Posts Tagged holy shit they’re not kidding
E.L. James, what is that I don’t even.
Mummy porn writer EL James has threatened a housewife with legal action for throwing saucy Fifty Shades of Grey parties.
Tina Winters, 45, wanted to pass on tips and sell lingerie but lawyers told her to stop using the novel as a theme.
This is the best part, though:
EL James’ agent Valerie Hoskins said the legal letter was not personal, adding: “You can’t just hijack something someone else owns.”
This agent is representing an author who made a fortune from writing modified fanfic. She wrote a crappy book series that owes its commercial success to another crappy book series which owes its viability to the popularity of fantasy elements which have been evolving in the public imagination since Bram Stoker wrote Dracula.
This is an author who is standing on the shoulders of a bigger person who in turn stands on the shoulders of multiple giants. Robin McKinley did a better job with sympathetic vampires than Stephenie Meyer, and you don’t need to scratch very deep into the erotic fiction community to find writers who do a better job with kinky sex than E.L. James.
Yet she feels so incredibly threatened by a woman in Coventry selling lingerie.
Todd Stave, son of an abortion provider and landlord to Dr. Carhart’s clinic in Germantown, draws the line at anti-choice crazies showing up at his daughter’s middle school:
Rather than be intimidated or back down from this bullying, Stave chose to give anti-choicers a taste of their own medicine. He started taking down the names and phone numbers of the people who called him in protest and had volunteers call those people back to “thank them for their thoughts and tell them, ‘No, he will not be shutting Dr. Carhart down,’” Rachel Maddow reported last night. (Legally, he couldn’t do that even if he wanted to.) Stave also set up a website that responds to anti-abortion protesters and offers resources for victims of their bullying.
Watch the video of his appearance with Rachel Maddow. This is what courage looks like.
The mother of a three-year old named Paisley, who made shock waves across the Internet this week for donning a Pretty Woman-inspired prostitute outfit during a promo for Toddlers & Tiaras, says she will donate the scandalous get-up in question…
… to Georgia Right to Life, an anti-abortion organization Dickey refers to as “Paisley’s charity.” The group states its mission as “protecting innocent life from fertilization until natural death.”
Robin Marty shows us the latest round of surely-you-jest absurdity in the battle over abortion rights in Kansas. It appears of AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are filing to appeal the federal injunction against the enforcement of TRAP laws, which would effectively shut down most abortion clinics. In short, their lawsuit says, “Oh yes they CAN shut down the abortion clinics in Kansas!” What is their legal standing in the case, you ask? I’ll give you the full quote from NECN:
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a motion to intervene in the case Monday, along with a notice of its appeal of the injunction. The group claims it has legal standing in the case because its members in Kansas are losing childbirth-related business to abortion clinics. It also says its members are placed at a competitive disadvantage because abortion providers pass along the costs of any complications or medical care after abortions to other doctors.
Is this an argument against abortion rights now? “We need to force women to have babies because baby-catching docs need to make a living”?
Fine, this is just their foot-in-the-door argument to get their case into court. They want to see the TRAP laws enforced because they’re against abortion, full stop. There are plenty of OB/GYNs who do mostly maternity care, don’t provide abortions, and are pro-choice. They seem to be more concerned with how they’re already working a ridiculous number of hours per week with the patients they already have, rather than whining about how they’d have so much more business if only women didn’t have the right to choose.
In order to get their case into court, however, they will need to convince a judge of this “taking away our business” malarkey. This “competitive disadvantage” idea is also quite bizarre. Abortion providers do follow-up appointments with their patients to see how they’re recovering. Now, if a woman has a hemorrhage or a sudden life-threatening infection after an abortion, she will need to go to the emergency room. A woman who suffers major complications after giving birth will also go to the emergency room and will be cared for by doctors other than the OB/GYN who provided her L&D care. We could just as easily say that abortion providers are at a competitive disadvantage to L&D care providers because the latter group don’t have to deal with hordes of protesters terrorizing their clinics.
Does AAPLOG also try to shut down midwifery practices on the grounds that—no, scratch that thought, I don’t want to give them ideas.
Seriously, though, the idea that abortion providers are in competition with maternity care providers assumes that society is obligated to provide the maternity docs with as much business as possible. It assumes that women not only are not allowed to decide how to plan their families, they’re also not allowed to decide how to spend their money. An abortion costs a few hundred dollars. Having a baby at a hospital can run you into the $10k-20k-and-up range, but that’s not why women have abortions. The reason that women have abortions is because they have unwanted pregnancies. We’re not just talking about a product that’s cheaper than the alternative. This is about women making decisions for their lives. The ability of certain doctors to maintain their customer base does not come into that decision.
