“There are more people living inside this circle than outside of it.”

Pretty crazy. Time to do some Wikipedia’ing, based on my eyeballing of the countries included in the circle.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate of the world population is constantly increasing, so I’ll just round it up to 7.087 billion. The above total represents approximately 53.6% of the world’s population.

The above list includes six of the ten most populous countries in the world. For gits and shiggles, here are the other four:

The above map includes part of Russia, so that circle actually has an even higher percentage of the world’s population in it.

To offer another perspective, the above-circled area probably represents more total land area than the United States, but it also has over twelve times as many people. If I had more time, I’d compare the GDPs of the 24 countries in the circle to that of the U.S., but I’m sure someone else has done that.

For a little extra fun, someone labeled the islands of Indonesia with the European countries that have similar population numbers.

The island of Java (53,589 sq. mi.) has about the same number of people as all of Russia (6,592,800 sq. mi.), and is about 0.8% Russia’s size.

Click to embiggen (via noncuratlex.com)

I give props to whomever wrote this for not making it too obvious where the various answers will lead, and making it clever when it is obvious (“Philo Farnsworth’s original patents” was pretty inspired.) I cannot claim that my answer is entirely valid, though, because I came upon the question regarding Major League Baseball preferences. There are few issues about which I care less than Major League Baseball. The World Series of Poker comes to mind, along with anything involving Real Housewives. Anyway, I chose the Yankees, because I at least know that two guys with the same names as me have played for them. (That wasn’t the reason at the time, but it’s an excellent post hoc rationalization.)

We even have the same hairdo.

Seriously, please put me in a sketch with Barkley. I have theater experience, and I’m good with dogs (even supernaturally large ones).

Photo credits: Kyle at NonCuratLex; pvsbond (TBS Analyst David Wells) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

I should probably explain what that means, except I don’t think I can. Here’s what some folks at PBS said:

White America is coming apart at the seams.

That’s the thesis Charles Murray, a libertarian political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, puts forth in his new book, “Coming Apart.” In a piece soon to appear on the NewsHour, Murray argues that the super wealthy, super educated and super snobby live in so-called super-ZIPs: cloistered together, with little to no exposure to American culture at large.

Murray came up with a 25-question quiz to determine the size of your bubble. I’ve heard of Murray, but don’t know much about him. Since I tend to agree with libertarians on roughly 50% of issues (the issues involving keeping government out of the business of individual humans, as opposed to corporations that only exists because of government blah blah blah. I digress), I try to give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom I’m not familiar. Murray and I align at least somewhat on issues like marriage equality and some aspects of reproductive rights, but I’m sure there’s divergence elsewhere. His “bubble quiz” told me a lot more about what Charles Murray thinks of city folk than about any bubbles I may inhabit. (HINT: Eating at chain restaurants, identifying military rank insignia, and personally knowing at least one evangelical Christian will significantly reduce your bubblage.)

At any rate, I got a 36 out of 99, which overlaps two different bubbles. A 99, by the way, would mean the broadest exposure to American culture, while a 0 would be a Howard Hughes-esque bubble. Of the two bubbles in which my score fits, the one that seems closer to me is “A second-generation (or more) upper-middle-class person who has made a point of getting out a lot.” It was actually all the upper-middle-class evangelical Baptists I knew growing up that gave me most of my supposedly non-bubble experiences, but whatever. Take the quiz yourself and see how a 70 year-old libertarian who works for a think tank judges your life!

Oklahoma isn’t a place. It’s something in your blood. It’s something that you do. It’s the shirt off your back and a tear in your eye and the giddyup in your soul.
Nicole Hill

The comments regarding yesterday’s deadly tornado in Oklahoma seem to range from unconditional pleas for help on the one hand, to “political cheap shots” against the people who elected Senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe on the other. The need for help, and the obligation for us to provide whatever help we can, however much or little, both individually and as a society, should be without question. We are all Americans, we are all humans, and we are all in this together. I disagree, however, with those who say that now is not the time for politics. We are capable enough of multitasking that we can give aid while remembering what the elected leaders of Oklahoma have said in the past. (Coburn and Inhofe stand out right now because they have been so outspoken in the past about these types of issues. I know less about, say, Governor Mary Fallin or the local authorities in Moore, who appear to be doing a stellar job.)

