The Coolest Self-Portrait Photo Ever Taken (Open Thread)

From NASA’s picture of the day, astronaut Aki Hoshide’s self-portrait. I just am not getting tired of looking at this image.

That’s actually not the entire photo – click on the image to see the whole photo.

May as well make this an open thread!

Posted in Link farms, Mind-blowing Miscellania and other Neat Stuff | 35 Comments

A few random thoughts regarding civility and blog moderation

Over at Family Scholars Blog, the powers-that-be are planning to modify their moderation policy, and they’ve asked bloggers there to throw in some thoughts about civility over the next month. So this is a post I wrote for FSB, in response to that request.

* * *

On any discussion forum, rules about civility – including a decision to have no rules about civility – cut some people from the discussion.

In a forum with no rules, people who can’t function well in an environment filled with anger and vitriol will be effectively shut out of the discussion. In a forum with strict civility rules, those who are too passionate and open to express themselves without anger will wind up banned from the discussion.

Either way, some of the folks cut out from the forum’s discussion will be good people, with good reasons for how they are. Maybe Lucy is justifiably angry because she’s been treated with injustice her whole life. Maybe Sally grew up in an emotionally abusive household where her parents yelled all the time, and now can’t abide yelling (not even the online version).

We shouldn’t ask “how can this forum be open to everyone?” No one forum can serve all people’s needs. Fortunately, the internet has thousands of forums to choose from.

A better question to ask is, what kind of discussions do we hope to have on this forum?

* * *

But what about privilege?

It is sometimes easier for people with privilege to calmly discuss issues like single motherhood or same-sex marriage, because they don’t have any skin in the game.

Furthermore, class privilege – and in particular, a college education — goes a long way towards training people to effectively use a detached, faux-objective mode of discussion.

But at the same time, we shouldn’t get over-deterministic when considering how privilege effects civility. Today, the angriest people in American politics are wealthy straight white men (four examples: Michael Savage, Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews). These are men who have literally everything the world’s richest society has to offer, but who still explode with contempt every time they’re in a disagreement. For some people, privilege facilitates expressing anger and disdain, since a person who is privileged enough doesn’t have to worry about hurting other people’s feelings.

At the working-class, commuter college I attended, I was on the debate team, and met a ton of people who weren’t from privileged backgrounds (in terms of class, wealth, race, disability, and sexual orientation), and who thrived under civility rules that were far stricter than any I’ve seen on any internet discussion forum. Rules can be inhibiting, but they can also be a way for people from wildly disparate backgrounds to face each other on level ground.

Civility, at its best, is not about shutting people up, or forbidding passionate engagement. It’s about keeping in mind that everyone matters, even the people we disagree with. It’s about treating a debate not just as a disagreement, but also as a collaboration.

Sometimes, that comes easier for people who haven’t been as privileged their whole lives, who are less likely to have fallen for the illusion that we are all isolated individuals, and more likely to be aware of how interdependent everyone is. But sometimes that’s much harder for people without privilege, because they’re the ones whose lives and families are directly at stake.

* * *

I have a lot more to say about civility and blog moderation, but maybe I’ll hold off until a future post. :-)

Posted in Civility & norms of discourse, Site and Admin Stuff, Whatever | 18 Comments

Mitt Romney Reveals His Contempt For Half Of America

Well, 47% of America, to be accurate.

This is a video of Romney, at what he thought was a private, unrecorded fundraiser:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49, 4–he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich.

I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.

It’s really tempting to refute all the misleading statements and outright lies in Romney’s statement, but I don’t feel like I’ve got the energy (but see the links below).

So, what do you think?

Personally, I’m not surprised. This is exactly what we lefties have always believed Romney was. I admit it’s gratifying to see it caught on video.

But I’m not sure it’ll make a difference to the election. The vast majority of voters have already made up their minds, and it’s unlikely that any Romney voter will be swayed by this. Even if a Republican watches this video and thinks “chee, what an asshat,” that doesn’t mean that they will or should change their vote. Romney may be an asshat, but he’s the asshat who comes closest to supporting the policies Conservatives prefer.

