Why Does a President Need a Wife? →
For politicians in this country, family is not off limits—not really, at least. How can it be, when every time I go online I see a smiling Michelle Obama asking me to join her in supporting her husband, and Ann Romney is out deploying the first person plural? “Mitt and I have compassion for people that are struggling,” she said this spring.“That’s why we’re running.” Both of them are on Twitter, sidekicks if not running mates, with what must be approved and vetted tones and takes. It feels like voting for a Presidential candidate, in this country, means casting a vote for his marriage.
The reality across the Atlantic is different. Two weeks ago, François Hollande was sworn in as France’s new President. He and his companion, the veteran political journalist Valérie Trierweiler, are the first unmarried couple to reside in the Elysée Palace in its history. Trierweiler, whom Hollande calls “the love of my life,” has been married and divorced twice before, and plans to continue her work, if with a tilt away from politics. I fear that, in the United States, Trierweiler would be considered something of a loose woman—or just too complicated—and a man who tried to run for President while with her would face multi-million-dollar attacks for a lack of “family values.”
The French writer Laurent Binet followed the couple during the campaign for a book he is writing. “In France,” he told me, “we don’t consider it a crime to hide your private life: it’s even the meaning of the word ‘private.’”
Binet expects no backlash from French Catholics in response to this first First Couple “living in sin.” He points to the model of French laïcité—a state-sanctioned secularism forbidding religious involvement in government dealings, and vice versa—and stresses the Dreyfus-era guarantee that religions remain “in their place, which is to say in the private sphere,” he said.
“Manifestly, the fact of not being married did not prevent Hollande from being elected. It was never, throughout the entire campaign, raised as an issue.” He went on, “Hollande and Valérie Trierweiler have officially been a couple for five years. Seen from this angle, marriage would be only an administrative formality.”
A letter published in Le Monde celebrated the new “contours” Trierweiler brings to the role. The Lyonnais letter-writer invited her to “show respect to republican audacity, and do away with the old remnants of the ancien régime,” by demonstrating her understanding that the “corps amoureux” is of a private nature and should not blend into the “corps constitué” (the constitutional body), with its public essence. “It would be wholly beneficial for her, of course, and above all for democracy.”
Trierweiler has said publicly that she doesn’t expect Hollande to support her financially. He “isn’t the father of my children,” she stated, and that is not “my perception of life.” When Paris Match put Trierweiler’s image on a March cover, she tweeted, “What a shock to discover myself on the cover page of my own magazine,” and added, “Bravo to Paris Match for its sexism.”
This French “first girlfriend” met our own First Lady earlier this month, at the G8 summit. Trierweiler said that Mrs. Obama “was really one of the people who has most impressed me in all my life.” Admiring her charisma and force of presence, Trierweiler observed, “One would think she, herself, could have a political career.”
And yet Michelle Obama has had to suppress her career ambition to fulfill the ceremonial role. This is a woman who, after all, met her husband when assigned to supervise him on the job—Michelle mentored Barack as a summer associate at the Chicago law firm Sidley and Austin. She’s had to subsume herself into her husband’s brand identity, for the pursuit of popularity and poll numbers (his, if it bears saying).
[…]
Why must the President’s wife still be a wife above all? It is no longer a matter of looking like the rest of America. Women are doing better, economically, than ever: more women than men work in managerial and professional positions today (even if the glass ceiling keeps men in a strong majority in top executive positions), and more are enrolled in colleges and graduate schools. Unmarried, childless urban women in their twenties are out-earning men by eight per cent. Barely half of adults in the country are married (fifty-one per cent, as of last December), when the median age of first marriage is higher than it’s ever been (26.5 years old for women, 28.7 for men).
The Daily Mail published an article last week inquiring, “Is France’s new President about to pop the question and make his girlfriend Valerie Trierweiler an honest First Lady?” I asked Binet whether he thought Hollande and Trierweiler would decide to marry to smooth the diplomatic path. “No,” he told me. “If Valérie Trierweiler gets married, it will be because she wants to get married.”
Go Back to Where You Came From, episode 1
Six ordinary Australians agree to challenge their preconceived notions about refugees and asylum seekers by embarking on a confronting 25-day journey. Tracing in reverse the journeys that refugees have taken to reach Australia, they travel to some of the most dangerous and desperate corners of the world, with no idea what is in store for them along the way.
