I’m pretty addicted to the hit Netflix original series Orange is the New Black, a dramedy about Piper Chapman, a white, bougie, New Yorker who serves a year in prison for drug trafficking. I’m so glad that it got renewed for a new season, though I can’t believe I have to wait a year! But if I had watched the last episode of the first season without knowing that there would be more, I would have done to the head of Netflix exactly what Piper Chapman does at the end of said episode. Part of the reason’s the show is so great is because of its great writing, great characters and great one-liners. Here are some of the best quotes from the show.

1. No Lesbian-Based Rooming!

When prison bureaucrat and lesbian witch-hunter mistakenly thinks Piper wants to room with “Crazy Eyes,” he shuts the whole thing down with this line. The avuncular (for now) Healy then offers the following anthropological insight: “She’s what we call a ‘stud,’ which is very confusing for a nice girl like you, because, let’s be honest, she looks like a man … My advice? Let her down easy … Lesbians can be very dangerous. It’s the testosterone.”

2. When Piper Breaks Up With Her Non-Wife

Suzanne “Crazy Eyes” Warren is smitten with Piper, whom she nicknames Dandelion and for whom she writes the following poem:

“Before I met you the sun was like a yellow grape But now, it looks like fire in the sky Why? Because you light a fire inside me.”

When Crazy Eyes thinks another inmate is bothering Piper, she intervenes: “Move, bitch. This is my wife here, so you need to step. I will cut you! I will cut you, bitch! Don’t make me cut you!” Crazy Eyes also throws her pie at the other prisoner, which hits her in the torso. When Piper tells Crazy Eyes she’s not actually her wife, Crazy Eyes puts the cruelty of this rejection into perspective.

3. That Time Taystee Was Topless On Top Of A Bulldozer

This gem comes from an AA meeting the inmates organize in the yoga room. Prisoner Taystee Jefferson Jefferson is sharing when she knew “it was time to make a change” and quit drinking.

Read the rest at Policymic

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the new sex scandals involving Democratic politicians is the way the media and politicians are conflating very different types of behavior. If you didn’t know their back stories, you would think that San Diego Democratic Mayor Bob Filner and New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner were guilty of the same, equally reprehensible thing. Rachel Maddow, for instance, grouped together Filner and Weiner, saying they “recalibrate for us as a nation the depths of shame that we are supposed to accept from people who are in positions of public leadership.” During a press conference last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi was asked about her “take on former congressman Weiner’s latest transgressions, having repeated the same action that occurred for his resignation in Congress.” Though asked only about Weiner, Pelosi replied by linking Weiner to Filner: “I think I have spoken and acted in terms of Anthony Weiner, in terms of when he was in the Congress of the United States. In his case, in the case of Mayor Filner, clearly, they have both admitted they need therapy. I think maybe that therapy could better be accomplished in private … the conduct of some of these people that we are talking about here is reprehensible. It is so disrespectful of women.” And in an article titled “Are Anthony Weiner and Bob Filner and Their Ilk Politically Redeemable?” the Los Angeles News Group explicitly equates the behavior of the two men, calling them “Politicos Behaving Badly” and “Old Boys Gone Wild.”

Read more at Salon

I am in support of a woman’s right to protest — even to do so topless. But there is a line between helpful and harmful protesting.

When two topless FEMEN protestors stormed the Russian embassy in Stockholm on Thursday, that line was crossed, and the women hurt their cause more than they helped it.

At the end of June, Putin signed an incredibly homophobic law against the “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations around minors.” The law imposes significant fines of up to $31,000 for providing information about the gay community to minors, holding gay pride events, speaking in defense of gay rights, or equating gay and heterosexual relationships. The law applies to Russians and foreigners alike, as well as media organizations. And it looks like gay athletes from all over the world will be subject to the law during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

FEMEN is a Ukrainian feminist organization based in Kiev and Paris, dedicated to “fighting patriarchy in its three manifestations — sexual exploitation of women, dictatorship, and religion.” They often protest topless to draw attention to their causes, as they did on Thursday, when two topless FEMEN members climbed over a fence and scaled the Russian embassy in Stockholm. The two women waved a rainbow flag, held a sign that said “homosexual propaganda on Russian ground,” and chanted, “Gay rights are human rights.” The police arrived, removed them, and released them once they confessed to trespassing.

[…]

Read more at Policymic

By now, the scandal surrounding Democratic San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is national news, with many calling for him to resign. But some conservatives are saying the scandal goes beyond Filner himself, and that he was the beneficiary of a coverup by his own party. Are they right?

As of now, a total of seven women, including a retired Navy rear admiral and a dean at San Diego State University, have stepped forward to say they were at the receiving end of Filner’s inappropriate sexual behavior. Just to get an idea, this behavior allegedly included things like groping, putting women in headlocks and trying to kiss them, telling one woman to come to “work without panties” on, putting his hand down a woman’s bra, shoving his tongue down women’s throats, and running his finger up a woman’s cheek and asking if she was single.

