Good morning!

“Just noticing…”

Kochs launch new super PAC for midterm fight

During a closed-door gathering of major donors in Southern California on Monday, the political operation spearheaded by the Koch brothers unveiled a significant new weapon in its rapidly expanding arsenal — a super PAC called Freedom Partners Action Fund.

The new group aims to spend more than $15 million in the 2014 midterm campaigns — part of a much larger spending effort expected to total $290 million, sources told POLITICO.

It’s an evolution for billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. The vast network of political nonprofit groups they helped build has mostly funneled its unprecedented political spending into issue-based campaigns that usually slam Democrats for supporting big government but seldom explicitly ask voters to support GOP candidates.

(Also on POLITICO: Inside the money wars)

That’s expected to change under Freedom Partners Action Fund, according to Marc Short, president of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, an increasingly powerful force in the Koch network that will operate in association with the new super PAC.

“The Freedom Partners Action Fund will support candidates who share our vision of free markets and a free society and oppose candidates who support intrusive government policies that push the American Dream out of reach for the American people,” Short told POLITICO after a presentation to donors at the St. Regis Monarch Beach resort in Dana Point, California.

The gathering is the latest in a series of twice-annual so-called seminars that the Kochs started holding in 2003 to raise cash from wealthy donors after treating them to a series of slickly produced presentations from handpicked politicians, conservative media stars and operatives from Koch-backed groups.

(Also on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby aims for Obamacare win, Christian nation)

Freedom Partners, which was created in 2011, now organizes and hosts the seminars. The theme of the St. Regis seminar — “American Courage; Our commitment to a free society” — was printed on massive posters evoking an idyllic turn-of-the-century immigration motif. The posters, which depicted an immigrant family gazing in awe at the Statue of Liberty in the distance, were displayed throughout the St. Regis. A photo of one was provided upon request to POLITICO by Freedom Partners spokesman James Davis, who explained that the purpose of the seminar was “continued discussions about advancing a free society with the theme of American Courage.”

Among the dignitaries who was scheduled to address the crowd was Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose office declined to comment on his appearance. It was initially reported by the Daily Beast, which also first reported the $290 million overall spending goal.

Democrats are sure to seize on the new Freedom Partners super PAC as yet more fodder in their mounting campaign to caricature the brothers as evil puppeteers manipulating Republicans. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a fundraising missive Sunday declaring the Daily Beast’s report “AWFUL NEWS” and pleading “if we can’t start closing this gap TODAY, the Koch brothers WILL buy the election for John Boehner and the GOP.”

A spokesman for Koch Industries, the Koch brothers’ privately held industrial conglomerate, referred all questions to Freedom Partners. A Koch Industries website entry posted before Freedom Partners took over responsibility for the seminars describes them as an opportunity for “America’s greatest philanthropists and most successful business leaders” to “discuss solutions to our most pressing issues and strategies to promote policies that will help grow our economy, foster free enterprise and create American jobs.”

*****

Readers: The Kochs are determined to win the midterms and control the House.  Harry Reid says the  Koch brothers are a cult of dark money.

“Instead of being a religious movement or a secret sect, this is a cult of money, influence and self-serving politics,” Reid said. “This is the cult of Koch.”

I would say he’s right.  Solutions? Thoughts? Blog me.

Peace out.

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

Just noticing…

Yes…another one from Think Progress:

Why There’s No Such Thing As A Private Facebook Chat

If you think your messages to your Facebook friends are private, think again. The social network announced that it has plans to look at your personal conversations as a way to make more profits from targeted advertising.

Facebook has been a leader in data-mining, taking information from people’s profiles and studying their behavior to make money and improve the website. But its decision to delve into private content marks the next frontier for Big Data. Silicon Valley and big businesses alike have become increasingly reliant on data mining, which can predict election outcomes based on social media posts, or make a connection between what words people use and the weather.

In its quarterly investors conference call in late April, Facebook’s chief operations officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained exactly why the company is going further to track your data: “Our goal is that every time you open News Feed, every time you look at Facebook, you see something, whether it’s from consumers or whether it’s from marketers, that really delights you, that you are genuinely happy to see.”

To do that, Facebook wants to take a look at your private messages. “Facebook historically has focused on friends and public content,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on the call. “Now, with Messenger and WhatsApp, we’re taking a couple of different approaches towards more private content as well.”