Hell, I think Obama is, in many ways, contemptible, and I’m still likely to vote for him. ((Of course, it’s not just how people vote, but how the volunteers doing the Get Out The Vote work react. If this sort of thing reduces enthusiasm for Romney among his base, that could really hurt him. But I think the Conservative base largely agrees with Romney.))

But that’s just how I think. In the clip above, Romney said that 5-10% of voters might vote for either candidate. (To see more videos from the same Romney speech, see Mother Jones). Will finding out that Romney really is an elitist snob who sneers at ordinary Americans make a difference to that 5-10%? If so, Romney may be sunk; there’s not much time left until the election to recover from a setback.

Oh, and this bit (from the same Romney speech) is rich: he joked that if his dad had “been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot of winning this.” Because if history teaches us anything, it’s that white people are seldom elected President compared to other races.

Finally, Romney believes that Romney is magic:

My own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back and we’ll see — without actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.

I’m sure all the Republicans who have criticized Obama for allegedly thinking too much of himself will leap to criticize Romney’s belief that merely electing Mitt Romney will presto! changeo! improve the economy.

Anyhow, some links and quotes:

  1. We Are the 47%: The Lousy Math Behind Romney’s Gaffe
  2. Where Are the 47% of Americans Who Pay No Income Taxes? Nice map here.
  3. Ezra: “Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. […] Republicans have become outraged over the predictable effect of tax cuts they passed and are using that outrage as the justification for an agenda that further cuts taxes on the rich and pays for it by cutting social services for the non-rich.”
  4. The Right Is Wrong to Pin Obama’s Edge on Welfare State
  5. Larison: “More than anything else, what makes this video damaging is that it confirms what most Americans already suspect about Romney: he holds at least half the country in contempt, including many of the people that normally vote Republican. It isn’t just that Romney expresses contempt and pity for “anyone who isn’t going to vote for him,” as Barro says. What makes this stand out as exceptionally arrogant is the fact that he clearly has contempt for many of the people who were likely to vote for him.”
  6. “47 Percent” Vs. “Bitter Clinger” Linked mainly because it has the full “bitter clinger” quote, rather than just five words of it.
  7. TNC: “One theme in Chris Hayes book Twilight of The Elites is the notion that an elite cut off from the rest of society actually degrades. It comes to think of itself as intrinsically better than the rest of society, that it’s success is a strict matter of providence. Effectively the elite becomes divorced from reality. What is most jarring about Romney’s comments here is that divorce, that sense that Romney’s grasp of America is so thin, that he believes that half of it is dismissible strictly on the grounds of laziness.”
  8. Economist’s View: Nontaxpayers are Overwhelmingly the Elderly and Students
  9. Jamelle Bouie: “I’m one of those people who believes government has a responsibility to provide health care, food and housing. Like Romney says, I see these as entitlements—the basics that people need to flourish and work toward their potential. And as the wealthiest nation to ever exist, I believe we have an obligation to provide them, so that we can create the space for individual achievement. Romney favors a world where taxes are low and businesses are freed from social obligation. I prefer one where the sick can have care, the poor can have food, and the homeless have shelter. It’s why—at a minimum—I support Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and assistance programs for food and housing.”
Posted in Class, poverty, labor, & related issues, Economics and the like, Elections and politics, In the news | 67 Comments

Six Thoughts On The Case Of The Breast-Feeding Professor

From the Washington Post:

Adrienne Pine was in a jam. The assistant anthropology professor at American University was about to begin teaching “Sex, Gender & Culture,” but her baby daughter woke up in the morning with a fever. The single mother worried that she had no good child-care options.

So Pine brought her sick baby to class. The baby, in a blue onesie, crawled on the floor of the lecture hall during part of the 75-minute class two weeks ago, according to the professor’s account. The mother extracted a paper clip from the girl’s mouth at one point and shooed her away from an electrical outlet. A teaching assistant held the baby and rocked her at times, volunteering to help even though Pine stressed that she didn’t have to. When the baby grew restless, Pine breast-fed her while continuing her lecture in front of 40 students.

Now Pine finds herself at the center of a debate over whether she did the right thing that day and what the ground rules are for working parents who face such child-care dilemmas.