While Filner refuses to step down, and says he will be vindicated, he has also apparently admitted some inappropriate behavior, saying, ”I have diminished the office to which you elected me. I have reached into my heart and soul and realize I must and will change my behavior[…] As someone who has spent a lifetime fighting for equality for all people, I am embarrassed to admit that I have failed to fully respect the women who work for me and with me, and that at times I have intimidated them […] I am also humbled to admit that I need help. I have begun to work with professionals to make changes in my behavior and approach. In addition, my staff and I will participate in sexual harassment training provided by the city.”

Read the rest at Salon

A scientologist, a libertarian, and an anti-choice activist walk into a prison onto a TV set…

Much has been written about the Netflix original bougie-bi-white-lady-goes-to-prison-for-a-year-dramedy Orange is the New Black (OITNB). Mychal writes about the show’s exploration of trans issueshere. Major smartypants Salamishah Tillet at The Nation looks at the show in the context of violence against women. Kortney Ryan Ziegler talks about its trans black narrative at blac (k) ademic. But I’m not going to discuss the show’s politics. I’m going to discuss the politics of the some the show’s cast members.

Putting aside politics for a second (Ew. Did I just say that?), I have to say I was totally addicted to the show and consumed it quickly, thanks to the uncontrolled access provided by a Netflix series. I like the show about 10 times more than Netflix’s other series House of Cards (where I don’t care at all about the characters, except the one who’s now dead. Thanks, guys.) And though I loved Arrested Development, a show so good it has ruined all other comedy shows on TV for me, the Netflix episodes are disappointing. (For one thing, Jason Bateman’s character has become unbelievable and over the top. What happened to the restrained and hilarious straight-man Michael I used to know and love?) So, I started googling all I could about OITNB and its actors. And now, I kinda wish I hadn’t. Because here’s what I found out.

1. Taylor Schilling (who plays Piper Chapman) was the star of Atlas Shrugged: Part I, a movie based on the book of the same name by conservative-ish libertarian Ayn Rand, who hated taxes, any social safety net, feminism, women’s lib, female presidencies and called herself a male chauvinist. She’s also considered a hero by the TeaParty. Paul Ryan loves Rand, though she would no doubt be disgusted by his religiosity and fervent commitment to a government ban on abortion. OK. So the message of the book and the movie is problematic, to be extremely charitable. What is Schilling’s role here? Besides the lead (pun intended), Schilling is, on some level at least, endorsing the Randian ideology by participating in the film. Or at the very least she is condoning it by staring in a movie which perpetuates Rand’s message. I understand it’s hard for actors to get work. I just don’t like to think of her playing a character from that movie, which, in addition to spouting bad politics, was critically panned on a nearly universal level, so it seems like it was a bad decision all around.

[…]

Read more at Feministing

If there is any good that can come out of the tragedy of Trayvon Martin’s death and the miscarriage of justice in George Zimmerman’s acquittal, it’s the raised awareness about other injustices.  On Friday, speaking at the National Urban League convention in Philadelphia Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said: “My message to you is: Please use my story, please use my tragedy, please use my broken heart to say to yourself, we cannot let this happen to anybody else’s child.” Fulton was urging people to organize against racial profiling and gun laws and Stand Your Ground, a law that exists in over 20 states, that gives people the right to use deadly force with no duty to retreat. Most states allow this in the home but Stand Your Ground gives people this “freedom” outside the house. And though Zimmerman didn’t seek to use Stand Your Ground to get his case dismissed (most likely because his legal team feared putting him on the stand where he’d face cross-examination), the principle influenced the case and the jury instruction.

In addition to increased calls to repeal Stand Your Ground, Martin’s case has highlighted other cases of injustice and double standards. A prime example of this is Marissa Alexander, an 32-year-old African-American mother of three, who was sentenced to 20 years in jail for shooting at a wall to scare off her abusive husband. No one was killed. No one was even hurt. Alexander’s husband, whom she had a restraining order, admitted to abusing Marissa, as well as “put[ting] [his] hands” on all his “baby mamas.” Alexander attempted to use the Stand Your Ground law. But unbelievably, a jury took 12 minutes of deliberating to sentence Alexander to 20 years. (This, sadly, isn’t unbelievable, given the racist application of Stand Your Ground.)

[…]

Read more at Feministing

A recent study suggests that weight-based discrimination can cause weight gain. People who reported facing discrimination were 2.5 times more likely to become obese in the four-year study period, and people who started out obese were three times more likely to remain so if they were discriminated against. This news makes the widespread and pervasive shaming faced by people considered overweight or obese that much more disturbing — as well as downright counterproductive. Here are six places you can allegedly find discrimination against people considered overweight.

