7 things @ 11 o’clock (7.26)

1. Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of the best thing I ever did and of the best thing anybody ever did for me.

2. Jubilee. Jubilee. Jubilee.

3. The Rowan County (N.C.) Board of Commissioners has been rebuked by a U.S. District Court on account of their unconstitutional disagreeable animadversions.

Related: Anderson County, Tenn., has decided to put a sectarian religious statement on its courthouse. A local pastor, Steve McDonald, said it didn’t matter if this privileged one religion over others because of “majority rule.” McDonald is pastor of Calvary “Baptist” Church, but apparently that refers to the brand name of the staatskirche in his part of Tennessee and not to the form of Protestantism that practices believers’ baptism. McDonald’s logic is precisely the same as that of Mohamed Morsi, but it not compatible with anything describable as “Baptist.”

4. Again, the problem is not only that social conservatives oppose scientifically accurate sex education, but that social conservatives have never had scientifically accurate sex education.

5. “It is so disrespectful of women, and what’s really stunning about it is they don’t even realize, they don’t have a clue,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She’s talking about Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and Democratic San Diego Mayor Bob Filner. And she’s right: “If they need therapy, do it in private.” TBogg adds some appropriate (but NSFW) commentary.

6. It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it. “You guys are dancin’ to truth!”

7. Richard Beck on “Being Hopeful and Dogmatic“:

I think universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view of the afterlife that gives the Christian faith moral, biblical, intellectual and theological coherence. I’m dogmatic about that, about how universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view that makes sense when you really investigate the other options. In light of that, I’d say I’m more of a polemical universalist than a dogmatic universalist. I’m polemical in that I argue — strongly — that universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view that makes Christianity morally, biblically and theologically coherent and that all the other options — e.g., eternal conscious torment, conditionalism, and annihilationism — make Christianity morally, biblically and theologically incoherent (if not monstrous). I’ll argue that deep into the night and into the next day. That’s the polemical part. But being polemical — arguing the merits of your view against the weaknesses of alternative views — isn’t the same as being dogmatic. Because at the end of the day, do I know if any of this is really true? I don’t.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Sad thing is, even if that had been known prior to 9/11 the hagiographic “rally around the leader” effect might still have insulated Guiliani from the fallout over whose dimbulb idea it was to spend taxpayer money on their own personal bulletproof hotel room.

  • reynard61

    Thanks! It’s a favorite of mine too!

  • Steve

    It is tomorrow here in Australia, so happy anniversary to you the Vixen. I wish you both the best and many more years together.

  • Ross Thompson

    Oh, man. I’d forgotten about that.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    It really bugs me how consent and honesty have pretty much been non-issues in this scandal. It wasn’t until today that I even knew whether or not his latest sexting had been with a consenting partner because it never even occurred to the media that this might matter: either “sexting your wang to someone” is a permitted behavior, or it is a forbidden behavior, and whether or not the recipient wants it done doesn’t enter into it.

    Likewise, the talk about his wife has centered around the question “Is it even reasonable to expect monogomy any more?” as if our choices are “Sexting is cheating and cheating is forbidden therefore she has done wrong by staying with him” or “Sexting isn’t cheating therefore she is right to stay with him and would be wrong to leave him” or “Sexting is cheating but cheating should not be forbidden therefore she is right to stay with him” — no sense of “How she feels about it is relevent to whether or not it is right for him to sext other women.”

    Personally, the most i’d say about Weiner is that he’s demonstrated that his process for making career-affecting decisions is sufficiently flawed that he is a poor candidate for a position that requires one to make important decisions under duress.

    And all that said, the thing I most happens as the fallout of this is that “There’s a picture of your private parts on the internet” proves an infeasible basis on which to exclude a person from public society, because we’re going to hit a tipping point before too long where it won’t be practical to bar anyone with a naked selfie from public office or respectable jobs, and I want that to happen before too many more people get discarded.

  • Lori

    I agree with all of this. The lack of discussion about consent is a symptom of rape culture and perpetuates it . The coverage of this has been infuriating and just upsetting. And yes, at some point we’re going to have to let go of the idea that it’s the end of the world for a person to have a picture of their junk floating around the internet somewhere or we’re not going to have enough people to run for office. Now would probably be a fine time for that to kick in.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Christians don’t object to it because they don’t really believe it. Try walking into one of their churches when they’re praying and telling them that their use of “God” is just a senseless statement.

    See also: Them using “In God we trust” being on everything as ‘proof’ that we’re a christian nation.

  • Baby_Raptor

    See, that’s what I’ve been wondering the entire time. What if his wife has given him permission to be flirting/etc with these other women?

    And really, is it any of our business? His marriage, I mean, not the lying to cover it up, though that only became necessary *because* people were convinced his marriage was their business…

  • Lori

    Did you see any pictures from his press conference? She did not look like a woman who had given her husband permission to sext with other women. Also, Weiner hasn’t said anything to indicate that his wife knew about it in advance. If that was the case I assume he’d say so since being a cheater is about to sink his political career in a way that being an online creeper unjustly did not.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    This sort of attitude is why I really thought the Republican fooforaw over Clinton getting with a woman not his wife was a tempest in a teapot. If every President who ever had an affair got impeached the careers of quite a few of them would’ve been damn short.

    It’s long past time Americans got over their titillation about politicians’ sex lives as long as all parties were consenting.

  • stardreamer42

    Holy crap, my now-ex graduated from Hillsboro High School. He must be mortified; they didn’t do this kind of shit back in the 80s.