About yesterday’s post?
Oh, it’s real, all right. This is not a hoax.
When Withers received the email (Bourne sent it three times to be sure) she did what anyone would do: she forwarded it to a few friends to share in the shock. What was the alternative —respond with a ‘frowny’ face? But instead of simply offering advice, some anonymous friend got pro-active and forwarded Bourne’s e-attack, launching a viral sensation in a matter of hours. Now everyone in the Western Hemisphere has laid eyes on Bourne’s email.
In a way, it’s the ultimate revenge on a mother-in-law who needed to be put in her place after such power-mongering. But it’s not going to make for smooth wedding. Bourne has been labeled the mother-in-law from hell by media outlets and Withers’ father Alan has fueled the fire by publicly calling Bourne “Miss fancy pants.” Now parents on both sides of the couple are feuding and nobody’s manners are in check. Suggestion for Heidi and Freddie, her groom: elope.
I think calling her “Miss fancy pants” is way too gentle, personally.
As much as I lecture here on etiquette, I think it’s important to remember that behind every rule of good manners there should be some connection to the real world, and when the times change enough that those connections no longer apply, then the etiquette point in question needs to be reconsidered. The purpose of good manners is ultimately to make other people comfortable. If you’re using “manners” to make someone feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, then you’re doing it wrong.
There’s a post on Jezebel today about an email (which may or may not be real) that a British woman received from her fiance’s step-mother, and, assuming it’s real, it is a fascinating display of how proper etiquette is so easily abused. There are a lot of comments on the article saying, “Well, her tone is out of line, but it’s good advice she’s giving and the daughter-in-law-to-be is obviously very rude and needs to learn some things.” This is assuming that the recipient really is as obnoxious and ill-intentioned as the letter makes her out to be, and I would argue that the letter writer exhibits an attitude that begs a critical view.
Now, maybe this is just a culture that I don’t sufficiently understand. After all, I’m a metropolitan mid-Atlantic American; we’re not sufficiently concerned with manners for the South, and not sufficiently concerned with gentility for the North, and we’ve long since lost our British ancestors’ sense of propriety. Meanwhile I’ve been spoiled by the Albanian sense of hospitality, and I will tell you what, there are parts of that culture that make me tear my hair out, but they make a genuine effort to make their guests feel welcome and comfortable. I guess that’s a gene that’s been repeatedly reinforced in the Albanian population but conspicuously absent from some parts of the British upper crust.
So, let’s go over this sucker point by point. Weapons-grade sarcasm ahead!
It is high time someone explained to you about good manners. Yours are obvious by their absence and I feel sorry for you.
Oh, this is freaking rich. Ed Brayton shows us this gem (and by gem I mean turd) from Bryan Fischer, warrior for Jebus:
That Bryan Fischer column saying it was okay to slaughter the Native Americans because they were so immoral has been pulled down from the AFA site and so has the response column written by another AFA staffer. Fischer rationalizes the whole thing:
So this is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur.
Fortunately it’s late enough in the morning that I’ve already finished my coffee, or else it might have been sprayed into the keyboard.
I need to go find me some Cindy McCain and wash my brain out.
Pointing and laughing at Ross Douthat is sort of like shooting at a fish in a barrel with a hundred other guns already aimed directly into its transparent depths, but since the barrel is located in the New York Times opinions page, I won’t feel too bad about joining in the fun.
Dude is a lot more interesting when he points out that Catholic leaders really ought to behave themselves a lot better than they currently do. He is just so, so funny, when he acts all shocked—simply shocked, I tell you—that, when women and their partners are given the ability to control their fertility rather than let it control them, they not only have fewer children and less tolerance for dysfunctional marriage, but that they experience a lot of pleasure and very little guilt about choosing their choices.
The Church was right to prophecy that a contraceptive-friendly culture would become increasingly hostile to traditional Christian sexual ethics across the board
Seeing how “traditional Christian sexual ethics” means pretty much exactly the opposite of a a “contraceptive-friendly culture,” the above statement is basically a tautology. “Traditional Christian sexual ethics” is shorthand for “get married as soon as you’re ready for sex, make babies like there’s no tomorrow, and don’t learn anything that might make sex more enjoyable.”