Your chats reveal more about you than you think

Private messaging has become an incredibly popular feature, which nearly every top social media app centers itself around. Snapchat, the picture-sharing app that automatically deletes pictures seconds after they’re sent, just added a one-on-one chat and video function similar to what Twitter and Google already have.

“People are making more intimate connections now than ever before just by chatting through a window on a screen,” Ramani Durvasula, PhD., a Los Angeles-based psychologist at California State University, Los Angeles told ThinkProgress.

Those private conversations are rife with details that may seem insignificant on the surface but provide valuable insight into a person: “What people share via a private chat and what they share in a status update are vastly different,” Durvasula said. That’s what makes personal conversations “the best place to get data because it’s uncensored.”

People are already generally uninhibited online, sharing everything from their emotional ups and downs, to live-tweeting childbirth. But what’s said one-on-one pulls back another layer, exposing what truly makes one tick — “The stressors people share, the intimacies, give insight to what people are most passionate about,” Durvasula said.

Private chats online also tell companies like Facebook how you use technology, what kinds of information you share on which platforms and with which audiences. “Some people use it much more for one-to-one communications than they would use the other parts of Facebook,” Augustin Chaintreau, assistant professor of computer science at Columbia University in New York, explains. For example, Facebook may be interested in seeing whether certain users prefer emailing or texting loved ones, and only use its Messenger app to keep up with more tangential relationships. Or the data could be used to tell whether someone was in distress or needed help, he added.

But there’s a risk in trying to piece together a profile of a person based on their online habits, Chaintreau said. “The risk is that there is a natural reason that people do different things in different places. You’re a different person, have different behaviors. The emotions will be different. Even if you’re very consistently presenting yourself [across the Web], you may or may not like a particular message presented on one platform or app versus the other because it doesn’t fit who you are [or what you're doing in that space].”

All of those pieces of conversations — telling a friend you went to the doctor Tuesday, where you stayed on vacation, the fight you had with your significant other — add up and paint a fuller picture of users, leading to better products and ads recommending clinics, hotels and relationship counselors, Durvasula said: “Everything you say, every character typed is being watched. So if you’re typing a [private] message at 1 a.m., that means you could get targeted for an Ambien ad.”

In the past, Facebook tracked what users didn’t post in status updates, and was able to determine which types of users self-censored the most.

Those are the kinds of details that give companies an advantage, Pamela Rutledge, PhD., director of the Media Psychology Research Center in Newport Beach, Calif., told ThinkProgress. “There’s monetary value in conversation. What do new moms worry about, and how does that change over the lifespan? So [as a company] you’re really stepping into the shoes of your customer. And what better way to do that then look through private conversations,” Rutledge said.

“People don’t realize what they’re putting out there,” Durvasula said. Almost everyone uses the Internet on the daily basis with more than 65 percent having a photo publicly posted online, according to a Pew study. Another one in two Web users readily have their email, birth date or old job posted publicly. Those numbers jump significantly when you look at teens’ use: Almost all teens use their real name, post their interests, birth dates and post pictures of themselves, Pew found. Over 70 percent have their school name and where they live.

And when it comes to personal conversations, even more could be revealed. “What if [a conversation] does reveal something about your medical or mental history? This could keep you from getting insurance or even a job.”

When private chats aren’t actually private

It’s common for tech companies, especially as they go public, to look for ways to make money through advertising. Twitter, which entered the stock market in 2013, recently bought its longtime data partner Gnipwith eyes for turning its user data into revenue. Since Zuckerberg took the company public in 2012, Facebook has been similarly ramping up its advertising efforts — running into privacy controversies along the way, including using users’ profile pictures without their permission to make the ads more relatable.

But the social network also has been strategically positioning itself to join the ranks of Google, which already reads your personal communications. In its privacy agreement, Google reserves the right to sift through users’ data as long as they’re logged in, including everything a person searches with Google.com, what videos they watch on YouTube, where users travel using Google Maps, and private chats and emails.

With widespread data collection and mining Google has run into legal trouble. The company has been dealing with several lawsuits regarding its email scanning, one of which accuses Google of reading children’s messages and tracking their Internet use through its education apps. Google is also waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether collecting data through private, unencrypted Wi-Fi networks for Google Maps is legal.

