Power Corrupts. Absolute Power...

Representatives of the One True Church, the Universal ('catholic') Church, raped, pillaged, and then covered it up. Women died. Children grew up suffering the trauma of abuse. And it mattered not to the leaders of this Church.

Vatican confirms report of sexual abuse and rape of nuns by priests in 23 countries.

23 Countries. That's not some "certain negative situation" that should be allowed to be swept under a rug. It's criminal. It's immoral. It's betrayal of the community of faith.

I try not to hold the acts of the Church against those who are members of it. You know, you don't get to choose what crimes others engage in in the name of your faith. The problem is, when you embrace the name Catholic, when you go to Mass and put your money in the poor box or the collection plate, you are supporting in word and deed the actions of your church.

If you disagree with the things this Church as done in the name of your faith, you must act. You must disavow. You must investigate. You must punish. You must make restitution. And as long as the leaders of the Catholic Church don't, how can any "good Catholic" continue to be a member of this Church at all?

How to Write Good Code

You know, after years as a software developer, trying to explain that it is impossible to accurately estimate development times (hence the building in of extremely large safety margins - how long do you guess this subtask will take? OK, multiply by 3, because the only thing you know is that you are wrong, dead wrong, in your guess, or that something else will be hideously buggy and take forever to get right), and how you can either do it fast, or do it right, when I could just have let XKCD do it for me.

Good Code

QOTD

QOTD: "Break thou in pieces and consume to ashes, Thou foul accursed minister of hell!"

Truer Words Were Never Spoken

If tech discussion was really about tech, it wouldn’t be sexist."

More women than men discuss sexism, and it is not because we find the topic more fun, entertaining, or enjoyable than men. It is because sexism gets in the way of our freedom. I blog about sexism in geek culture not because it’s my passion, but because it gets in the way of my passions.

Emphasis added.

I don't blog and care and argue about patriarchy and oppression and gender roles because I think it's fun. I do it because sexism is an obstacle in the way of a full and complete enjoyment of my life. If you had a thorn in your paw, wouldn't you bitch about it, too?

So, let's do this rather than make me eat cat food in my 70s

Budget baloney: Social Security isn't to blame for deficit. "In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight."

Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto.

Sounds good to me. Let's do it.

Lady Antebellum

OK. First, points for a name that requires some exposure to Latin to fully parse.
Second, points for winning 5 grammies! Well done, and congratulations!

Third, wow, that's a hell of a name with its racist connotations evoking slavery and an implicit yearning for the period when it was a common practice. I really have to ask how deliberate that was. Or was it just privilegedly thoughtless? Seriously? If the answer to "where'd the name come from" was "we just thought it'd be cool", I guarantee you the band members are all white. (Yep, just checked the band's website.)

*Sigh*

So, you should really just go read What Tami Said on this subject, because Tami is far more eloquent than I.

I wish to make one critical point - whenever you yearn for some feudal, antebellum, medieval, whatever-nostalgic-past - you always yearn to be at the top of it. Those from oppressed minorities, however, shall we say, have a much harder time with the necessary suspension of disbelief to imagine oneself in that position. Because one knows that the place of a member of such a group, in such a nostalgic, dreamy, racist, sexist, classist past, wouldn't be at the top, but the very bottom. Or dead in a field/ditch/shallow grave/Atlantic Ocean/etc.

Viva Free Egypt 11 Feb '11

Mubarak has stepped down as President, in what has, given the what can only be called minimal violence for a fricking REVOLUTION[*], been an absolutely stunning example of what (relatively) peaceful, unified insistence on their rights by a people can bring into the world. Congratulations, people of Egypt. That was self-determination in its purest form.



[*] To the families of the dead: that does not make your loss any less painful; I am truly sorry.

Life in the Patriarchy

Picture this conversation, if you can:

Guy: I loooove cake!

Girl: Not a big cake fan, myself. I prefer cookies. With M&Ms.

Guy: What?

Girl: I said I'm not a big cake fan.

Guy: What? But you have to love cake!

Girl: Huh?

Guy: What's wrong with you?

Girl: Nothing's wrong with me. I like cookies more than cake.

Guy: You can't love cookies more than cake. Trust me, you love cake. You have to love cake. Everybody loves cake. You need a perspective adjustment.