First off, here’s what any of us can do to help. Senator Coburn actually has a good list of aid resources on his Senate website, including the Red Cross, Food Bank, and United Way. The Red Cross operates a service called “Safe and Well” that allows people in the affected areas to report that they are okay, and lets others check on their status. Red Cross Oklahoma tweeted information on how to contribute yesterday:

Best way to help tornado victims is to donate to the Red Cross at redcross.org or text REDCROSS to 90999. #okwx

— Red Cross Oklahoma (@redcrossokc) May 20, 2013

The tornado left many animals stranded and lost, and the Central Oklahoma Humane Society has information on how to help, both with financial and in-kind donations.

Donate money, blood, supplies, time, or whatever you can. Just do something.

Want to help? Donate. #PayForOklahoma

— God (@TheTweetOfGod) May 21, 2013

Once we have helped, I believe it is important to note that the senators from Oklahoma might not offer the rest of us help in similar circumstances. They both opposed federal aid to the region affected by Hurricane Sandy, and have generally sought to reduce funding for disaster relief. I have to give Senator Coburn credit for sticking to his principles, as he has stated that he will oppose disaster relief for his own state without corresponding spending cuts. Still, I have to wonder what Ralph Waldo Emerson might have said about Coburn’s style of consistency.

As for Senator Inhofe, the notorious climate change denier seems to be playing dumb. He has his reasons for wanting disaster relief aid for his state, and whether it is genuine concern for his constituents or rank political self-preservation doesn’t even interest me right now. He has to fold himself into pretzels, though, to account for his change of tune.

If we don’t talk about this now, then when? When the incident is receding from the memories of all but those directly affected? No. If Senators Coburn and Inhofe are the kind of people who will stand on principle by refusing to support disaster relief for the rest of the country but humbly request it for their own constituents, they deserve to be called out on it every second of every day, and they should be reminded constantly that they owe thanks to the taxpayers from the other 49 states. Oklahoma is one of those red states, by the way, that receive more federal money than they pay in taxes, around $1.01-$1.50 for every dollar paid.

The voters of Oklahoma that put these clowns in office should be reminded that the people they elected would deny to other states the aid they are receiving, until they either vote Coburn and Inhofe out of office or admit that the majority of the state’s voters does not have the nation’s back. My heart goes out to the people of Oklahoma who have suffered and lost, and my money is going to the Red Cross or whomever is making a difference up there, but I will not neglect to point out the shame that is the Oklahoma Congressional delegation. This is not mockery. Call it judgment if you must. I won’t poke fun at people in Oklahoma, but I do expect them to live with the leaders they have chosen, just as we Texans may have to atone for Senators Cornyn and Cruz.

(NOTE: The inspiration/impetus for this post came from Julie Gillis, whom I love and admire, and with whom I hope I can amicably disagree now and then.)

Photo credit: By National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service staff. (PHOTOS OF DESTRUCTION) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

I was never proud of including such a clause, and I hated calling it a “morality” clause. I saw situations where it was most likely necessary to protect the child/ren, though, usually where one parent had, after separation from the other parent, become a, ahem, player. The idea was to shield the child/ren from that parent’s dating life until that parent was ready to get hitched again, and the other parent usually had to accept a similar restriction. While I thought it was overkill in most cases, it seemed necessary in a few.

Here’s the thing, though: it applies to unmarried adults who are dating a parent. The morality clause is moot if the parent marries the person, so the restriction is not permanent……..provided the parent can legally marry the person they are dating.

See where this is going?

What happens if the parent is in a same-sex relationship? The courts of Texas are always ready to answer questions like that in the most restrictive and invasive way possible:

Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.

And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

Ah, Texas. Where it’s better for a parent to be a convicted criminal than to be gay.

Price posted about the judge’s ruling on Facebook last week, writing that the judge placed the clause in the divorce papers because he didn’t like Compton’s “lifestyle.”

“Our children are all happy and well adjusted. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home,” Price wrote.

To be fair, much of the state has emerged from whatever mass bigotry led to the 2005 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but it hasn’t reached wide segments of the judiciary yet. State law allows district judges to make custody orders consistent with the “best interest of the child,” which is often whatever the district judge says it is, and which appellate judges view as findings of fact that they rarely question.

Few, if any, reported cases have addressed the enforceability of morality clauses. A Texas appellate court took a moment recently to dismiss a dad’s claim that a morality clause restricting him, but not his ex-wife, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Roberts v. Roberts, No. 04-11-00554-CV, opinion (Tex. App.—San Antonio, May 1, 2013).