Earlier this month, Facebook divorced its messaging function into a standalone app. People used to would send messages with their friends online within Facebook’s native app. The company has tweaked its chat function over the years, making it easier to navigate with features — like floating profile pictures to indicate pending messages on the home screen — that made new messages and conversations more prominent in the mobile app. But making Messenger its own app, which has a built-in camera for photo sharing and video messaging, helps Facebook better keep track of the data in those chats.

Facebook’s recent purchases — namely Instagram and WhatsApp — further exemplify the company’s commitment to personal messaging. Instagram, which Facebook bought just before it went public, added direct messaging to its app late last year, allowing users to privately trade photos, and adding to a wealth of data on every user. WhatsApp lets users send SMS messages practically for free to anyone who has the mobile app. The app isn’t very popular in the United States but has a half billion strong user base in Europe, India, Latin America and Africa, where Facebook is looking to expand. WhatsApp is expected to soon hit a billion users, making it a ripe source for digging into — not necessarily what people are saying — but what those millions of texts reveal about their habits and desires.

Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp for $19 billion shows not only how serious the company is about private chats, but how much they’re worth.

The tipping point in the privacy debate

The reality is that it has become nearly impossible to keep your personal data from Internet companies. Google, for example, already collects millions of pieces of user data that rivals only Facebook which houses a complete network of friends, coworkers and family and their musings through statuses, link shares and picture uploads.

“We’re entering a social experiment where so many companies know so much about us and we’re in the dark,” Chaintreau said. People feel a familiarity with companies like Facebook that they use every day. “It’s almost as if they’re your friend.” But without being more transparent about what they’re doing with consumers’ data, that could change.

It’s a tradeoff: “If you want this convenient way to connect with 7 billion people, you have to give us your data,” Durvasula said. And people will generally go along with it: “A lot of people will give up a little bit of their privacy for the convenience, which can sometimes be helpful like Amazon’s ‘People who bought this also bought that’ feature,” Rutledge said. So the debate around privacy won’t be whether or not companies should be collecting such personal information, but what data customers let them collect.

Regardless of whether users see it as a big deal, Facebook’s private snooping may just push the privacy debate to the tipping point. Some people may say, “I don’t care that Facebook knows I like Chiquita bananas and Mercedes Benzes,” Durvasula said, or respond with more alarm, as Rutledge pointed out: “‘Oh my gosh they’re listening to my conversations with my husband!’”

“Most private conversations are about what you see in public anyway, you just feel they’re more appropriate for a limited audience,” Rutledge went on. But the bottom line is that having personal information in cyberspace slowly erodes true privacy, in part because companies like Facebook turn around and make money off it, said Durvasula, who advocates for not using Facebook.

“The real [responsibility] is not to get all fired up and get your pitchforks out, but to draw a line and ask do I have a choice,” Rutledge said. “There’s a burden on the individual to get educated, but there’s also a burden on the companies,” Rutledge said. “We’re not all lawyers, we’re not all IT guys,” the public needs to demand companies explain their data and privacy rights in plain English: “What are these things that I might not understand that I might not want,” Rutledge said.

The next frontier in the data wars

When Edward Snowden leaked documents detailing the U.S. National Security Agency’s dragnet, internationally-run phone surveillance program in 2013, it incited a public outcry, with Americans calling on Congress and President Obama to change how the country collected intelligence. The same concern applies when companies gather bits of your Internet activity.

“Anyone who knows a lot about you can exert a certain amount of power,” Rutledge said. And the amount of information that companies collect is likely going to increase.

It’s possible, Chaintreau adds, for technology like Google Glass to become as ubiquitous as the Internet. That will create a host of new sensory-based data that companies, or even the government, could use to tap into what you see and feel.

Privacy online has only recently become a major concern for most people. As identity theft and large-scale breaches become more common, Web users have started taking additional steps to try to minimize their digital imprint: Nearly 90 percent of online users clear their browser’s cookies, which can be used to track online activity, or delete old status updates, according to a Pew survey. More than half of people have taken steps to avoid being detected online by certain people, organizations or the government.

But despite those efforts, the sheer convenience and desire to stay connected tends to outweigh the loss of privacy.

“Instead of being purposely disconnected [from technology], you have to be more aware,” Chaintreau said. “People need to understand the economics behind their data. If people know how much it was worth maybe they would act differently,” Chaintreau said. Projects like this already exist. DataCoup is one that allows people to sell their information from Facebook, Google, YouTube and other outlets to prospective companies.