Deprived of their wallets, phones and passports, they board a leaky refugee boat, are rescued mid-ocean, experience immigration raids in Malaysia, live in a Kenyan refugee camp and visit slums in Jordan before ultimately making it to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq, protected by UN Peacekeepers and the US military.
**
A refugee is a person who is outside their country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted ‘social group’. Such a person may be referred to as an ‘asylum seeker’ until recognized by the state where she makes her claim.
It’s crazy to think that this is what my mum and her family went through. I’ve only had one conversation with her about her refugee experience and it was scary to listen to. Meanwhile my dad was on a helicopter or something, lol.
(Source: sbs.com.au)
Next week’s cover, up online now. Get the story from the artist who created it.
(Source: loudmouthradio, via wilwheaton)
And this is the true measure of how far we’ve come as a nation: in like five years, the prime talking point from Republicans about people who support gay marriage has gone from ‘It will destroy society via turtle-fucking’ to ‘Oh, of COURSE you’re for it! You’ll say anything popular to get re-elected!’
— JON STEWART, on criticism by Republicans that President Obama announced his support for marriage equality simply because he wants another term in office, on The Daily Show
(Source: inothernews, via wilwheaton)
Congratulations, North Carolina. Last night, you struck a decisive blow for loneliness. Tonight, as you go to sleep beside your heterosexual life mate, you can rest assured that all across your great state a gay man or a lesbian woman is crying themselves to sleep in solitude, and making your relationship stronger with every tear.
— Stephen Colbert
(Source: mynerdishowing)
(Source: tastefullyoffensive, via wilwheaton)
Gay on TV →
On “Glee” this spring, a transgender character named Unique is competing in a sing-off. On “Grey’s Anatomy,” Arizona and Callie are adjusting to married life, having been pronounced “wife and wife” last year.
On “Modern Family,” the nation’s most popular television show, Cameron and his partner Mitchell are trying to adopt a second child.
What’s missing? The outrage.
The cultural battlefield of television has changed markedly since the 1990s, when conservative groups and religious figures objected to Ellen DeGeneres coming out and “Will & Grace” coming on.
Today, it’s rare to hear a complaint about shows like “Modern Family” or the drama “Smash,” which has five openly gay characters, or the sitcom “Happy Endings,” which, against stereotype, has a husky and lazy gay male character.
[…]
At a time when gay rights are re-emerging as an election year issue — in part because of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s stated support for gay marriage on Sunday — activists and academics say that depictions of gay characters on television play a big role in making viewers more comfortable with their gay, lesbian and transgender neighbors.
“TV and movie representation matters,” said Edward Schiappa, a professor of communication studies at the University of Minnesota. In five separate studies, Mr. Schiappa and his colleagues have found that the presence of gay characters on television programs decreases prejudices among viewers of the programs. “These attitude changes are not huge — they don’t change bigots into saints. But they can snowball,” Mr. Schiappa said.
Mr. Biden apparently agrees. He said on Sunday that “Will & Grace,” which ran from 1998 to 2006, “probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far.”
When that sitcom began on NBC, it was seen as controversial. Several conservative groups claimed that it and shows like it would make homosexuality seem desirable.
Some groups said the same about “Ellen,” the ABC sitcom starring Ellen DeGeneres, who came out as a lesbian on the show and in real life in 1997. Ms. DeGeneres threatened to quit a year later when ABC preceded an “Ellen” episode that showed her jokingly kissing a friend with a message that warned, “Due to adult content, parental discretion is advised.”
That warning would not appear today, as complaints about gay characters on shows like “Modern Family” and “Glee” barely ever bubble to the surface.
[…]
While campaigns against shows with gay characters are now rare, the pressure on networks to include them has grown. There was a fan outcry, for example, when the gay couple on “Modern Family” did not kiss in the sitcom’s first season. The producers insisted that the wait was intentional, and the second season included a story line about Cameron’s disdain for public displays of affection, as well as many kisses between the characters.
In an interview Mr. Levitan, who used to be an anchorman in Madison, Wis., cited a newsroom saying: “Don’t tell me how this law is affecting two million people, show me one family that it’s affecting and it’ll be more powerful.”
[…]
Some producers say they have marveled at how fast the opinions of television viewers have changed, even as gay rights activists have marveled at how voters across the country have shifted on gay marriage.
“What this is about, really, is how far America has come, not how far television has come,” said Christopher Lloyd, a co-creator of “Modern Family.”