1) First and foremost, the issue here is if breastfeeding mothers have an equal place in our society or not. Especially working, single mothers.

In the real world, single parents are likely to have some sort of conflict once or twice a year for the first five years of their kid’s life. (There are some single parents who never have such conflicts, ever, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.) Unless we’re going to say that it’s never acceptable for a single breastfeeding mom to hold a professional job, then I think we have to accept that sometimes it’s up to us to just grow the fuck up a little and not panic and wig out because BOOOOOOOBS!

The idea that childrearing should be absolutely separate from the work world is a leftover from the past, when a large number of middle class families could afford having a “wife at home” taking care of kids while Dad worked (and secretly drank). We don’t live in that world anymore; we live in a world where, typically, children are raised either by two working parents or by a single parent. It is inevitable that sometimes work and home overlap, and sneering or yelling at breastfeeding mothers is exactly the wrong reaction.

Amanda sums it up nicely:

Funny how we live in a society that both expects women, especially highly educated and ambitious women, to breast feed, but forbids them to do so while pursuing their ambitions. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think pushing women out of positions of prestige and power and back into the home was a feature and not a bug of this system.

2) Many comments I’ve read about this have been stuffed full of drive-by mothering. The child was allowed to crawl on a floor! Shocking! She had to take a paper clip out of its mouth! Shocking! Etc, etc. Makes me wonder if these people have ever met an actual infant. Seriously, the things are like a cross between a stumbling drunk and a vacuum cleaner.

3) Professor Pine did herself no favors with her essay, which seemed (as Amanda put it) pedantic and defensive, and I’d add just plain obnoxious (especially towards a student reporter who Pine casts as a villain). My favorite part is Pine’s sneer towards “lactivism,” which she describes as “hopelessly bourgeois… marauding bands of lactating white women.” ((Pine also comments “It could be argued that my ability to breastfeed in public has been won on the breasts of so many women who have fought for that right, and that I’m ungrateful to them.” No kidding.)) Pine gives the strong impression that if this had happened to some other professor, Professor Pine herself would have been on the side of the critics.

But that’s okay. Rights are not the exclusive domain of gracious people.

4) A lot of folks arguing against Pine’s action say they’re only concerned with the students best interests. Jack at Ethics Alarms writes:

Was she engaged in personal duties and matters while being paid by the university to devote 100% of her attentions to her students? Yes. Is this professional and ethical? No. Was she in a fix—sure: I don’t care. It wasn’t the students’ crisis, and they should not have been involuntarily made part of the solution.

In the article, she unambiguously explains that her only choices (that she could see) were cancelling the opening class of the course, or bringing the baby with her. Jack argues that she should have conducted an email survey of students to find out what they’d prefer — as if such a thing were at all possible to write, send, get responses to, and compile on the morning of the class. Realistically, it does sometimes happen that single parents are faced with the choice Pine describes – either cancel work or bring the baby.

Let’s agree, for arguments sake, that our only concern should be fairness to the students. How is cancelling the class session entirely fairer to the students, exactly?

Several years ago, I would have been a student who took an hourlong bus and walk to get to the university. I walk up the three flights of stairs, overpriced textbook in hand, and reach either a closed, locked door with a “cancelled” note taped to it, OR a classroom where Professor Pine hands out the syllabus and says the usual first-day-of-class stuff for 75 minutes, but she also spends a few minutes intermittently dealing with the baby.

If the measure of value is “Professor Pine’s attention,” then obviously I get more value if Pine is there with a baby than if she’s not there at all. Aren’t I better off with 95% of her attention than zero percent?

5) In my life, public breast-feeding is unremarkable. Nearly every mother I’ve known who has a small baby, breast-feeds it while chatting (during games, during lunch, whatever), and it’s no big deal, just as it’s not a big deal if I pull out my sketchbook and start drawing while talking.

Is this a cultural thing? Are there still huge segments of the country where breast-feeding is treated as something that’s — well, if not shameful, exactly — then secret? Indecent to do in public? I’m sure there are. But I don’t see any advantages to treating breast-feeding that way. It seems like a lot of unnecessary trouble and fuss.