As far as I know, the purpose of morality clauses is to protect kids from confusion if a parent starts dating after a divorce by trying to shield them from all but the most serious relationships. That this is still called “morality” reflects an origin in an earlier era. A blogger at the site Mr. Custody Coach offers a good take on the nature and effect of morality clauses today:

On the surface, the thought is about protecting the children from a revolving door of romantic partners from being introduced to the children, only to have them disappear from their lives in short order. It goes without saying that this would be detrimental to the children’s psyche, though how much and to what extent is hard to measure. However, there are far too many loopholes in even the tightest of morality clauses. Further, they simply can’t stop the children from being introduced to new significant others in a parent’s life.

There are some recent trends in child parenting agreements/orders that really should be avoided. In fact, morality clauses should be avoided, in our opinion, due to the reality that they are quite difficult to enforce and don’t afford children the “protection” that is intended.

First, the use of a parent’s sexual behavior to restrict visitation or withhold custody, even when there is no evidence that such behavior has any effect on the child. Children have close friends. Adults have close friends. It stands to reason that these friends may come in go in any of our lives. It seems counter-intuitive that a new adult “close friend” should be restricted from introduction or noticed as a part of a parent’s life. In fact, it may introduce suspicion to the children about the new person in their parent’s life without any real understanding of why it’s necessary, which can be detrimental in its own right.

Secondly, the use of restraining orders nowadays is used to introduce the family court’s opinion regarding the child’s best interests when in reality – it’s a tool to circumvent the parent’s judgments about what’s best for their child.

In each situation, the court is able to impose its view of moral behavior with the force of law. With all of the other intrusions that divorce and custody litigation affords the family court – this one is another that is an alarming trend. Further, it has been our experience that those initiating such clauses are doing so simply to control the life of their ex-partner and are even the person who violates the clauses that they are trying to impose on the other party

It is undoubtedly important to deal carefully with introducing a child to a new significant other, but the assumption of the standard morality clause is that the S/O could become a spouse. For Compton and her partner, this restriction could apply for the rest of their lives. A mostly-absentee dad seems to have gotten an assist from a regressive judge, and now the children may have to live in a single-parent household.

I hope the opponents of marriage equality are proud of themselves.

If we’re really going to talk about “morality” in a post-divorce scenario, as seen through the eyes of a conservative Republican state judge, I feel like I ought to break out the big guns:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 (NIV)

Just once, I’d like to see a sanctimonious parent in a post-divorce custody proceeding have that thrown in their face.

Of course, there are those who want to ban divorce entirely, forcing children to live with two miserable parents trapped in an unhappy marriage for the children’s own good because Jesus, so maybe I should keep the in-context Bible-quoting to a minimum.

To be fair, the adult industry is kind of encouraging the horndogs here.

Teachers, at this point in American history, are not allowed to have pasts. Nor are they allowed to have much in the way of lives outside of teaching. This applies to other professions as well, but teachers seem to bear the brunt of our society’s perfectionism.

I’m going to talk a bit about sex, as well as portrayals of sex in entertainment, so stop reading if you’re easily offended. I’ll warn you if a link goes somewhere NSFW (not safe for work.) The gist of what I’m saying is that we as a society have profoundly conflicted views of sexuality, especially female sexuality. People who routinely interact with children are often expected to be effectively asexual, even if no one ever quite puts it in those terms. People who have expressed their sexuality in overt ways, from basic modeling to outright porn, while breaking no laws, often lose their jobs as teachers and in other fields. Sometimes, we can justify it as “protecting the kids,” while other times, t really makes no sense at all.

Even when it is supposedly about protecting children, what is it really teaching kids? (Disclosure: I do not have kids, but I used to be a teenage boy.) The most common justification offered for dismissing a teacher because of modeling, porn, etc. is that it creates a “disruption” or “distraction” in the school environment. I assume that this refers to the idea that students will not be able to learn as effectively because they might have seen their teacher in a state of undress or more, perhaps online.