Shonda Rhimes, the “Grey’s Anatomy” producer, recalled having to “go to the mattresses with broadcast standards and practices” at ABC in 2006 to insist on preserving a steamy shower sequence with three female doctors. That sequence was just a fantasy in the mind of one of the male characters — but now six years later, in the show’s version of reality, two female doctors are married. “Nobody even blinked” at the relationship, Ms. Rhimes said.
The only outcry she recalled came when one of the doctors, Arizona, flirted with a man. “It was from lesbians who said, ‘How dare she sleep with a man!’”
Obama supports same-sex marriage
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
(Source: BBC)
Plain-packaging cigarette challenge in Australia's high court →
Four tobacco companies have launched a bid to stop the introduction of cigarette plain-packaging in Australia’s high court.
In a world first, Australia has legislated for cigarettes to be sold from this December in drab olive packs with large health warnings and no brand logos. Only company names will be permitted on packets, and then only in small, standard type.
The high court action is being watched closely around the world as a test case on plain packaging. The case, brought by British American Tobacco (BAT), Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International will claim the new laws are unconstitutional and mean the government will illegally acquire their intellectual property without compensation.
[…]
The government denies its legislation is unconstitutional and said it will “vigorously defend” the validity of plain packaging. When if filed its court submissions in early April, the government said plain packaging was a legitimate measure designed to “achieve the protection of public health”.
Very general run down. Basically for those of you not familiar with the situation. The catholic church had a mad amount of power in irish society, ran hospitals, schools, orphanages, basically everything bar the local pub. If your son became a priest it was a massive credit to your family and possibly even better than them becoming a doctor. The local priest(s) were royalty and treated as such.
A lot of abuse both physical and sexual happened at the hand of priests who held important roles in the society. It was basically hushed up, the child who was abused was ostracised because how could a priest do such a thing? Then the priest in question was transferred to a different diocese. The police were told to ‘lose’ the reports and nothing much was ever really done and people’s lives were ruined as a result.
Fast forward a few decades, more and more people start reporting sexual abuse as adults and are taken more seriously. In the mean time the catholic church and priests have lost a lot of credit. People call for an enquiry. It’s eventually done but not without serious pressure and objection (as seen in the video) from lawyers/barristers and the church itself. Most victims are trying to be made look like they’re after money and not justice for the atrocities.
Victims were eventually compensated to a degree, but the church had done irreparable damage to those poor people and to itself, in Ireland. The government in power at the time has also been thrown out.
I’m Irish and this makes me weep. For the past couple of years allegations about child sexual abuse within the catholic church has been huge. My mother was among those abused. She visited the priest who raped her repeatedly for five years and he said to her “I don’t remember you”. That’s what this man is saying in the video, that all those men and women who were physically, sexually and verbally abused in these institutions and even after church on a Sunday are being called Liars. Nobody wants money, I’ve never met someone who wants money, they just want justice. And the ENTIRE Catholic Church is trying to cover it up. Archbishops and priests along with the Vatican are refusing to come forward to the police with these allegations. Instead they are scooping the priests from one diocese to another somewhere in Ireland. The priests identity remains anonymous yet all those abused do not. Is this fair? Is this really fucking fair? I am so tired of people making excuses for the Church. How fucking dare they take the innocence of a child away. How dare they. And they speak about sin? And hell? And forgiveness? Why should they be forgiven? Why the fuck should they be forgiven by saying a couple of Hail Marys? When I found out about my mothers abuse I requested to stop studying religion in high school. I was exempt from it but was subjected to bullying because of it. I never told anyone my reason for it, though. So I was bullied for not participating in a religion that fucked up my mothers life? I guess this is just how people really are. Like I said, this country, this tragedy, these crimes against humanity make me weep. Even after 10 years of knowing, it doesn’t get easier.
Edit: Yesterday, an Irish radio presenter was asked to publicly apologise after making controversial comments criticising the Catholic Church. The entire country is in uproar. He shouldn’t have to apologise, the Catholic Church are the ones who should be apologising to the country, to the people.
The ever energetic, compellingly articulate, and staggeringly persuasive Russell Brand discusses the culture of celebrity and fame with Jeremy Paxman.
“Fame is seemingly accessible even when you live in areas where it’s miles and miles away from you.”
**
“Don’t you think, though, Jeremy, that art to some degree - if I may use that rather grandiose, little word - is about the personal and what other conduit experience have I got other than the personal? And, to tell you the truth, I maintain the intimate because there are countless feelings, thoughts and fears that aren’t shared in the pages.”