6) Remember this isn’t about just Professor Pine. Our reaction to her says a lot about how we react to working women generally, and to babies.

I was a wedding coordinator for 14 years, and I attended thousands of weddings. Probably there was a baby crying somewhere in the room in a quarter of those weddings. Sometimes a parent would rush out of the chapel with the baby, and I’d guide them to an area with comfy chairs, and they were always very apologetic. I’d tell them not to worry about it; crying babies have been part of weddings for thousands of years, after all.

Don’t get me wrong — I know babies can be disruptive. I’ve been at meetings and games where a baby in hand was crying, or shouting, or needed to be removed from the room and tended for a while while everyone else twiddled their thumbs. I’ve suffered on airplanes. Babies: noisy and inconsiderate of my needs. I get that.

But babies are an essential part of society. Without babies – preferably well-cared for babies – there are no future adults to take care of me when I’m old enough to need help with my diapers once more.

If Professor Pine intended to bring her baby to every class session, then I’d want her to warn her students ahead of time. But that’s not what happened here. Pine had an emergency and chose to prioritize not cancelling class. She has day care arrangements for the class generally, but on that one day her arrangements fell through because the baby was sick. By the next day she had arranged for a babysitter.

In short, it seems to me that Pine did absolutely everything she could reasonably do to prevent the baby from interfering with her class. To ask more of her than that is unreasonable. What we should do, instead, is realize that it’s not a big deal to have to be in the same room as a baby once in a while. It might not be ideal. If the baby screams or cries, that’s annoying.

But we’re grown-ups (or at least, we’re college students learning to become grown-ups). We should be able to deal with it graciously and then forget about it.

That’s what life is like in a society in which women – even mothers with babies — are equal members of society. That’s what life is like in a society which accepts that babies are part of life.

Posted in Breastfeeding & Lactivism, Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Economy | 190 Comments

Primer on E-book Basics from Clarisse Thorn

Primer on e-book basics from Clarisse Thorn:

http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2012/08/08/epublishing-amazon-smashwords-where-and-how-to-sell-ebooks/

I am partially posting this here because I want to read it, but am currently too exhausted, and hopefully this will act as a reminder. ;-)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Primer on E-book Basics from Clarisse Thorn

On being a CPS parent & siding with the striking teachers

On being a CPS parent & siding with the striking teachers

I’m a graduate of Chicago public schools. So is my husband. We’re old enough to remember the last time there was a strike. Here’s the thing about all the “Kids won’t learn as much” rhetoric. It’s only the second week of school. They aren’t missing a year at this point. It’s one day. And even if this strike lasts a few weeks, guess what? Kids miss school for holidays, illness, & natural disasters. They catch up. Hell, if parents have the time & access a strike can be a learning opportunity. Hell any break is a good time for some one on one propping up of skills in areas where your child struggles. Kid #1 and I are discussing politics & current events a lot. There’ll be some in depth discussion of history while we’re at it so he can understand how things got to this point. Kid #2 is working on his handwriting & we’ll talk about being flexible when it comes to new experiences & there’ll be reading practice with picket signs. Because that’s how we roll. And I get that there are real concerns about safety & meals for a lot of kids. That my husband & I are fortunate to have family support that makes it easier for us to get through this strike.

Do I wish that things could have been resolved without a strike? Sure. But I am well aware that teachers are looking down the barrel of long days with huge class sizes & requirements to teach to a goal of higher scores on standardized test instead of to student needs and abilities. I am aware that promised raises didn’t happen, and that teachers are spending significant amounts of money out of their own pockets every year. So are parents. And still our kids aren’t getting art, music, library, or computer classes in a lot of these neighborhoods. I am aware that my kids aren’t getting the same amount of time or attention that I got as a Chicago student. In the 80’s & 90’s we thought classrooms with 30 kids was a lot. Some schools are now looking at classes approaching 40 kids to one teacher. I can’t fault the teachers for being less successful when they’re trying to wrangle 35+ 5th graders (all at different levels of ability) into listening to a 50 minute lesson from a workbook that might or might not be recent. That might or might not be effective at teaching the skills the kids will need after testing.