“Consumers are winning free services, which are cool,” Chaintreau explained, “but they’re not that expensive to run, and the companies are making millions off the personal data they collect.”

*****

Happy Sunday! It is a gorgeous one and I am out to enjoy it. I HOPE you are too!

Blog me.

Peace out. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

“Just noticing…”

“…How much I appreciate when others advocate for our animal (and mammal!) friends!

“Just noticing…”

…German court rules ex-lovers should wipe out intimate photos after breakup

In what could be a landmark ruling, a court in Koblenz has forced a man to delete private erotic photos and videos of his former girlfriend, even though she consented to the photography and took some of the pictures herself.

After a breakup, an unnamed woman from Hesse in central Germany sued her photographer ex-boyfriend over the photos, which he had kept for himself without an intent to publish.

The judge ruled that the unnamed defendant has to delete the intimate images – in which the partner is not clothed, or is engaged in sexual acts – but is allowed to keep any pictures in which she is clothed.

The ruling represents a legal shift.

Traditionally, it has been difficult to withdraw consent to photography once it had been given, with subjects having to demonstrate a legitimate change in circumstances or a level of deception for photos to be withdrawn.

Even in countries where legislation banning ‘revenge porn’ – compromising photos being posted by exes – such as the US, where several states have adopted such laws, the judge usually penalizes those who decide to publish photos. By forcing the defendant to delete photos from their private collection that may not have even been intended for publication, the German legal system is creating a new standard.

Media lawyer Christian Solmecke told Bild newspaper that the ruling will currently only apply to the couple in the lawsuit, but may be taken up by a higher court, which may ratify it into being standard practice.

The boom of revenge pornography is closely tied to the creation of the internet, which allowed easy outlet for people to post explicit amateur photographs, meaning that there has been little legal experience in dealing with it.

So far, Israel has adopted some of the harshest penalties in the world, with posting of old intimate photos regarded as a sex crime that carries a tariff of up to five years.

Let’s HOPE its legs spread to other parts of the world. (pun Intended) so that we can prevent “revenge porn.”  According to the Huff Po, Last year, California became the first state in the U.S. to come down hard on revenge porn, and Arizona follow its lead in April, according to Reuters. Dozens of similar measures are being proposed across the nation. The laws in both Arizona and California make it possible to punish those who post sexts publicly.

Now, if I can just get back all my videos before they go viral. :))

“Just noticing…”

What someone may perceive as limitations, someone else experiences as freedom. Where do we let ourselves be defined by how other people see us? The woman in this video, Sue Austin, confined to a wheelchair, says  that telling our own story sets us free. This video will blow you away.

When Sue Austin got a power chair 16 years ago, she felt a tremendous sense of freedom — yet others looked at her as though she had lost something. In her art, she aims to convey the spirit of wonder she feels wheeling through the world. Includes thrilling footage of an underwater wheelchair that lets her explore ocean beds, drifting through schools of fish, floating free in 360 degrees.

*****

Readers: What are you “just noticing?” Blog me. Sorry you had issues getting in. This time my server was performing maintenance.

Happy Sunday! 

Christopher*:  I hear ya. I get sick of it too. And a bad day on top of everything else can just be too much. No need to apologize. We all have them. I HOPE the rest of your week went better.

I just don’t want anyone to give up so I have to be a cheerleader every once in a while. :) Now…I’ll repeat what Cynthia said, “I can’t  wait to kick some Republican ass.” Let’s HOPE enough of us feel that way and make our way to the polls when the time comes for us to exercise our rights.

Kevin: I wish I could Lol with that one all the way to the bank but unfortunately, we know it wouldn’t fly.

George, WN: Where’ve you been? It seems you came back and invited some of your friends onto the blog for support. I guess you know, your party isn’t going to be around much longer. I  mean c’mon, with the way the republican party is behaving, if anyone is going to switch sides, it certainly won’t be to yours. Just noticing how some readers say they used to be repubs and are now Dems. Your party is dying. I don’t blame you for seeking support – you’re gonna need it.

Ska: Nicely stated. It is ALL of us that allow the 1% to do what they do, if we don’t vote those out that support the 1%. It is many of us that allow the 1% to do what they do because there are those that side with the 1% that expect they will be a part of the 1%, so they vote with them HOPEing to be one of them. It’s never going to happen.

Mike, TM: Always happy to see your comment here. I like what you said and thought your last sentence was worth repeating because it is what is happening.

