shoes, dance with a prince, etc. What sets Ella apart is her curse: at the beginning of the book, Ella as a baby is cursed with obedience. She must always obey a command. This ends up working delightfully. She can be adventurous, go on quests, and yet has a compelling reason (in the literal sense that her reason is a compulsion) to stay at home and do chores for her stepmother. She meets the prince long before the balls, but cannot act on her feelings toward him lest she put her country in danger. She can be a traditional Cinderella, and yet be likable, yet have a goal that has to do with living up to her potential, not pleasing boys.
Bella, on the other hand -- God, Twilight has ruined that name for me -- is under no similar compulsion. She is actually raised by a foster family of commoners, and so when her father sends for her upon his remarriage, she is accustomed to the kitchen and spends her time there out of choice rather than necessity. Stanley gets a few points with me for giving the background on the "evil" stepmother, who has understandable if unfortunate reasons for disliking her stepdaughter. Bella too goes on a quest, to warn her particular prince of imminent danger. She's forced to show some initiative, and yet she does it in the most docile way imaginable. (She does get an interesting honor at the end, one which is traditionally masculine and which Ella does not. It isn't quite enough to balance.)
For in the end, it comes down to their characterizations. Ella, saddled with obedience her whole life, is naturally rebellious. She is full of mettle and humor. Bella, by contrast, is much more traditionally feminine (though she does at one point assume a masculine disguise, something Ella never tries). She's sweet, and dear. Her family is always doing things for her, because she brings them so much joy. She's friendly and honest and never seems to lose her temper. All her habits are good ones. It's impossible to dislike her -- but next to Ella she's faded and uninteresting. I know exactly why Char falls for Ella and so does he. Julian seems to fall for Bella because... well, she's just so sweet, what else can he do? (He is impressed with her heroic act at the end. But he's already fallen for her before she performs it. Char also falls for Ella all unawares of her heroism, which takes a subtler form, but it has nothing to do with her sweetness.)
In pure storytelling, Ella also wins; it presents a coherent world full of different races (elves, gnomes, ogres, giants) and lets its heroine move about freely therein. Bella is full of false starts and plot strings that don't seem to lead anywhere -- Bella has a talent? for making people feel better? by listening to them? I'm not sure, because it was mentioned once on page 127 and then never brought up again. It also mentions God and His Will every few pages. As an atheist/agnostic/shut up it's none of your business, I am not the best person to judge as to whether a reference to God is appropriate. But I found it quite off-putting; the author seemed torn between how much of her kingdom is magical and imaginary and how much is actually based on Medieval Europe (where mentions of God would be expected). But Bella's act of heroism is almost religious, Ella's is personal.
Ella is a personal story -- one young woman, overcoming a handicap in both the short and the long term. Bella is the tale of an instrument -- a young woman who had just the right potential to fulfill just the right role. That role is unfortunately much less interesting to read about.
Not THAT:
The fairy tale of Cinderella is apparently a compelling one for YA novelists. I sort of get that. I think a lot of women find the idea of rising out of a mundane, chore-filled existence and becoming beautiful and high-ranking at sought-after to be kind of compelling. (I do. Where do I sign up to quit doing mundane chores?) But the original tale of Cinderella is not feminist, not even in a sort of PC feminist-lite, non-progressive but non-offensive kind of way. Think about it. Evil stepmother. Life of drudgery. Pretty pretty princess moment. Love at first sight. Shoe shopping. (Yeah, I went there.)
And of course, everyone knows that story. So you want to write a YA novel, you want to jazz it up a little but keep it familiar, maybe include a more empowering message. Well, maybe you don't. But these ladies do.
