Josh Spokes made an invention.
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
USA Today reports a bit from the Duggars’ interview that shows how completely they still don’t get it – perhaps how incapable they are of ever getting it, because they don’t get the underlying basic point.
Kelly also pressed them on the widespread criticism that they lectured others about sin while covering up their own sins.
“Everybody has things in their past in their families,” Michelle said. “Our son violated God’s principles, and it was terrible what Josh did, it was inexcusable but it was not unforgivable,” added Jim Bob.
See it? They think it’s about “God’s principles.” It’s not. It’s about the well-being of the girls Josh molested – it’s about the harm he did to them. It’s about human beings, not god. Morality is about human beings, not god. The Duggars are probably incapable of ever understanding that.
The Duggars’ interview with Kelly was their first public discussion of the scandal that has deeply damaged their show, their children, their pious image and their conservative GOP politics since InTouch magazine published a story May 21 based on police reports obtained under a Freedom of Information request to Arkansas authorities.
But the interview totally turned that around.
Just kidding.
Did you see the Duggars’ interview? I only caught the last 15 minutes (will watch it all eventually, obvs) but that was bad enough – jaw-droppingly disgusting. Michelle bleating away in that self-consciously meek little voice about people who have “an agenda” and how terrible they are.
Kevin Fallon at the Daily Beast has some highlights.
Megyn Kelly may not have wagged a finger at them or damned them to hell, the way so many of us wished she would have. But she did ask them tough, responsible, and necessary questions.
She asked why they protected a son who was harming their daughters. She asked for details that would refute the accusations that they covered his misdeeds up. She asked them if they were hypocrites. She asked specifically about Michelle’s comparing transgender women to child molesters. And Michelle stood by it. “It’s common sense,” she said, proving that she has no blessed idea what “common sense” is.
More, she thinks people accusing them of hypocrisy have an unholy ax to grind.
“Everyone of us has done something wrong. That’s why Jesus came,” she said. “This is more about—there’s an agenda. There are people who are purposing to bring things out and twisting them to hurt and slander.”
Speaking of cartoons and satire…
[Atena] Farghadani, a 28-year-old Iranian artist and activist, rendered visual judgment last year, lampooning members of her nation’s parliament over their vote to restrict contraception and ban certain birth-control methods — just one of her works satirizing the government. Tehran’s Revolutionary Court has now announced that it is rendering its own brand of judgment.
…
The artist’s crimes include “insulting members of parliament through paintings” and “spreading propaganda against the system,” according to Amnesty International.
Jen reminded us of that New Yorker cartoon, so I thought I’d take a look back. Mother Jones, July 13 2008.
Weren’t we just having a discussion here on the Riff about the thin line satire walks, between being the opposite of a thing and an endorsement of a thing? Well, brace yourselves, because the New Yorker has jumped right into the middle of that argument with a cover that made my jaw actually drop. [Read more…]
And now with extra added Le Figaro and Slate France.
Malheureusement Slate France called me Olivia, but oh well. Ce n’est pas au sujet de moi Ce n’est pas à mon sujet.
From Le Figaro:
Jennifer Cody Epstein a fait partie des écrivains anglo-saxons qui se sont opposés à la remise du prix Courage et liberté d’expression au journal satirique français lors du gala organisé par l’association littéraire PEN. Un choix qu’elle déplore aujourd’hui.
Jennifer Cody Epstein regrette amèrement le choix qu’elle a fait il y a quelques semaines. La romancière américaine a fait partie des 204 auteurs anglo-saxons qui ont signé la lettre ouverte qui stipulait leur opposition à la remise du prix Courage et liberté d’expression à Charlie Hebdo, par l’association mondiale littéraire PEN (Manhattan).
Aujourd’hui, elle reconnaît avoir eu tort: «Ce fut une erreur de remettre en question la liberté d’expression. Les articles de Charlie Hebdo relève de la satire et non de la haine» a-t-elle écrit dans une lettre adressée à ses collègues écrivains…
Un repentir salué par Salman Rushdie , l’ancien président du PEN American Center: «Respect à Jennifer Cody Epstein pour son acte honorable d’avoir admis son erreur à propos de Charlie Hebdo», a-t-il écrit sur son compte Twitter. L’auteur des Versets sataniques avait traité de «lâches» ses confrères écrivains opposés au prix, accusant ces derniers d’être «à la recherche d’une personnalité».
And someone else saying it; Jon Stewart this time.
Yet another reason to mourn Jon Stewart’s imminent departure from The Daily Show: On Tuesday night, Stewart tore apart the media’s coverage of Caitlyn Jenner’s Vanity Fair cover for focusing on her looks.
After a montage of anchors noting how momentous Jenner’s debut is—which Stewart praised—the Daily Show host launched right into this: “It’s really heartening to see not only is everyone willing to accept Caitlyn Jenner as a woman, but to waste no time in treating her like a woman.” Cue another montage, this time marked by cries of “All I can say is, ‘Wow!’”; “She’s hot!”; and “I’m jealous!”
Originally a comment by Robert McLiam Wilson on Jennifer Cody Epstein’s letter to the anti-Charlie Hebdo faction.
Ophelia, You are right to warn generously about Frenchy Charlie’s overly literal translation of ‘con’. All such words are nightmarishly difficult to translate. The register of the same word can vary wildly depending on context. Might I amiably suggest that ‘jerks’ is a touch mild and that ‘assholes’ might be an even better solution.
I write for Charlie Hebdo. I am their only English speaking contributor. This whole episode has been painful and deeply dismaying. Thus, J Cody Epstein’s retraction is to be warmly welcomed. And I feel it is futile and unhelpful to see it as mealy mouthed or conditional. Apologising sincerely is just about the hardest thing there is. I felt she did it with some grace.
As for those who insist on their wrong-headed view on the Taubira cartoon, there are two things to say. Firstly, Christiane Taubira is an almost terrifyingly impressive and daunting women. She’s a real warrior. She definitely does not need ANYONE’s protection.
And secondly, we have passed the point, I fear, where information and explanation can achieve much. There is no longer much excuse for being uninformed on this. If you continue to slander the living and the dead at Charlie Hebdo (that almost TEDIOUSLY anti-racist publication), then it is perhaps not because you are ignorant of the truth but rather because the truth is inconvenient to you.
Truth’s like that sometimes.
I was very encouraged by what you wrote and the general tenor of the literate and rounded comments. I hate to say something so…mean-spirited. But I can’t help noticing that all the funny people are on only one side of this particular garden fence.
Laverne Cox has thoughts on Caitlyn Jenner’s Vanity Fair cover photo and its reception.
[I]n a Tumblr post that went live shortly after midnight Tuesday, Cox warned the trans experience is much more than a dramatic physical transformation and only celebrating the women for their beauty can be inherently harmful to the trans cause.
“What I think [people praising Cox’s beauty] meant is that in certain lighting, at certain angles I am able to embody certain cisnormative beauty standards,” Cox wrote.
Cox hopes transgender role models like Jenner and herself can be seen as so much more than beautiful women.
Oh looky there – that was exactly my point.