“…when a group seeks to advance only themselves at the expense of the rest of people, they eventually become the victims of the more devious of that group.”

As always wishing you my best.

Got to run now. Peace out.

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

It’s all about the ladies today.

“Just noticing…”

From Think Progress.

• What That Game of Thrones Scene Says About Rape Culture

This article discusses plot points from the latest episode of Game Of Thrones.

Viewers and TV critics alike agree that Sunday night’s episode of Game of Thronesdepicted Jaime Lannister raping his sister Cersei, in a disturbing scene that Vulture’s Margeret Lyons calls “a new low for the deeply violent series.” The people involved in bringing that scene to the small screen, however, don’t see it that way. The director who shot the scene and the man who acted in it both believe it wasn’t necessarily nonconsensual sex — an attitude that isn’t totally surprising in a society that’s deeply confused about what constitutes consent, and that doesn’t always recognize sexual violence for what it is.

In the scene, Jaime forces himself on Cersei next to their son’s dead body. They had been kissing, but she pulls away from him, apparently still repulsed by the fact that he’s missing a hand — and Jaime becomes enraged with her rejection, hissing, “You’re a hateful woman. Why have the gods made me love a hateful woman?” He pushes her to the ground, holds her down, and thrusts into her despite her continued protests. After she repeatedly begs him to stop and tells him it’s not right, he responds, “I don’t care.”

Several critics have pointed out this is a sharp departure from the way things unfold on the page. The corresponding scene in George R.R Martin’s book describes Cersei as initially objecting to having sex with Jaime in a place where they could be caught, but quickly becoming an enthusiastic participant. That chapter is told from Jaime’s perspective, so it’s possible it’s colored by the character’s interpretation, but the dialogue is clear. Instead of saying “no” repeatedly, Cersei says “yes” three times.

Not everyone sees the scene as a reinterpretation, though. “There is significance in that scene, and it comes straight from the books — it’s George R.R. Martin’s mind at play,” the actor who plays Jaime, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, told the Daily Beast. “It took me awhile to wrap my head around it, because I think that, for some people, it’s just going to look like rape. The intention is that it’s not just that.”

When asked directly whether it’s rape, Coster-Waldau responded, “Yes, and no. There are moments where she gives in, and moments where she pushes him away. But it’s not pretty.” The director, Alex Graves, has expressed a similar perspective. “Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle,” Graves told Alan Sepinwall in a recent interview.

Although Game of Thrones fans recoiled at the scene between Jaime and Cersei, it’s unfortunately not hard to see the attitudes that could have contributed to creating it. We’re raised in a society that doesn’t teach people they can withdraw their consent at any moment, doesn’t emphasize that sexual partners need to be seeking explicit consent every step of the way, and doesn’t draw hard lines in the sand when it comes to what’s considered assault. We frequently tell sexual assault survivors that what they experienced didn’t really “count” as rape.

The way we talk about rape, the systems we have in place for investigating and punishing rape, and the way we approach rape victims are all wrapped up in our struggle to recognize when someone’s consent has been violated, and our failure to acknowledge how serious that is. It’s perhaps no wonder we’re confused. Kids don’t grow up learning about consent, and it’s not a concept that’s deeply ingrained in our culture, so they don’t necessarily know when those boundaries have been crossed. Without that knowledge, people like Graves and Coster-Waldau can look at the interaction between Jaime and Cersei — or a college administrator can consider a sexual assault that occurred between two students after they attended a party together — and mislabel it as “consensual.”

This is already happening among our youth. A recent study of young women who have experienced some type of sexual violence found that most of them simply assume that sex is something that’s done to them, in the way that Jaime does what he pleases to Cersei, and not something that they can be an active participant in. Other research has found that rapists don’t necessarily believe they’ve done anything wrong because they simply feel entitled to women’s bodies.

If Graves and Coster-Waldau were attempting to portray something that viewers would perceive as consensual, they obviously didn’t succeed. And the fact that there’s such a gulf between those apparent intentions and the scene’s reception speaks to some fundamental truths about our society’s failure to clarify what constitutes a consensual sexual relationship in the first place. These two men certainly aren’t alone in their assumptions that sexual assault can have blurred lines, that something violent and invasive can become a “turn-on,” that two people who have a previous sexual history aren’t likely to have a purely nonconsensual experience. Those are incredibly common rape myths, and they’re pervasive in influencing our attitudes about sexual assault.