Both books are retellings of Cinderella, and they're both intended for the 12-15 age group. Life of kitchen drudgery makes an appearance, so do glass shoes, so do evil(-ish) stepmothers. Princes are wed. (Spoiler!) Both writers also put in feminist story elements, sending their heroines on quests and giving them goals. (Ever notice how in the original fairy tale, Cinderella is less adventurous even than Snow White? You have to work hard to be less adventurous than Snow White.) Now, full disclosure, I read Ella Enchanted lo these many years ago, back when I was in the target demographic. And I read Bella at Midnight last week. So maybe I've edged out a little bit, but Ella is still a comfort book for me and I'm always looking for new comfort books. And I really feel that Bella didn't live up to its potential.
Ella sticks much closer to the original fairy tale in its structure. Ella's father is a wealthy merchant, and the story picks up when her mother dies, when Ella is in her early teens. Ella is eventually saddled with an evil stepmother who makes her do chores, and she does eventually go to a ball, wear glass shoes, dance with a prince, etc. What sets Ella apart is her curse: at the beginning of the book, Ella as a baby is cursed with obedience. She must always obey a command. This ends up working delightfully. She can be adventurous, go on quests, and yet has a compelling reason (in the literal sense that her reason is a compulsion) to stay at home and do chores for her stepmother. She meets the prince long before the balls, but cannot act on her feelings toward him lest she put her country in danger. She can be a traditional Cinderella, and yet be likable, yet have a goal that has to do with living up to her potential, not pleasing boys.
Bella, on the other hand -- God, Twilight has ruined that name for me -- is under no similar compulsion. She is actually raised by a foster family of commoners, and so when her father sends for her upon his remarriage, she is accustomed to the kitchen and spends her time there out of choice rather than necessity. Stanley gets a few points with me for giving the background on the "evil" stepmother, who has understandable if unfortunate reasons for disliking her stepdaughter. Bella too goes on a quest, to warn her particular prince of imminent danger. She's forced to show some initiative, and yet she does it in the most docile way imaginable. (She does get an interesting honor at the end, one which is traditionally masculine and which Ella does not. It isn't quite enough to balance.)
For in the end, it comes down to their characterizations. Ella, saddled with obedience her whole life, is naturally rebellious. She is full of mettle and humor. Bella, by contrast, is much more traditionally feminine (though she does at one point assume a masculine disguise, something Ella never tries). She's sweet, and dear. Her family is always doing things for her, because she brings them so much joy. She's friendly and honest and never seems to lose her temper. All her habits are good ones. It's impossible to dislike her -- but next to Ella she's faded and uninteresting. I know exactly why Char falls for Ella and so does he. Julian seems to fall for Bella because... well, she's just so sweet, what else can he do? (He is impressed with her heroic act at the end. But he's already fallen for her before she performs it. Char also falls for Ella all unawares of her heroism, which takes a subtler form, but it has nothing to do with her sweetness.)
In pure storytelling, Ella also wins; it presents a coherent world full of different races (elves, gnomes, ogres, giants) and lets its heroine move about freely therein. Bella is full of false starts and plot strings that don't seem to lead anywhere -- Bella has a talent? for making people feel better? by listening to them? I'm not sure, because it was mentioned once on page 127 and then never brought up again. It also mentions God and His Will every few pages. As an atheist/agnostic/shut up it's none of your business, I am not the best person to judge as to whether a reference to God is appropriate. But I found it quite off-putting; the author seemed torn between how much of her kingdom is magical and imaginary and how much is actually based on Medieval Europe (where mentions of God would be expected). But Bella's act of heroism is almost religious, Ella's is personal.
Ella is a personal story -- one young woman, overcoming a handicap in both the short and the long term. Bella is the tale of an instrument -- a young woman who had just the right potential to fulfill just the right role. That role is unfortunately much less interesting to read about.
10 December 2010
Politicians letting us down...again.
Apologies for last week; I just plain forgot! I'm hopeless most of the time.
Today is another rant, albeit probably with fewer words. And as the majority of you are American, you may not be interested in this, (hell, MissMermaid may not be! It's been bashed about in the media a hell of a lot this week) but oh well.
My thought processes on the tuition fees scandal/protests are as such:
* It pisses me off beyond belief that the media today is focusing on the royal couple being caught up in the crossfire. Whilst it's a shame that Charles and Camilla did happen to be attacked briefly, they were not physically harmed. Probably shaken by the events, but no-one was beaten up.