Mind you, I don’t deny that there are problem teachers. My aunt was a turn around principal with CPS for years & the stories she told us about some of the teachers under her would curl your hair. But, tying pay and employment to test scores doesn’t address that problem at all. It’s telling that the board isn’t concerned with ways to get rid of abusive teachers, only with ways to punish teachers for not producing standardized outputs from individuals. The rhetoric around all of this has been about what’s best for the kids. I don’t believe that longer school days and higher test scores are all it takes for my child to have a quality education. I want my sons to have recess, art, music, & a curriculum that gives them room to develop their individual talents. Only one side of this discussion has ever said anything about kids being people with needs & that side is not the board or the mayor. I hear teachers talking about kids as people with needs & so I side with them. For the sake of kids like me, kids like my sons, and for the future.

On being a CPS parent & siding with the striking teachers — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 58 Comments

Anti-SSM Politician In Baltimore Asks Boss To Order Pro-SSM Employee To Shut Up

Brendon Ayanbadejo, a football player for the Baltimore Ravens, has been outspoken in support of marriage equality. Maryland state Delegate Emmett Burns, a Reverend and a Democrat, wrote to Ayanbadejo’s boss (Ravens owner Steven Disciotti) on government letterhead (emphasis mine):

I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically as a Raven Football player. Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other.

Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I believe Mr. Ayanbadejo should concentrate on football and steer clear of dividing the fan base.

I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing.

Please give me your immediate response.

I hope I don’t need to explain why this is appalling behavior. (I should note that after massive criticism from liberals and democrats, Burns backed down. Reminds me of that other Reverend who boldly announced his opposition to Obama because of Obama’s pro-SSM stance, and then backed down a week later. Oh, wait, that was the same dude.)

When a similar situation happened earlier this year, many pro-SSM bloggers (including some big names, like Andrew Sullivan) spoke up to defend Chick-Fil-A’s free speech rights, as did major pro-SSM organizations like the ACLU. Have any major anti-SSM bloggers or organizations spoken up to defend Brendon Ayanbadejo’s free speech?

I don’t know. But I can say for sure that NOMBlog — which posted countless times on the Chick-Fil-A mess, often several times a day — has yet to post about Burns’ attack on Ayanbadejo’s free speech rights.

(Postscript: While looking – unsuccessfully – for examples of NOM standing up for free speech of people they don’t agree with, I came across this video of Brian Brown passionately arguing that it’s wrong to describe this FRC statement as “spewing hate”: “One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”

Brown shouldn’t have trouble unambiguously condemning a statement like that; and that he does have trouble suggests that his moral balance is seriously skewed. Things like that are why so many people consider NOM an anti-gay group, rather than an anti-SSM group.)

Posted in Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc., Same-Sex Marriage | 5 Comments

[Trigger Warning] Laurie Mann shows her ass by excoriating fandom over the horrible treatment of Rene Walling

[Trigger Warning] Laurie Mann shows her ass by excoriating fandom over the horrible treatment of Rene Walling

Due to a discussion on Facebook started by Scott Edelman, I’ve spent the last couple of days arguing with people about Rene Walling and what constitutes “real” sexual harassment. I have a lot to say on this subject, but it’s going to require a longer blog post and a lot of crafting.

In the mean time, I’d like to point you to the blog of Laurie Mann, who posted a stunningly ridiculous and stupid post in which she wags a finger at all the bad fandom people who are just blowing this whole ReaderCon thing out of proportion.

I left a comment on that blog, but I doubt it will escape the moderation queue, thus I am posting it here. You really, really need to go over to Laurie’s blog and read her post1 before reading this because of context.


I always felt very safe in fandom.

This right here is the crux of everything that is wrong with your post, Laurie. Just because you have always felt safe does not mean that fandom is safe or that other women do. This entire post is you positing that your experiences trump everyone else’s and all these evil friends of Genevieve are just being soooo unfair. It’s bull.

I can think of a couple of times having long discussions with men, sometimes in their hotel rooms during SF conventions. A few of them came onto me – a kiss, a grope, whatever. I said no, and we just resumed our conversation.