That is, at least initially, a compelling argument. What is it actually teaching kids, though? This is not about teachers who actually have sex with their students, or who call their students “jailbait” on Twitter. Those are pretty obviously illegal and/or inappropriate. I can also see an argument against letting teachers moonlight as bikini models or whatever, but what about something a teacher did years ago? I don’t necessarily know the best answer for how to deal with it, but firing a teacher for modeling bikinis or more in the past might have more negative long-term consequences:

1. It reinforces that sex = dirty and shameful in general.
2. It places the libido of teenage boys, and whatever impulses of teenage girls may come into play (I know less about that topic, but I remember the teenage libido quite well from my own teenage days), at the forefront of school policy. This may help short-term order and discipline, but…
3. It teaches teenagers (boys especially) that they have power over others’ (women’s especially) sexuality. If a teacher loses her job because she might distract horny teens, what else will those teens think is within their power to control?
4. If you really want people to get out of doing porn, give them another option. Don’t just fire them, because you know what? They end up without anywhere else to go in life.

I’ll discuss a few specific cases below, and they bring up another critical point: many people criticize porn, and even seek its prohibition, because of its alleged exploitation of women. It is absolutely without doubt that some porn performers are not there entirely of their own free will, but that is not true of all of them. Figuring out which is which is difficult even on a normal day.

A common defense raised by teachers is that they did not do porn entirely willingly, either due to economic circumstances or actual duress; or that they did it, hated it, and regret it with every fiber of their being. In situations where direct duress leads a person to porn, that is essentially a criminal act, and it makes as much sense to punish that person as it does to jail a victim of human trafficking. In situations where people do porn because they need the money, that opens up an economic discussion about how we pay teachers, and women’s income inequality in general, that no one seems to want to have. In situations where a woman does porn of her own free will and is unapologetic, people don’t quite seem to know how to handle that. I’ll just note that former porn star Sasha Grey read to a group of schoolchildren, and nothing bad seems to have happened yet.

II. Teachers Should Not Wear Bikinis While Teaching, Even on the Weekends

A teacher in Boca Raton, Florida (these stories seem to come out of Florida quite often) lost her job recently when photos of her second job, as a bikini model, surfaced and came to her principal’s attention. She does all of her modeling under a pseudonym, but I guess that was still deemed inappropriate for a school setting. I can see an argument for some outside-of-school conduct conflicting with a teacher’s role. I can even see a colorable claim of justification in firing her due to the likelihood of “distraction,” but just barely. The now-ex-teacher made a point of distinguishing what she does from pornography. At any rate, the media attention might be helping her modeling career.

III. When It Comes to Actual Porn, We Draw Some Interesting Lines

A few months ago, Melissa King resigned as Miss Teen Delaware due to allegations that she had appeared in a porn video. She appeared on stage in swimwear, and her main job as Miss Teen Delaware (don’t try to tell me it’s a scholarship program) is to look hot, but porn crosses some major line for some reason.

Here is an adult video actress (not sure who) looking like a regular member of society, because she most likely is one.

“I enjoy acting, and I really like sex, so this was the perfect opportunity to combine two of my passions,” McCarty told Tarts. “It was a pretty easy transition, I think mainstream television is definitely starting to merge with the adult world anyway – it’s all about sex and nudity, and I’ve been pretending to have love scenes on ‘Passions’ for years anyway.”

While the on-screen adjustment wasn’t too much of a sweat for McCarty, she was shocked at how the men in her personal life have suddenly changed their tune.

This gave her an opening for a good defense of people who might actually want to do porn:

“These are guys that I’ve known for a long time that are a suddenly putting it out there, they think because I have sex on television I must want to do it with them, too. Its really creepy and disturbing, being an adult film star does not automatically put you into the slut category,” McCarty said. “Maybe you’d expect that from people you don’t know, but this is coming from guys I considered friends. Weird.”

(Emphasis added.) Most people don’t seem to have gotten the memo.

IV. Teachers with Porn Pasts – That’s When Sh!t Gets Real

“Distraction” seems to be the go-to explanation when a teacher loses her job due to extracurricular bikini-wearing or nudity. Typically, it is the students who are “distracted.” The problem really seems to come when a teacher loses her (and it almost always seems to be her) job because of something she did during a time when she was not teaching. A California teacher lost her job last year when administrators learned she had appeared in pornographic movies in the past. A commission upheld her termination in January:

Judge Julie Cabos-Owen said such a past matters in an age when technology makes porn easy to access and hard to bury.

“Although her pornography career has concluded, the ongoing availability of her pornographic materials on the Internet will continue to impede her from being an effective teacher and respected colleague,” Cabos-Owen said in the 46-page decision issued Friday by the Commission on Professional Competence.