(Do you worry that it’s done something to you?)
“When I first became famous, Jonathan Ross said to me, “How are you coping with this?” And I sort of went, “Yeah…” but I must have looked all bruised and shattered like a man at the foothills of a mountain, staring up at the summit, and I said, “It’s a bit scary, isn’t it?” And he goes, “Yeah. You lose something and you never get it back.” And the thing to which he refers is of course that privacy, that sense of yourself, that ability to identify yourself with intimate things, to define your own narrative. Now I’ve become- there’s an extracted icon of me that’s used to splash over newspapers and used to represent what is convenient, again, for these narrative ideas. So it’s a huge compromise, it’s not what you think it’s going to be, if you are pursuing it for its own end, then that’s ridiculous. That’s ridiculous and unfulfilling. But if you have a deep love of singing, of dancing, of basket-weaving, then you should pursue that. But if you’re pursuing it because you think there might be some supplementary celebrity experience, then you are misinformed and you are due to experience great dissatisfaction.”
**
Paxman: “What we’ve been talking about is very, very, very interesting. It’s in this kind of terrain between the public validation and the internal validation of yourself. It’s the big issue of our time.”
Actual poster from the mid-50』s issued by Senator Joseph McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare and anti-communist witch hunt.
(Source: chrisbattleart, via amyscantstandlisas)
Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War →
April 20 is the counter-culture “holiday” on which lots and lots of people come together to advocate marijuana legalization (or just get high). Should drugs—especially marijuana—be legal? The answer is “yes.” Immediately. Without hesitation. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 seized in a civil asset forfeiture. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure. It’s high time to end prohibition. Even if you aren’t willing to go whole-hog and legalize all drugs, at the very least we should legalize marijuana.
For the sake of the argument, let’s go ahead and assume that everything you’ve heard about the dangers of drugs is completely true. That probably means that using drugs is a terrible idea. It doesn’t mean, however, that the drug war is a good idea.
Prohibition is a textbook example of a policy with negative unintended consequences…. The demand curve for drugs is extremely inelastic, meaning that people don’t change their drug consumption very much in response to changes in prices. Therefore, vigorous enforcement means higher prices and higher revenues for drug dealers. In fact, I’ll defer to Cowen and Tabarrok… for a discussion of the basic economic logic:
The more effective prohibition is at raising costs, the greater are drug industry revenues. So, more effective prohibition means that drug sellers have more money to buy guns, pay bribes, fund the dealers, and even research and develop new technologies in drug delivery (like crack cocaine). It’s hard to beat an enemy that gets stronger the more you strike against him or her.
People associate the drug trade with crime and violence; indeed, the newspapers occasionally feature stories about drug kingpins doing horrifying things to underlings and competitors. These aren’t caused by the drugs themselves but from the fact that they are illegal (which means the market is underground) and addictive (which means demanders aren’t very price sensitive).
Those same newspapers will also occasionally feature articles about how this or that major dealer has been taken down or about how this or that quantity of drugs was taken off the streets. Apparently we’re to take from this the idea that we’re going to “win” the war on drugs. Apparently. It’s alleged that this is only a step toward getting “Mister Big,” but even if the government gets “Mister Big,” it’s not going to matter. Apple didn’t disappear after Steve Jobs died. Getting “Mr. Big” won’t win the drug war. As I pointed out almost a year ago, economist and drug policy expert Jeffrey Miron estimates that we would have a lot less violence without a war on drugs.
At the recent Association of Private Enterprise Education conference, David Henderson from the Naval Postgraduate School pointed out the myriad ways in which government promises to make us safer in fact imperil our safety and security. The drug war is an obvious example: in the name of making us safer and protecting us from drugs, we are actually put in greater danger. Without meaning to, the drug warriors have turned American cities into war zones and eroded the very freedoms we hold dear.
Freedom of contract has been abridged in the name of keeping us “safe” from drugs. Private property is less secure because it can be seized if it is implicated in a drug crime (this also flushes the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” out the window). The drug war has been used as a pretext for clamping down on immigration. Not surprisingly, the drug war has turned some of our neighborhoods into war zones. We are warehousing productive young people in prisons at an alarming rate all in the name of a war that cannot be won.
Albert Einstein is reported to have said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By this definition, the drug war is insane. We are no safer, and we are certainly less free because of concerted efforts to wage war on drugs. It’s time to stop the insanity and end prohibition.