*David Cameron's (and the head of police's) insistance that these protestors are nothing more than brainless thugs out to have a goo
d time are also annoying. Whilst it can't be pleasant for anyone in government to deal with, these students are not there to mindlessly wreck buildings just to have agood time. There is a legitimate anger behind these protests and, rather than possibly admitting that Clegg, the Lib Dems and Tories are all out for themselves when it comes to universities, and happy to lie about everything, they instead choose to point the finger. The young are being denied the same accessible (yeah, ok) education that we have had. A lot of people cannot afford £6-9000 a year-even if they don't have to pay it off straight away, they will still have to pay eventually. Had these been the fees facing me, I would not have gone.
*(As an aside, I do realise that Americans have it much worse with regards to fees; but the entire point of these protests is to prevent this kind of expense happening to us. I don't want to sound like a whinger, but I will risk it)
* POLICE BRUTALITY. Kettling (not letting out injured protesters within these kettles), attacking students with the authority on their side, etc etc. I'm sorry, what? That is not acceptable. Have we learned nothing from the G8 protests? Seriously, this is all kinds of disgusting.
*The fact that this brutality has been swept aside and the media is rather attacking the attack on the royal car. UM, SORRY, NO. Camilla and Charles, as I said, were not harmed. Some students have been pretty badly assaulted; where is the questioning of the police force? Where are the namecalls from Cameron about this? No? Colour me surprised.
*I will have to resort to the standard anger towards Nick Clegg here, as well as all the Lib Dems who went back on their word (Ed Davey, the MP of the constituency next to mine) and voted for this. The fact that Clegg courted the student vote, encouraged it, promised voters that there would be no broken promises on his part, etc-leads him to be a less than desirable deputy prime minister. (or human being? Haha, too personal) I do understand that their policy was unsustainable; however, hiding the fact that they'd scrapped it from the public was the biggest mistake they could make. I no longer trust them, nor do I wish to vote for them again. It's back to Green for me.
*The irony that both Cameron and Clegg repeatedly attacked Brown throughout the election, and yet he's the one (for me) who comes across as the classiest politician, throughout the election debacle and here. I've lost all faith in Nick Clegg, and David Cameron has all the respect he's ever had from me: none.
Excuse this post for all of its inadequacies in content; I'm just here to vent, yet again. I'm a very angry person, ok?
Today is another rant, albeit probably with fewer words. And as the majority of you are American, you may not be interested in this, (hell, MissMermaid may not be! It's been bashed about in the media a hell of a lot this week) but oh well.
My thought processes on the tuition fees scandal/protests are as such:
* It pisses me off beyond belief that the media today is focusing on the royal couple being caught up in the crossfire. Whilst it's a shame that Charles and Camilla did happen to be attacked briefly, they were not physically harmed. Probably shaken by the events, but no-one was beaten up.
*David Cameron's (and the head of police's) insistance that these protestors are nothing more than brainless thugs out to have a goo
d time are also annoying. Whilst it can't be pleasant for anyone in government to deal with, these students are not there to mindlessly wreck buildings just to have agood time. There is a legitimate anger behind these protests and, rather than possibly admitting that Clegg, the Lib Dems and Tories are all out for themselves when it comes to universities, and happy to lie about everything, they instead choose to point the finger. The young are being denied the same accessible (yeah, ok) education that we have had. A lot of people cannot afford £6-9000 a year-even if they don't have to pay it off straight away, they will still have to pay eventually. Had these been the fees facing me, I would not have gone.*(As an aside, I do realise that Americans have it much worse with regards to fees; but the entire point of these protests is to prevent this kind of expense happening to us. I don't want to sound like a whinger, but I will risk it)
* POLICE BRUTALITY. Kettling (not letting out injured protesters within these kettles), attacking students with the authority on their side, etc etc. I'm sorry, what? That is not acceptable. Have we learned nothing from the G8 protests? Seriously, this is all kinds of disgusting.