UM. Laurie. This is not in any way okay. Yes, it’s good that when you said no they stopped, but what the hell is it with you thinking it’s just fine for them to have groped and kissed you without permission? That’s the way you wrote it. That you were with them, they touched you, you said no.

Perhaps you’ve been socialized to think that this is just harmless flirting and, as long as they back off when you tell them to, all is copacetic. I’m here to tell you it is not. There is never a scenario in which someone touches you un-accidentally without your permission and that’s okay.

Here again we come to the real problem with your entire post and attitude: you have decided that certain boundaries are okay and attempting to say that anyone who feels differently is just blowing things out of proportion. You don’t get to decide that for others.

No meant no, but an unwanted kiss did not mean I’d just been raped.

It did mean you’d just been sexually assaulted. And I know you’re going to say “That does not rise to the level of ‘real’ sexual assault and by saying it does you belittle people who have actually been assaulted!” so I’m going to head you off by saying: Nope, wrong. Just because a grope is not rape doesn’t mean it’s not a violation and wrong. There is no getting around this.

Sexual assault is not a matter of degrees. It’s a violation of boundaries without consent. Period.

Fannish women knew how to stand up for themselves, right?

And yet you are angry at a fannish woman and her female and male friends standing up for herself because we’re a mob. It’s okay okay to stand up for yourself alone.

At the same time, I never heard about a woman being raped at a con.

Because you’ve never heard of it, it never happens. I’m so glad that your reality is the only reality, Laurie. It makes the world so much easier to live in!

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Just because you knew women in college that got raped but didn’t hear from fannish women who were raped does not mean that the latter did not happen.

Perhaps the fannish women you know or don’t know didn’t tell you about their rapes or didn’t announce it. And perhaps they didn’t do so because women LIKE YOU would trot out of the filk room to say you’d never heard of anyone being raped at a con, plus that guy is totally nice and all, so obviously they must be wrong about their own experiences.

Why do you insist on invalidating other people’s experiences, Laurie? Oh right, because it makes your reality that much less real and more like a fantasy you made up.

Can I also point out that you’ve been told by multiple people at this point that your little summary of what happened at ReaderCon is both incomplete and inaccurate, yet I have not seen you correct it here on this blog post. That’s class, Laurie.

You ask for people to be respectful of each other, but you have not been respectful of the person who had to deal with the harassment at the con or of anyone who has ever had to deal with harassment, sexual assault, rape, and more.

Instead you’re sitting up here defending Rene Walling.

Keep being classy, Laurie Mann. You’re going on my list of people to avoid at cons.

[Trigger Warning] Laurie Mann shows her ass by excoriating fandom over the horrible treatment of Rene Walling — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

  1. As much as you can stomach, anyway

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 15 Comments

George Herbert Walker Bush Would Win The Presidential Knife Fight

I found this post at Face In The Blue, going through each of the 44 presidents and asking which would win in a 44-President knifefight melee — oddly entertaining.

The rules, as set by redditor Xineph:

* Every president is in the best physical and mental condition they were ever in throughout the course of their presidency. Fatal maladies have been cured, but any lifelong conditions or chronic illnesses (e.g. FDR’s polio) remain.

* The presidents are fighting in an ovular arena 287 feet long and 180 feet wide (the dimensions of the Roman Colosseum). The floor is concrete. Assume that weather is not a factor.

* Each president has been given one standard-issue Gerber LHR Combat Knife , the knife presented to each graduate of the United States Army Special Forces Qualification Course. Assume the presidents have no training outside any combat experiences they may have had in their own lives.

* There is no penalty for avoiding combat for an extended period of time. Hiding and/or playing dead could be valid strategies, but there can be only one winner. The melee will go on as long as it needs to.

* FDR has been outfitted with a Bound Plus H-Frame Power Wheelchair, and can travel at a maximum speed of around 11.5 MPH. The wheelchair has been customized so that he is holding his knife with his dominant hand. This is to compensate for his almost certain and immediate defeat in the face of an overwhelming disadvantage.

* Each president will be deposited in the arena regardless of their own will to fight, however, personal ethics, leadership ability, tactical expertise etc., should all be taken into account. Alliances are allowed.