Girl: But I really like cookies.

Guy: But I love cake.

Girl: So, love your cake. And I'll love cookies.

Guy: I love cake, so you have to love cake, too.

Girl: I. Prefer. Cookies.

Guy: Prove it. What do you have against cake?

Girl: I don't have anything against cake. Cake is fine. You should love cake. I'm glad you love cake. I don't love cake.

Guy: Listen, I'm the man in this relationship and I love cake. That's just the way it is. You're going to have to live with it.

Girl: Fine! Love cake! Why do I have to love cake, too? Why is my preference automatically invalidated while yours isn't? Cookies! With M&Ms in them! Are great!

Guy: I know you really love cake. That's why you can't come up with a good argument against my cake.

Girl: *blink* *blink*

Guy: See? I'm right. I'm always right. You love cake. Told you.


In the radical feminist ending, she takes a flamethrower to him.

In the real world, he nags her endlessly until she agrees with him just to get him to shut up.

Missed this the first time around: "Don't Get Raped"

This is one of my new favorite blog posts on the subject, and I'm sharing it with you after missing it the first time around: "Don't Get Raped." Or, Everything Leads to Rape.

QOTD: "Rapists rape. Rapists raping lead to rape." Victims are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What To Do When You Realize Your Privilege Is Showing.

Step 1: Strike self on forehead.
Step 2: Say "Oh, crap!" (feel free to be creative here by substituting the term "crap" with another term such as "shit" or "fuck". NB: avoid terms that might be construed as having racist, sexist, or classist connotations, as you already know your privilege cluelessness. Keep it simple to avoid an iterative loop.)
Step 3: Say "I'm such an idiot for not seeing that before!"
(Optional steps 3B-3C may be initiated by member of relevant minority saying, "Well, that's because you're privileged and didn't have to think about it before." In which case, you may respond by saying, "augh! I know!")
Step 4: Say "Now I know better. I won't do that again."

Final step: KEEP THE PROMISE YOU MADE IN STEP 4. This requires you pay more attention to the oppression of people different than you. However, by noticing your privilege once, you've demonstrated you can do it again. So, practice.

(This public service announcement brought to you by a recent moment of recognizing my white privilege.)

I agree with every single word

The Sunday Morning Come to Jesus Moment on Second Amendment Solutions

Here’s the real question, what exactly do these people think “Second Amendment Solutions” are?

Seriously, when you talk about “taking back America,” when you talk about “taking our guns to Washington,” when you talk about “taking them out,” when you talk about “the blood of Patriots” and civil war what exactly are you talking about? When Chuck Norris talks about a “second Revolution” what exactly is he saying? When Sharron Angle talks about “Second Amendment remedies” what does she mean? When Joe Miller talks about the Second Amendment and then hires a security company made up of radical militiamen who talk of taking up arms against the US Government, hell, who have taken up arms against the government, what exactly does he mean? When Glenn Beck stands on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and talks about Second Amendment rights, when he invites the NRA onto his show to explain why Americans, each and every one, need access to fully automatic assault weapons and 30-round magazines, what are they getting at?

I’ll tell you what they mean.

They mean a women, a US Congresswomen, the wife of a US serviceman and astronaut, shot point blank through the head and lying in a puddle of her own blood.

That’s exactly what they mean.

Because that, my friends, is exactly what a “Second Amendment solution” looks like.

Read the whole thing.

Naomi Wolf Wants To Out Rape Survivors?

Julian Assange's sex-crime accusers deserve to be named The shielding of sex-crime accusers is a Victorian relic. Women are moral adults and should be treated as such.

Oh, Naomi, I think your use of the word "relic" is entirely misplaced. For relics are old and dead, and sexism, honor killings, and the vilification and hatred of women, are not.