From Change.org and Bravegirlswant.com (click on the heading to support H.R. 4341)

• Stop Photoshopped Ads From Hurting Our Kids: FTC, Act on H.R.4341

We want to make sure that all consumers, especially children, know when a human body has been altered in an ad.  Join us to achieve this historic public health goal!

With bipartisan Congressional sponsorship, the Truth in Advertising Act of 2014 (HR4341) calls on the Federal Trade Commission to develop a legislative framework for any advertising materially altering the human body (i.e. shape, size, proportion, color, etc.). The bill directs the FTC, as the nation’s consumer protection agency, to develop recommendations and remedies for these photoshopped ads that are:

• False and deceptive
  
• Linked to a series of emotional, psychological and physical health issues, and economic consequences – particularly affecting, but not limited to, girls and women

We are building a campaign of people and organizations who agree that the current status-quo isn’t acceptable any more.

• 69% of elementary school girls say magazine images influence their concept of ideal body shape
• Over 30% of high-school girls and 16% of high-school boys suffering from disordered eating
• 80% of women feel “shame” after reading a beauty magazine

This is the moment that many have been working towards for a long time. We need to make the most of it, and hope you’ll join us.

From  Think Progress.

• The Clinton Baby Joke That Made Jimmy Fallon’s Audience Boo

  Last night, Jimmy Fallon made a joke that totally bombed. This happens to the best of us, even professionally funny humans such as Mr. Fallon, recent inheritor of theTonight Show desk. But it’s especially surprising that it would happen to Fallon, given that he’s quite possibly the most likeable fellow in comedy right now. Fallon is sort of the Prom King of late night: adorable in the tux, all genuine enthusiasm and goofy sketches and slow jams. This is the guy who gets Springsteen to dress like old school Springsteen! Who brings The Roots together with Adele Nazeem to play “Let it Go” on children’s instruments!

  And yet: he was booed. During his monologue, Fallon ruminated on the possible gender of Chelsea Clinton’s baby.

  “If it’s a girl, it will get some of Chelsea’s old hand-me-downs. And if it’s a boy, it will get some of Hillary’s.”

  Ha! Get it? Because Hillary is so manly in those man-clothes she’s always man-wearing, man.

  The audience did not find this funny. There were a few tiny giggles. But mostly boos.

   

   

  Fallon attempted to rescue the joke. “It’s a little pantsuit! It’s a little pantsuit.” He held up his hands, Vanna White-ing in the air, to show how tiny the hypothetical pantsuit would be. “It’s a little cream pantsuit.”

  The boos gave way to quiet, and the suddenly very-loud-sounding laughter of Steve Higgins, Fallon’s announcer/right-hand-man was the only laughter to be heard. Until Fallon laughed.

  Then he said: “It wasn’t that hard of a joke. What’s the big deal?”

  The whole scene reminded me of the way, on this week’s Mad Men, Roger Sterling told a joke that bombed and he had no idea why. The content of Roger’s joke was an anti-Semitic slur and its inappropriateness is just about impossible to argue. (Definitely several notches worse than “sorry I made fun of heteronormative clothing choices circa 1995.”) But when no one laughed at his story, Roger looked totally gobsmacked, much like Fallon mid-monologue. Both men were telling jokes that would have killed approximately ten years earlier. Hillary pantsuit jokes had their heyday, right around when Chelsea Clinton still had braces. Fallon is supposed to be the host who gets young people: their values, their humor, their nostalgia. This felt like a joke he borrowed from someone else. Like, maybe his dad.

  For starters, not to keep complaining about how late night is a bunch of guys but: late night IS a bunch of guys. This pantsuit bit strikes me as a joke that a woman would have screened as “obviously not funny.” Diversifying late night isn’t just about diversity for diversity’s sake; it’s about the perspectives we lose when we only hear jokes from one narrow group of people.

  As far as the “dresses are for girls, pantsuits are for boys” element of the joke, well, that’s also pretty dated territory. And it would be the greatest if we could stop ragging on Hillary for dressing the way she wants to dress. In fact, let’s stop ragging on all women for dressing the way they want to dress! That would be spectacular. Workplace-wear for women has been a tricky issue as long as there have been women in the workplace. Pick a suit, no matter how immaculately tailored, and you risk being a woman who “dresses like a man.” Pick a dress or a skirt, deal with the inevitable accusations that the hem is too high, or the neckline is too low, or it’s not authoritative enough, and on and on. And the problem starts long before women head to the office. Dress codes all the way down to grade school are designed with “don’t distract the boys” dictums in mind, all but ignoring the needs and wants of the girls and women.