(See also the discussion in the comments here.)

Although the blogger briefly mentions a couple of possible alliances, he mainly focuses on individual ability — who has combat experience, who is a good athlete, and who has the killer instinct. Based on this, he decides that Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson would be the top three.

But I think alliances are actually the most important aspect of this knife fight (at least until the end game). In a 44-person melee with no place to hide, even a skilled killer like Jackson will end up with a knife between his shoulderblades, unless he’s got absolutely trusted allies guarding his back.

Furthermore, because the melee starts immediately, there’s not going to be time to build new alliances from scratch. The three strongest alliances at the start will be the three family pairs — the two John Adamss, the two George Bushes, and the two Roosevelts.

What about the two Harrisons? The elder was the grandfather of the younger – but since they never met as adults, the two Harrisons don’t have a built-in relationship of trust the way the Adamss, Bushes and Rossevelts do. ((But if Benjamin can manage to explain who is to his grandfather without getting stabbed, then William might be a valuable ally. Most people are dismissing William because he died 31 days into his presidency, but that was from a fatal case of pnumonia, and according to the rules “fatal maladies have been cured.” William Harrison was a terrible human being, but also a soldier with combat experience, so probably shouldn’t be counted out entirely, he says, counting him out entirely. ))

So, what of our alliances? I think George Washington would naturally join in with John Adams, as they were allies in life. Jefferson and Madison were enemies of the elder Adams, so they’re probably not in the alliance. Andrew Jackson loathed the younger Adams ever since the 1828 election, when pro-Adams folks spread the word in the press that Mrs. Jackson had committed bigamy (which was true). Van Buren would join with Jackson.

So this alliance is just three Presidents – Washington, Adams, and Adams. And of those three, I think only Washington – a big guy with major military experience – is a very intimidating fighter.

So how about the two Roosevelts? They’re an interesting combo. FDR is physically one of the least imposing people in this knife fight – not being able to stand limits reach — but also the fastest. TR is the physically most intimidating fighter on the field — he is, after all, only 42, still physically in his prime, and unbelievably tough. (What sort of person declines medical care after being gutshot because he has a speech scheduled?) But as far as alliances go, FDR could bring both Truman and Eisenhower on board. TR, on the other hand, tended to alienate people, and neither Taft nor Wilson would join him.

So let’s call this alliance TR-FDR-Truman-Eisenhower. I think they’d be pretty scarey.

So, what about the Bushes? I think people underestimate GHWB; looking at his bio, it’s clear that he was smart and courageous. He’d bring in Reagan and Ford as allies (and Ford was a good athlete). Would Nixon join them? I’m not sure; Nixon might feel bitter over GHWB pressuring him to resign. On the other hand, Nixon doesn’t really have anyone else to ally with, and he sure wouldn’t like his odds as a loner. I can’t see Bush, Jr bringing any allies on board.

So this group is George Bush, George Bush, Nixon, Reagan, and Ford.

So what happens?

I don’t think Washington-Adams-Adams will last. Both John Adamss are about 60 years old and neither one had any fighting experience; and Washington himself is just too juicy a target.

Then we have the Roosevelts. I think they’re going to take themselves down with in-fighting; TR, the strongest and (amazingly) most arrogant of this group, will expect the others to obey his orders, but I don’t think Eisenhower would put up with that. But if this group can somehow get along, they’ll wind up the last group standing, in which case TR will kill the others and be the champion.

The Bush group has the advantage of being five people, so they can suffer a couple of casualties ((I.e., Nixon)) and still have three Presidents left in their alliance. That, I think, would be a telling advantage. And in the endgame, when it comes time to turn on your allies and become the last man standing, GHWB has the right combination of physical ability and ruthlessness.

Thoughts?

Posted in Mind-blowing Miscellania and other Neat Stuff | 34 Comments

Closeted Gay Man Terrified His Wife Will Discover His Secret

I realize it’s just wooden acting, but if we pretend the acting is top-notch, it’s hard not to notice how very, very conflicted the husband seems.

Via Tod Kelly.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues | 1 Comment