Students and teachers both reportedly found pornographic videos of the teacher, Stacie Halas, on the internet, and reported the matter to school officials. This is sort of one of those scenarios where the people reporting the alleged wrongdoing have some ‘splainin’ to do themselves, but that is not addressed in media reports on the matter. The revelation of her porn past of course led to harassment by mouth-breathers, which in turn meant she had to go.

After rumors of her performance surfaced, profanity was etched on Halas’ classroom window, a teacher testified.

[Halas lawyer Richard] Schwab has said Halas did not star in pornographic movies while teaching in any district. He said she took parts only during an eight-month period from 2005 to 2006 because of financial problems after her boyfriend abandoned her.

District superintendent Jeff Chancer applauded the commission’s ruling.

Halas’ decision to “engage in pornography was incompatible with her responsibilities as a role model for students,” Chancer said in a statement.

Basically, we don’t pay teachers enough, but take an active role in controlling how they eke out a living. The decision, posted at The Smoking Gun (and linked below as a PDF file), notes that Halas’ fiancé left her in 2005 with substantial debt, including student loans and credit cards, forcing her to move in with her cash-strapped parents. She evidently got into the adult entertainment biz in the fall of 2005 out of financial necessity, based both on her needs and her schedule as a graduate student.

The decision lists eighteen titles in which she allegedly appeared, marking one of those rare occasions when a legal document uses the phrase “Semen Sippers” (the link is to IMDB, so chill.) It also demonstrates how it might be kind of fun to summarize porn plots for a legal document:

In one of the videos, Respondent portrays a woman who has sexual intercourse with a pizza delivery man, in lieu of monetary payment for the pizza delivery, and engages in oral copulation while the man’s penis is inserted through a hole in the pizza.

In re Halas, OAH No. 2012051091, decision at 5 (Comm. on Prof. Competence, Oxnard Sch. Dist., Jan. 11, 2013) (PDF). That does not sound fun for the guy.

In another video, she apparently discusses her career as a teacher and, when asked if she worries about losing her job, responds with “[It's] questionable,” although she claimed the dialogue was “scripted.” Id. at 5-6. The commission treated with skepticism her assertions that representatives of the adult entertainment industry approached her unsolicited, id. at 4, and that her subsequent appearance in multiple videos was the result of coercion, id. at 7. In fact, it called her descriptions of alleged coercion “a self-serving attempt to shift at least part of the blame,” id., bringing a question to my mind: we hear constantly that porn exploits women, but I guess that’s not true when it comes time to assess the career prospects of the allegedly exploited. The commission may be right to be skeptical of her account of events, because she has every incentive to downplay her involvement in porn. Let me be clear: I have no idea if she did porn willingly, or as a result of some form of duress, but it is beyond doubt that she would have received the same, if not worse, treatment if she admitted to seeking out employment in porn. It is a no-win situation for her.

While Halas and her lawyer insisted that she did not appear in any videos while employed as a teacher, administrators seemed to hem and haw on the issue:

In speaking with the News 24 in March, [Oxnard School District Superintendent Jeff] Chancer said that there was no way of knowing when the porn was made, and whether or not Stacie Halas’ alleged appearances in the videos happened before or after she began to work for Richard B. Haydock Intermediate School.

“There’s no way to date [the videos],” he said. “They could have been made two weeks or five years ago.”

Oxnard administrators do not seem to be familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which requires producers to keep various records about their shoots, including the date(s) of production. Although the commission’s view of the circumstances of her employment would seem to make the timing of her performances irrelevant, it gives me an opportunity to Google 2257 records. Whee!

The decision includes URLs of several videos, id. at 18, 22-23, only one of which seems to still be online (no, I’m not linking to it.) The video notes that it is sponsored by a website, lordsofporn.com, with a link to said website. That site has a 2257 compliance notice, meaning that anyone wanting to know the dates of production could conceivably contact the person identified as the Custodian of Records, or they could get the producers in legal trouble.

She reportedly performed under the name Tiffany Six (NSFW links here and here). The one with the pizza guy was not difficult to find (do I even need to tell you the link is NSFW?), although it’s on one of those “tube” sites that are reportedly killing the porn business. The site where the video originated (NSFW) has a link to 2257 info, although interestingly, the link was dead when I tried it. Uh oh.

At any rate, it really doesn’t seem to matter when she did the videos, because they will be available to horny teenagers online for all eternity, and it is better to fire the person who claims she did them under duress than to educate teens about sex and economic realities. (Disclosure again: I don’t have kids.)