*The fact that this brutality has been swept aside and the media is rather attacking the attack on the royal car. UM, SORRY, NO. Camilla and Charles, as I said, were not harmed. Some students have been pretty badly assaulted; where is the questioning of the police force? Where are the namecalls from Cameron about this? No? Colour me surprised.
*I will have to resort to the standard anger towards Nick Clegg here, as well as all the Lib Dems who went back on their word (Ed Davey, the MP of the constituency next to mine) and voted for this. The fact that Clegg courted the student vote, encouraged it, promised voters that there would be no broken promises on his part, etc-leads him to be a less than desirable deputy prime minister. (or human being? Haha, too personal) I do understand that their policy was unsustainable; however, hiding the fact that they'd scrapped it from the public was the biggest mistake they could make. I no longer trust them, nor do I wish to vote for them again. It's back to Green for me.
*The irony that both Cameron and Clegg repeatedly attacked Brown throughout the election, and yet he's the one (for me) who comes across as the classiest politician, throughout the election debacle and here. I've lost all faith in Nick Clegg, and David Cameron has all the respect he's ever had from me: none.
Excuse this post for all of its inadequacies in content; I'm just here to vent, yet again. I'm a very angry person, ok?
09 December 2010
Reason Number 856 to Love Helen Mirren
Is HERE.
Oh, this makes me forgive you for your unfortunate performance as Phedre at the National. Which I never blamed you for, not really; the director of that piece was a hack of the highest hacky order. But anyway. You're relieved, I'm sure, to hear my opinions on this matter.
Oh, this makes me forgive you for your unfortunate performance as Phedre at the National. Which I never blamed you for, not really; the director of that piece was a hack of the highest hacky order. But anyway. You're relieved, I'm sure, to hear my opinions on this matter.
Happy to be here
I went to the mountain today. Yesterday's rains meant the walk was wet, at times my trail was a creek, and what's usually a trailside creek was a full-fledged river, with waterfalls everywhere I looked.
I told a friend that the mountain always makes me happy, that whenever I go there, I feel so lucky, it makes me laugh. I was speaking literally. I am so fortunate; to live in this beautiful place, to have the leisure and means to spend a day wandering in it. What else can I do but laugh when this joy is mine?
What are you thankful for today?
I told a friend that the mountain always makes me happy, that whenever I go there, I feel so lucky, it makes me laugh. I was speaking literally. I am so fortunate; to live in this beautiful place, to have the leisure and means to spend a day wandering in it. What else can I do but laugh when this joy is mine?
What are you thankful for today?
07 December 2010
Hallelujah Puts a Smile on my Face
Hello again everyone. Apologies for missing the last two weeks, things sort of imploded family/health-wise, and in my truly British way I dealt with it by burrowing my head in the sand and not communicating generally. Things are slowly getting better though, so hopefully I’ll stop doing a general disappearing act.
Last week I was shipped off to the snowy wilds of Norfolk for a week for work and ended up battling freak snowstorms (how does the rest of the world cope with snow? Certainly better than the British…) and spending a lot of time in a van with no heating. As a welcome home present a family member has given me a horrible throaty/fluey thing, and as my job depends on me shouting a lot at small children, I’m going to bed in the hope that 16 hour sleep will kick it into shape.
It seems that several Bluestockingers are having a tough time at the moment, so thought I would use my non-post to send a big, feminine, intellectual, cross country and trans-Atlantic hug to you all.
Also, I thought I’d share this. A genuinely impressive and heartwarming feat of Christmas cheer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE
You might have seen it already, but it certainly put a big smile on my face when a friend in Canada sent it to me. I could enter into a discussion about why people do flashmobs and how they developed as a type of performance art, but due to brain dissolving into a ball of mucus-like goo, instead I'm just going to point out that it makes me very happy that people take the time and effort to do things like this, and I hope it does you too.
Big hugs
Miss Mermaid X
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)