  • stardreamer42

    The original motto of the United States was “E Pluribus Unum” (“out of many, one”). Here’s what the U.S. Treasury Department says about the use of “In God We Trust” on money; briefly, it dates from the time of the Slaveholders’ Rebellion.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    One of the elements of rape culture that i’ve been trying to think all the way through seems to be this: that the morality of sexual activity attaches to their conformance to a list of allowed vs forbidden activities, without an acknowledgement of the role of consent. It encourages looking at sexual morality like a checkist. And this leads in one direction to rapists walking because, regardless of their victim’s consent, the physical act itself was “shaped” in accordance with the checklist. In the opposite direction, it leads to attempts to ban activities between consenting adults — we’ve actually had people here come in and claim that a person can’t consent to sex with their own gender, that it’s meaningless to do so, because they think of consent not as “making the choice to engage in activity” but as “stamping their sexual passport having made sure the applicant’s form is filled out correctly,” so it is considered illegitimate for a person refuse consent when the act meets the specified criteria for approval, but it’s equally illegitimate to grant consent for an act on the “forbidden” list.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I’m sure she doesn’t mind the infidelity and is only upset because she’s actually a secret muslim spy and the implosion of his career will block her access to important secrets about New York’s anti-terrorism defenses she plans to secretly leak to our enemies, which is why she stayed with him after the original scandal*.

    *(Actual claim I heard from the right-wing nuts-o-sphere the last time Anthony’s Weiner made the news.)

    (Seriously, it’s not that difficult: Don’t tweet your weiner. Just like that song by Rocky Mountain Oyster Cult)

  • Baby_Raptor

    On the other hand, admitting to having an open relationship would probably sink him just as bad, if not faster.

  • Trixie_Belden

    Happy Anniversary to you and the Slactivixen!

  • Lori

    IDK. It is NYC not Podunk, and we’re talking a little sanctioned sexting, not an orgy or something. I think if she was OK with what he had done he’d be spinning this a lot differently and she wouldn’t look like she wanted the floor to open up and swallow her.

  • Lori

    (Actual claim I heard from the right-wing nuts-o-sphere the last time Anthony’s Weiner made the news.

    There is no bottom with these people. You can’t think, “They can’t sink any lower than this” because there’s always another level to the underground parking garage that is their imagination.

  • storiteller

    The problem with determining consent in some of these cases is the power differential. If there truly is consent, that’s one thing. But it can be hard to tell the difference between that and if the person receiving them only says there is consent because they’re afraid of the consequences. That’s why even if the mayor of San Diego was making “welcome” sexual comments it would still be incredibly inappropriate because he’s the boss.

  • Lori

    The issue that I had with the Clinton scandals was that it wasn’t clear that all parties were consenting in a meaningful way. The fog of idiocy around the rape allegations was so thick that I never did make up my mind what I thought about them, and I’m also of two minds about him sexing it up with Monica Lewinski. On one had she was an adult and she clearly wanted it. On the other hand he was POTUS and she was a White House intern and that’s just skeevy and possibly not a situation that allows for meaningful consent.

    Everything about the Republican approach to the issue was all kinds of wrong and f’ed up. I did not support it and I’ve never even considered changing my view about that. I voted for Clinton the 2nd time and I don’t feel bad about it. Still, the whole thing left a bad taste that’s never gone away.

  • Lori

    None of the women involved in the Anthony Weiner scandal worked for him. In fact, he apparently never met some of them. The ones who with whom the sexual contact (naked pictures of his penis) wasn’t consensual said that. The press more or less ignored it, but the victims didn’t seem to have any problem standing up for themselves. The mutual exchange of messages in the more resent cases would seem to indicate that the sexting was consensual.

    There’s just no excuse for Filner’s behavior or for the fact that he’s still in office.

  • storiteller

    I totally agree. I was talking about politicians in general, but I’m glad the women affected in the Weiner scandal were willing to stand up for themselves. You can have a power differential even without being employed by someone.

  • pinksponge

    Happy anniversary! May your joy be abundant, and the years many. :)

  • banancat

    Yes, the pictures were unsolicited. The approval or disapproval of his wife is a red herring because he violated the receiver’s consent.

    Protip: Whenever you start to type “I haven’t done any research, but”, stop typing and do some research. Google is right there in the next tab over.

  • de_la_Nae

    Dude(ette/ent/whatever). Google’s right there, but I usually find it takes hours to sift through all the under/poorly-detailed reporting and outright repeats of other news releases to flesh out a whole picture of a situation. I had ten minutes before work shift, though I’ll allow there’s no way you could have known that.

    It’s why I tried to emphasis that it was simply the first stuff that came to mind when hearing about it. Maybe I’m misreading you, but I feel like you’re implying I’m trying to overshadow the recipient by focusing on Weiner’s wife, but I promise I’m not; it’s probably a muddled way to phrase it, but ‘outside of the context of a relationship’ was meant to convey the question of whether the recipient consented or not, was a significant other of some sort, etc.

    Protip: Hi! If I’m getting condescending or defensive, I appreciate it when people let me know. Do you want me to let you know when you’re being such? I’m sure you aren’t trying to be, I’m just probably reading too much into it because I’ve had a rough day, but…yeah I can’t *not* see it right this moment.

  • MarkTemporis

    I’m not sure there’s much of a power differential (or rather, more than normally between men and women) between these women and “Carlos Danger, International Man of Mystery”.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X