Halas is hardly the only one, by the way. Another teacher, who performed briefly as Rikki Anderson, lost her teaching job in Kentucky after her past emerged, and then resigned another teaching job in Missouri.

V. What’s a Fired Teacher to Do?

Sometimes they end up going from bikini modeling to porn, as in the case of another Florida teacher. She lost her job after she took a side job that involved wearing a bikini on a fishing boat (sorta NSFW), and with no other job prospects during a recession, turned to porn (definitely NSFW). She was reportedly not happy with the decision, but had no other options.

Then there’s the guy in Florida who lost his teaching job when administrators discovered his gay porn past. He reportedly got his job back. While the facts of each case are unique, and we don’t know the specifics here, it’s tempting to conclude that this is an odd case of sexism trumping homophobia. Who really knows, though.

VI. So Does Anyone Get Away with This Sort of Thing?

Of course! An accidental or unconsented release of a private sex tape can help your career, if you’re Paris Hilton, or launch a previously-nonexistent career, if you’re Kim Kardashian.

If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. Nowadays, you can potentially make quite a bit of money and increase your infamy, if not actual fame, with a professionally made sex tape made to look like it was leaked. In Farrah Abraham’s case, she apparently made close to $1 million for a terrible video. Indeed we live in a strange world.

Photo credits: Copyright held by “Naughty America” (OTRS submission by Dallas Lowe, La Touraine Inc.) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons; Michael Dorausch from Venice, USA (2012 AVN Expo Las VegasUploaded by tm) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

a Eurosceptic right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom, founded in 1993. The party describes itself in its constitution as a “democratic, libertarian party” and, as of May 2013, has a membership of 27,000.

UKIP currently has 11 of the 73 UK seats in the European Parliament, three members in the House of Lords, one seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly and 147 local councillors. The UKIP performance in the 2013 local election was the best result for a party outside the big three in British politics since the Second World War, coming fourth in the number of council seats won and third in terms of projected nationwide votes. UKIP has not won a seat in the House of Commons to date.

Stock photo found in a search for “trousers.”

The British media describes the party as “anti-EU.” The party seems to be having a problem with protests, including one in Scotland in which an angry mob shouting “racist, Nazi scum” led to police escorting the party’s leader to safety. What intrigues me are the views of its top contributor, “Greek shipping tycoon”^* Demetri Marchessini. They are quite intriguing in their outspokenness:

Greek tycoon Demetri Marchessini, who believes not wearing a skirt is ‘hostile behaviour’, gave UKIP £10,000 this year – a fifth of all its cash donations.

***

He is the author of a book entitled Women In Trousers: A Rear View in which he photographed women from behind and then commented on their clothes. In it he claimed that the ratio Britain of women wearing trousers to skirts is 10 to 1.

‘The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that, because women cannot see themselves from the rear, the vast majority of women are unaware that trousers are very unflattering to them,’ he said in the 2003 book.

‘Trousers are made for men’s bodies, which are mostly straight up and down.

‘Women’s bodies on the other hand consists of curves. Women have big bottoms – they are meant to have big bottoms.

***

‘Women know that men don’t like trousers, yet they deliberately wear them,’ he continued in the bizarre coffee table book.

‘Walk along any street and you see women using trousers like a uniform every single day. This is hostile behaviour – they are deliberately dressing in a way that is opposite to what men would like.

‘It is behaviour that flies against commons sense, and also flies against the normal human desire to please.’

It goes on and on, including a description of Jennifer Lopez as a “Mexican tart.” And yes, there really is a book (one copy available for £12.95!)

Of course, the views of one donor, even a major one, cannot necessarily be imputed to a political party. It just doesn’t help the PR, does it?