Casinos: Twenty-two female cocktail servers sued the Borgata, an Atlantic City casino, over its policy prohibiting women from gaining 7% of their initial body weight. The women allegedly faced mandatory weigh-ins and were told to take laxatives or stop taking prescription medicine in order to stay thin. Atlantic County Superior Court judge Nelson Johnson ruled that this was perfectly legal, writing, “The Borgata Babe program has a sufficient level of trapping and adornments to render its participants akin to ‘sex objects’ to the Borgata’s patrons… Nevertheless, for the individual labeled a babe to become a sex object requires that person’s participation.” I feel so much better now. And I’m sure the Borgata Babes do, too.

Car dealerships: Joseph Whittaker claims that he was fired from his job as a manager at America’s Car-Mart, of Jefferson City, Mo., because of his weight. Whittaker argues that though he is obese, he was, “at all times relevant, able to perform the essential functions of his position with defendant, with or without accommodation.”

Read the rest at Salon

Dear Friends!

I’m writing with some exciting news about my documentary on Camp Kinderland, “Commie Camp.” The film premiered on June 28th at the VisionFest FIlm Festival at Tribeca Cinemas. “Commie Camp” broke a record with two sold out showings. Thanks soooo much to everyone who came out and showed their support. It was especially great to have people featured in the documentary present at the screenings, like campers who are now grown up (see photos above. Check out more pictures here!)

Also, director Katie Halper (that’s me) won an award for  Technical and Artistic Achievement.  There are a bunch of upcoming screenings. Please come out and spread the word to your friends!

When a scandal breaks, several questions invariably arise: “Should this scandal matter? Should the media focus on it? Should voters be concerned about it? Should there be resignations, terminations, censure, prosecution, incarceration?” And what better way to address such questions than with a numerical scoring system? Rachel Maddow made an invaluable contribution to this field in her “post-Bill Clinton modern American political sex-scandal consequence-o-meter” (2011) during the first Weiner scandal. In said chart, Maddow based her scandal evaluation on two factors: the “creepy” factor and the “prosecutability” factor. The creepy factor, however, is dangerously subjective, as Maddow herself was the first to acknowledge — what’s creepy to one person may be acceptable to another.

It is this subjectivity which my system attempts to minimize. To achieve this end, I eliminate the creepiness factor, replacing it with the political hypocrisy factor. To determine the hypocrisy, one must look at rhetoric as well as policy. Do the politician’s actions violate principles he has espoused? Do they violate principles he has put into law or attempted to put into law? Note that this is different from personal hypocrisy, something perhaps distasteful, but not, I would argue, politically relevant.

Instead of “prosecutability” we opt for “lawsuit/prison potential” as a category, since sexual harassment, for example, is not always criminally prosecutable but can give rise to a civil suit.

Another departure from the Maddovian method is the scoring. Maddow uses a primarily visual assessment, placing scandals relative to each other. My approach uses a more precise and quantitative method. The scandal receives 1 point for illegal non-criminal conduct, 1 point for misdemeanors, 2 points for felonies, 1 point for rhetorical hypocrisy, 1 point for policy-based hypocrisy. Points are removed for a statements or policies that mitigate said hypocrisy. Negative scores are not allowed.

As you will see, views on LGBT issues come up frequently in this sample. It is arguably hypocritical to cheat on a spouse while opposing people who you claim violate the sanctity of marriage. Whatever moral or religious basis you have for opposing same-sex marriage almost certainly applies to adultery.

Let’s take a look at some recent scandals through this lens:

Anthony Weiner: sexting

lawsuit/prison potential: 0
rhetorical hypocrisy: 1 (never said anything about sexting, is socially liberal, received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. But initially told the public he had been set up and had not tweeted the photo. And then told the public he was done sexting.)
policy-based hypocrisy: 0 (never supported legislation on texting, has a consistently liberal voting record, when it comes to social issues, never sought to legislate people’s sexuality or morality.)

Total score: 1

David Vitter: solicitation of prostitutes

lawsuit/prison potential: 1 (soliciting a prostitute is a misdemeanor.)
rhetorical hypocrisy: 1 (campaigned as a family values, socially conservative and Christian candidate. Compared same-sex marriage to natural disasters.)
policy-based hypocrisy: 1 (was one of the chief sponsors of the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.)

Total score: 3

Elliot Spitzer: solicitation of prostitutes

lawsuit/prison potential: 1 (soliciting a prostitute is a misdemeanor.)
rhetorical hypocrisy: .5 (condemned prostitution, but as an element of human trafficking.)
policy-based hypocrisy: .5 (cracked down on prostitution. Spitzer himself said it was fair to be labeled as a “hypocrite.” Though, to be fair, he really cracked down on human trafficking, not prostitution, per se.)

Total score: 2

Read the rest at Salon

OK. this video may be the only pro-choice version of Robin Thicke’s highly problematic Blurred Lines music video. But if there were more out there, this one would still be one of the best! It’s created by Full Frontal Freedom, which describes itself as “a coalition of independent artists and media folks – who want to use our talents to promote civic engagement.” The very funny lyrics, which were amazingly provided on the Youtube page, are after the jump.