  A couple weeks ago, Julia Louis-Dreyfus (currently starring as Vice President Selina Meyer on HBO’s Veep) and Nancy Pelosi were interviewed together in The New York Times. They briefly discussed fashion, and Louis-Dreyfus talked about her character’s form-fitting, classically feminine officewear. “The dresses are constricting, and the heels are high,” she said. “So there’s a pinched-in-ness that’s specific to the character.” Which is to say: an entire wardrobe department decided the best way to translate Selina’s uptight, uncomfortable-with-the-normals nature was through these dresses that limit Selina’s range of motion. Not, say, a pantsuit. Meanwhile, Pelosi, the real-life public servant, wears “clean, immaculate suits,” as the interviewer describes them, and she explains her choice as “clean and easy works for me.”

  None of this is to say that fashion shouldn’t be a high priority just because a person holds high office; I share Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche’s belief that sartorial savvy and intellectual horsepower are not mutually exclusive. But it’s fair to say there’s nothing wrong with choosing not to focus all of one’s thoughts on wardrobe choices. Or that, should clothing be important to a person, he or she should be make choices that allow him or her to be comfortable and enjoy unhindered movement.

  How else would Nancy Pelosi straddle a chair like A.C. Slater in Saved By The Bell? It is difficult, nay, impossible, to Sally Bowles your seat in a dress.

From Think Progress.

• Soldiers Say Army’s New Hairstyle Bans Are Racially Biased Against Black Women

Updated Army regulations banning certain kinds of hairstyles are biased against black women, a new White House petition charges. The newly codified grooming rules, which went into effect on Monday, specifically forbid several hairstyles popular for black women who keep their hair natural, including twists, headbands, dreadlocks, or multiple braids that are larger than a quarter-inch. It also requires that the “bulk of hair” not exceed 2 inches from the scalp.

A PowerPoint presentation of the new rules was leaked last month ahead of publication. While twists and dreadlocks have been banned since 2005, these updated regulations go into more detail about specific hairstyles.

Sgt. Jasmine Jacobs of the Georgia National Guard launched the petition, pointing out that nearly a third of women serving in the military are non-white and many wear their hair natural (not chemically altered or in extensions). “I’ve been in the military six years, I’ve had my hair natural four years, and it’s never been out of regulation. It’s never interfered with my head gear,” Jacobs, who says she wears her hair in two twists, told Army Times.

Over the past few decades, natural hairstyles have expanded from political statement to mainstream fashion. Chemical relaxer sales dropped 26 percentfrom 2008 to 2013, according to consumer trends firm Mintel, and 70 percent of black women say they wear or have worn their hair natural.

One veteran told Al Jazeera America that most black women in the Army wear their hair natural because they usually don’t have the tools to maintain chemically relaxed or straightened hair when they are deployed.

While the Army traditionally dictates stricter appearance standards than most, plenty of civilian companies and schools have also used hair to discriminate against black women and girls. Eight-year-old Tiana Parker and 12-year-old Vanessa Van Dyke are just two students who were threatened with expulsion from their schools if they did not change their hair. Another woman with natural hair, Ashley Davis, was fired from her job for refusing to cut her dreadlocks.

And the last one from Think Progress.

• Federal Judge Tells Women Lawyers Not To Dress Like ‘An Ignorant Slut’

Judge Richard Kopf, a George H.W. Bush appointee to a federal court in Nebraska, offered some strange advice to women litigators in a piece posted to his personal blog on Tuesday: don’t wear clothing that would cause “the female law clerks” to call you “an ignorant slut behind your back.”

Kopf’s comments were a reaction to a Slate piece by Amanda Hess entitled “Female Lawyers Who Dress Too ‘Sexy’ Are Apparently a ‘Huge Problem’ in the Courtroom.” Judge Kopf’s piece has the more provocative title “On being a dirty old man and how young women lawyers dress.”