People like this still exist, and I think it is important to point that out. People can have whatever opinion they want, but so can I, and my opinion is that sub-medieval b.s. like this should be called out. The Twitter exchange that led me to this story offers some cogent, if ad hominem, commentary:

#UKIP donor claims women wear trousers as a “hostile” act to make themselves unattractive to men. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…

— GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) May 17, 2013

.@georgemonbiot Funny how it’s always unattractive, charisma-free males who make that sort of moronic claim, isn’t it? — anarchic_teapot (@anarchic_teapot) May 17, 2013

The original point was sort of ad hominem against the women of the UK, so a little ad hominem going the other way ought to be fair game. Another fun exchange showed some other intriguing views of Mr. Marchessini:

England is a strange country.Because Helen #Mirren has played the Queen in film, people consider her “queen”, but she did porno films. — Demetri Marchessini (@DMarchessini) April 30, 2013

Nothing to do with Mirren’s undeniably immense acting talent, then @dmarchessini ? — anarchic_teapot (@anarchic_teapot) May 17, 2013

I assume he is referring to Caligula, starring not only Helen Mirren, but Malcolm McDowell, Peter O’Toole, and Oscar winner John Gielgud. If you’re going to do “porn,” do it with some classically-trained, award-winning actors. (I haven’t seen Caligula, mind you, but that’s quite a cast.)

Seriously, though. Don’t mess with Helen Mirren.

Photo credit: Alvimann from morguefile.com.

* Really, is there any other kind of Greek tycoon?

A visibly infuriated Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) tore into Attorney General Eric Holder after his time expired in a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. The exchange, about the FBI’s investigation into deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, marked a low point in congressional civility.

Gohmert alleged that the FBI failed to question Tsarnaev in a “thorough enough” manner despite a tip from Russia that he had been “radicalized,” even as the federal government was “going after” Christian groups like that of Billy Graham.

“You’ve made statements as matters of fact–,” Holder began in response.

“You point out one thing that I said that was not true,” shot back Gohmert.

[Procedural assertions, ya-ta ya-ta ya-ta]

Gohmert asked again for a point of personal privilege and said that Holder was “wrong on the things that I asserted as fact.” The other members of the committee disputed that his contention was a point of personal privilege.

“The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus,” said Gohmert, in a malapropism for the ages.

(Emphasis added) I didn’t actually hear the word “asparagus,” but that’s not really the point.

Gohmert, whom George Lopez called “fucking crazy” just yesterday, represents the district in east Texas from which 1/2 of my family originates. That is my shame (because of Gohmert, not my family).

For my part, it does not sound as though Holder was calling Gohmert a liar, but that seems to be Gohmert’s takeaway here. Saying that a person said something that is not true is not the same thing as calling them a liar. He might have just been saying Gohmert was misinformed, or at worst, ignorant. I’m okay with that.

Via thesuperficial.com

I gotta run. They’re doing a breast reduction on 3, and I want to get up there to try and stop it. You know what I’m talkin’ about!
Todd, Scrubs season 2 episode 15, “His Story”

So about Angelina Jolie’s preventive double mastectomy. The reaction seems to range from “this is none of my business” to “how very brave of her” to “NOOOOOOOOO, BOOOOOOOOOOOBS!!!!!!!!!” To one degree or another, these are all fair reactions.

None of My Business: This is by far the best reaction, because people’s personal medical decisions should be just that—personal. Still, Angelina Jolie has lived much of her life in the public eye, and whether she likes it or not, people will take notice of her decisions.

Courage: Angelina Jolie is not like most famous people in Hollywood. I’ve never quite been able to put what I mean in words, and I’m not sure anyone else has either. She is beyond doubt a talented actress and an all-around good human being, but she brings something to all of her movies that overpowers everyone and everything else on screen. This manages to make even her not-very-good movies (e.g. Taking Lives) memorable, and makes her the most noticeable part of movies where she plays a bit part (e.g. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.) Even when she’s doing something silly, people take notice en masse. It’s a unique combination of beauty and gravitas, for lack of a better description.

This makes her an ideal spokesperson for various causes, and she can’t seem to help but be a role model. Of course, much of the media attention she has received over the years has focused on her lips and other……attributes. She is and will still be a phenomenally beautiful woman, but there is a bold element to her decision. She may or may not have intended this, but she is basically daring people to assess whether this will affect her entertainment career.

Her mother died of cancer in 2007. She had an eighty-seven percent chance of developing breast cancer, a chance which is now much lower. She has six children, all of whom now have a greater chance of seeing their mother grow old.

Boobs: Let’s just say it. Angelina Jolie had fantastic breasts. I think it is okay to lament the world’s loss, given that it was, is, and will aways be a breast owner’s decision what to do with them. We may think of this as the loss of a great American treasure, but it is not the same as, say, the loss of the Old Man of the Mountain. That was a public trust. These were somebody’s body parts. Let us say no more about them, except to celebrate someone’s courage to take whatever control she could of her own health.