1. Wolf asserts that the idea a woman is fragile and unable to withstand public scrutiny is a core reason for not naming sex-crime accusers back when women still wore corsets every day, but ignores the idea that a woman's 'honor' was considered so vital that she was perceived as, by being "sullied" through the crime committed against her, as having shamed her entire family in addition to herself.
2. Wolf asserts that not naming a sex-crime accuser makes the crime harder to prosecute. I'm not sure that it does, but if you accept that premise as true, the anonymity of the accuser is not the problem, nor the cure, but a symptom of a system that is unwilling to take sex crimes seriously. Endemic sexism and sweeping accusations under the rug will not go away by allowing accusers names to be published so that they can be vilified directly and by name as part of the process of a sexist system sweeping them and their accusations under the rug. The problem is the system, not whether the accuser's name is published.
3. In fact, publicizing an accuser's name will enable the prosecution to be swept under the rug through trying, judging, and executing the accuser in the aforementioned court of public opinion, by slut-shaming the woman, and thereby dismissing her and her accusations. Ergo, publishing her name doesn't improve the perceived situation, it just allows women to be disregarded in a particular way. Come, come, if there's anything the experience of being a woman subject to some sort of sexual assault has taught us, it's that no woman is safe from the rending claws of being judged a slut in the court of public opinion, or, having her assault treated dismissively ("oh, come on, it wasn't really *rape*"), or, incomprehensibly, both at once.
4. The examples Wolf gives are disingenuous - she conflates accusations within a private university and the military-sexist complex with a criminal case in state or federal court. How, when someone has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted, does not publishing the name of their alleged victim(s) stop that process from going forward? It's already going forward.
5. Not publishing the name of a victim protects their privacy and protects them from #3 listed above. It is the *accused* who has the right to see and cross-examine his accuser in a court of law (at least in the U.S.), not "everybody else."
6. Wolf says that publishing the names of rape victims helps show others that anyone can be raped. Disingenous again, as the class of persons most often victimized (women) know this already. We are taught it every day.
7. Wolf asks, "Can judicial decision-making be impartial when the accused is exposed to the glare of media scrutiny and attack by the US government, while his accusers remain hidden?" - her implicit answer is 'no', but how is it rectified by publishing his accusers' names? After all, can judicial decision-making be impartial when the accusers are exposed to the glare of media scrutiny and attack by the crushing weight of a patriarchal system, while the accused's 'honor' remains untouched? Or he's even considered, approvingly, as a 'stud'?
8. "It is no one's business whom a victim of sex crime has had sex with previously, or what she was wearing when attacked. Laws exist to protect women from such inquiries." And yet, still, she is judged. And vilified. And threatened. And treated like she is the criminal. Anonymity is not the cause of those behaviors.

The problem isn't that women should be treated like adults (moral or otherwise). The problem is that women aren't treated like, you know, men.

Honestly. What crap will I read next?

Don't Sit There and Pretend That You Had Nothing To Do With It

You purveyors of hate speech against liberals, you normalizers of violence against people for being a different political party than you. You made this possible. You incited this. You. You. You.

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot

Latest Developments in Arizona Shooting

ETA:

Political 'Vitriol' Cited in Arizona Shooting

Following Giffords Shooting, Sarah Palin's Crosshairs Website Quickly Scrubbed From Internet

Grijalva: Tea Party Must Look At Their Own Behavior

Such Mind-Blowing Hubris from the Religious Set

This is what I have to say to those who claim God will smite down California for letting two women get married:

If your god is truly infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful, how can you ever presume to know His Will? To suggest that God will strike down California with a mighty earthquake is appalling hubris, claiming that you know what God wants, thinks, truly desires. How dare anyone claim to be humble before their Lord and God and also claim to know His Mind with this clarity? How can an imperfect creation contain His Perfection?

The two concepts cannot be reconciled, and thus I say unto you who try to wield God's wroth as your own weapon: you lie. You lie vilely, and you betray your faith in the process. I pity you for your smallness.

Bye 2010, and Good Riddance

I was just reading Wil Wheaton's end of 2010 post, and happy that 2010 was a good year for him. It's funny how you feel you know someone you've never met, but Wil has that gift of being real, only online, and yet maintaining his privacy, and it's something I've admired about him for a long time.

But I wish 2010 had been a good year for me; I believe, overall, it hasn't. I have a day job, that's good. I quit working as a librarian (job #2), which was good (tired...too tired) and bad (money) and continued working as a professor in the fall (job #3). I like professoring. You always learn when you teach.

Basically, I struggled a lot to keep my head above water and it doesn't seem to have made any difference. Like large chunks of America, I'm pretty fucking depressed about the whole thing. From the bottom of this deep hole, 2011 doesn't look like it'll be any better.