Among other things, Kopf’s piece reveals that he has “been a dirty old man ever since I was a very young man. Except, that is, when it comes to my daughters (and other young women that I care deeply about).” And it includes a description of a “very pretty female lawyer” who practices in his court. “She is brilliant, she writes well, she speaks eloquently, she is zealous but not overly so, she is always prepared, she treats others, including her opponents, with civility and respect, she wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest. I especially appreciate the last two attributes.”

Kopf’s purpose in describing this attorney was to reveal that several of the women who clerk on his court viewed her as “unprofessional,” and to imply that perhaps a young attorney doesn’t want to incur the ire of a judge’s closest advisers. Whatever the wisdom of this advice, however, he picked a particularly inflammatory way to express it (in fairness, the “ignorant slut” comment is a reference to a famous, if very dated, Saturday Night Live skit).

One day after his original post, Kopf posted an apology, of sorts:

If, on balance, you think the post was harmful to the image of the federal judiciary and truly treated women as objects, I am very, very, very sorry for that, but I would ask you to pause and reread it. I hope you will find upon objective reflection that the mockery I make of myself and the hyperbole and somewhat mordant tone I employed, made a point worth considering.

*****

Readers: There is so much more I could post today, but you get my drift. Everyone needs to be aware of what is going on with women and girls, from the very loud and blatant to the unspoken, hoping to stay hidden, nuances. However, awareness is not enough. Solutions are what is going to create change. Get on board with something that pulls at you and be an advocate for women and girls. Like I know so many of you already are! Thank you.

Blog me. 

ZL, /SB, Denise: Thank you.

Janet: One of my faves too.

Ellie: What a story. Your mother Claire is very lucky to have children so supportive.

Denise: I am assuming you are different from the above Denise…Thank you. Yes, there are so many subliminal messages, and blatant ones too.

Rebecca: oohh…I am not familiar with Anne Bonny. Thanks for sharing such an interesting story. I would love to see a movie on her from her point of view.

Ambilikile: Thank you. Wishing you and all the sisters…the club members, my very best.

Keri: Thank you. Yes, and I am so grateful that she is!

Louise: You named another one of my faves. She was a kick ass girl.

Irene, Vanessa: Thank you.

It is getting late and I must post. I will address more comments tomorrow. Happy Sunday!

Peace out. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

“Just noticing…”

• GOP Continues to Turn Its Back On The Unemployed

Efforts by the Senate to reach a compromise to extend unemployment insurance (UI) fell flat again today as Republicans voted against the 1.7 million Americans looking for work who have been cut off when the benefits lapsed in late December.

The bill, which fell a single vote short of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, was a compromise on multiple accounts. First, it accommodated the Republican demand that it be reduced from a one-year to a three-month extension. Second, it was fully paid for–using an offset that Republicans have supported in the past and are currently considering in other legislation.

CREDIT: SENATE DEMOCRATS

Now, to be fair, some Republicans aren’t just refusing to compromise–they would never vote to extend unemployment insurance in the first place. Yesterday, for example, Rep. Jeff Sessions (R-TX) said that “it is immoral for this country to have as a policy extending long-term unemployments (sic).” Two months ago, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stated that extending the benefits beyond the prescribed 26 weeks does a “disservice to these workers.” (We remind the Senator that they are not “workers,” they are looking for work–and that’s the whole point.)

Whether it’s a refusal to compromise no matter what the other side offers, or a misguided ideological opposition, these elected officials are hurting struggling families and the economy overall. The beneficiaries of extended unemployment insurance are not lazy; they are caught in an economy where there is only one job opening for every three job seekers. And they are contending with a job climate in which economists have shown that in the eyes of employers, being out of work for over nine months is the same as losing four years of job experience. State economies have lost an estimated $2.2 billion since the extension lapsed in late December.

BOTTOM LINE: Shame on Senate Republicans for once again refusing to extend unemployment insurance benefits. Not only are they denying a lifeline to millions of struggling families, they are hurting their own state economies to the tune of billions of dollars. That’s immoral–and irrational.

We don’t need to guess who this is directed at.

…Right?

Yeah…Let’s ask the question.

Still Working on it, Rosa Parks.

Last but certainly not least…

so where are our alien friends? :)

*****

Happy Sunday everyone!

Blog me.

Jimmy: I like it. Now we just need to make sure that it happens.

Black History: Thanks for the cool and informative write on Dr. Helen O. Dickens. She was certainly a Wonderful Woman of the World in her time…and continues to be so as her contributions to women and girls lives on as her daughter follows her footsteps.

Peace out. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"