Wait, There’s More! Joe Patrice at Above the Law has a piece on the gene that led to Jolie’s decision, BRCA1. The only test capable of detecting the gene is patented, and therefore very expensive. This means that people like Jolie, who have resources, can get the test, while millions more cannot. Even after the Affordable Care Act takes full effect, “grandfathered” plans may not have to provide coverage for the test. This may change, though, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the issue of the patentability of human genes in a few months in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

And a Little More: It is impossible to Google Angelina Jolie’s name without quickly venturing into NSFW territory. Here’s an NSFW GIF of her taking off her shirt. Thanks for reading my blog.

I could have written this post without showing headless, topless beautiful people, but where’s the fun in that? (Via hollywood.com)

I still own a few articles of clothing that I obtained at the Abercrombie & Fitch store in the Houston Galleria around 1997 or 1998. Shortly after that time period, I realized that the store no longer had anything to offer me. Around 1997, Abercrombie & Fitch was best described as a slightly fancier Eddie Bauer, a style that might still suit me to this day. One day, probably in 1999, I went into the Houston store and found myself knee- to waist-deep in douche. Not literally, of course, but the store seemed to have abruptly changed from a place that offered durable clothes that appealed to me (as evidenced by the fact that some of the clothes I got there have held on for 16+ years) to a place where beautiful people go to feel superior.

We have known for a long time that the current CEO of the company is a douchenozzle, and that he has designed a store for his fellow douchenozzles:

As far as [Mike] Jeffries is concerned, America’s unattractive, overweight or otherwise undesirable teens can shop elsewhere. “In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he says. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

Recently, the company has been under fire for not even bothering to sell women’s XL sizes, which has brought Jeffries’ pontifications on coolness and beauty back to the fore. It has also given many of us an opportunity. More on that later.

In a heartfelt and moving piece at Huffington Post, Sara Taney Humphries writes to Jeffries:

Shame on you for perpetuating the bully on the playground mentality, in the online community and with our youth. The message you are sending is reprehensible and an appalling waste of an opportunity. You could have chosen to use your power and position to promote tolerance and love. Instead, you chose to promote and validate bullies. Your campaign is telling our young people that it’s perfectly acceptable to exclude someone because of the size of their body.

Via amquix.info

You know who Mike Jeffries reminds me of? A Star-Bellied Sneetch. In the Dr. Seuss story, the Star-Bellied Sneetches lord over the Plain-Bellied Sneetches, feeling that Star-Bellies are superior just because. A con man comes along and offers to put stars on the Plain-Bellies, then take them off the Star-Bellies, and on and on until no one can tell each other apart and they realize they’re all the same deep down, the end. I always wondered why the Plain-Bellied Sneetches couldn’t just enjoy one another’s company and live without the Star-Bellies’ approval, but the story really isn’t that complex. Still, I always felt like if the Plain-Bellied Sneetches could just find a way to stand up for themselves, they could take away the power that having a star gave to the other Sneetches. The Star-Bellies were only on top because they said so, after all.

Dr. Seuss wrote the story as a satire of racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination, so the real-life issues that inspired it are far more complicated than stars on a belly. Reading the story as a child, though, I always rooted for the Plain-Bellies to stand up and refuse to recognize the star as a sign of superiority.

Jeffries is one of the unrepentantly haughty Star-Bellies at the beginning of the story, but instead of a star, he has an Abercrombie & Fitch label. He sells those labels to other Star-Bellies, so that they can identify one another. We, however, can also identify them.

People who do not meet Mike Jeffries’ narrow view of coolness have a ready means of identifying who is worth their time and attention: people who do not bear the label of Abercrombie & Fitch. It is quite thoughtful of the world’s douchecanoes to mark themselves so, as it makes identifying them that much easier.

And yes, knowing what we all know about the company now, if you continue to wear the company’s clothes, the world will know you as a fellow doucherocket. Now if you will excuse me, I have some 16+ year-old clothing to donate to charity, since it shouldn’t have to be expensive to dress like a douche.

UPDATE (May 15, 2013): Shortly after I finished writing this post, I cam across the story of the guy who is donating Abercrombie & Fitch clothing to the homeless. I found his video to be a bit over-the-top, but he did a good job of showing me up by actually doing what I only mockingly suggest.

Photo credits: © Abercrombie & Fitch, via hollywood.com; Dr. Seuss, via amquix.info.