Sassistas! Our dish on the social soup.

Fundamentalist Fashion

The Sassistas!^TM want to acknowledge and thank our sista and corsasspondent on the west coast -- Westsista –- who dished the sass in today’s post.

With their long dresses and upswept hair, the female members of the Yearning for Zion Ranch definitely don't blend into the mainstream. People say they look "hauntingly alike" but I have to consass that I don't see it. Maybe it's my own fundamentalist past, but their garb says to me, "We don't want to be part of the fast, modern culture. We are different."

They have been described as looking, "19th Century," "Little House on the Prairie," or "Early Pioneer." Here’s another word for it: "modesty." They cover up their bodies with clothes, and they take Bible verses such as these literally: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering" (I Cor. 11:14-15 NRSV).

The silliest thing I've heard so far is the suggestion that they wear old-fashioned clothes because they don't want to be attractive. Please! These are women, competing in a situation where men have all the power, not to mention, multiple options when it comes to love, affection, attention . . . and yes, sex. You do the math. Unless they have been dropped here from some other planet, these women want to be attractive to their man.

When I look at them I'm reminded of the Amish, of Native Americans on reservations, and African tribes that still dress in a traditional manner.

An MSNBC news commentator said, "I was watching these women on Larry King and apparently they love their children." Apparently? Really? You didn't just assume that they love their children?

I'm as horrified as the next person -- perhaps more so -- about the possible pedophilia, enslavement and subjugation of women and children. It's not helpful, however, to imagine that they are somehow non-human because they look totally different than we do.

Redemptive Fragility

"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" directed by the artist Julian Schnabel which is today available on DVD. Let’s dish.

Jean-Dominique Bauby, the real-life editor of Elle, suffers a massive stroke at the age of 43 and ends up the victim of "locked-in syndrome." He has full mental clarity -– is able to see and hear -- but unable to speak or move anything but his left eye. Through that eye he learns to communicate, one letter at a time. With the help of his speech therapist and a stenographer, Bauby writes his stunning memoir, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

This film is the most beautiful, most humane, most artful –- and (dare we write it) most religious -- film of the last decade. It should have won the Oscar for "Best Picture" but, in an incredible blunder, wasn't even nominated. It received four Oscar nominations for Best Achievement in Directing (Schnabel), Cinematography (Janusz Kaminiski), Editing (Juliette Welfling) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Ronald Harwood) and should have won in every category. It didn't win in any. Perhaps the redemption of truth or the truth of redemption is hard to bear –- or watch.

At the heart of the film's achievement is Schnabel’s unwillingness to paint Bauby –- an unfaithful, selfish bon vivant –- as a saint. He's like any one of us or all of us, clumsily surging toward redemption when everything else has been taken away. At one point, we hear him think, "I decided to stop pitying myself. Other than my eye, two things aren't paralyzed, my imagination and my memory."

How grateful we are that those two things weren't paralyzed. In a beautiful metaphor, Schnabel literally shows the diving bell, which physically imprisons Bauby, and the freeing of his imagination in the form of a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis and fluttering among fields of flowers. Yes, the butterfly is Bauby’s imagination, but it is also his soul – our souls, really -- unfettered and alive.

Give your soul the gift of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly."

WWMD

What would Martha do? Let’s dish.

This weekend Martha Stewart attended the glitzy White House Correspondents' Association dinner carrying a small camera. "Why the camera?" asked yesterday's Washington Post. "I'll be blogging on the Martha blog" she said, "You should check it out," she told Post readers.

So the Sassistas!^TM checked out The Martha Blog (subtitled, "up close & personal") to see Martha's exclusive pics from the Correspondents' Association dinner. Alas, they were not yet posted, but we did find a post for a similar occasion called: "My evening at Madonna's 'Raising Malawi and UNICEF' Benefit." In this post we were invited to "CLICK HERE TO SEE MY PHOTOS FROM WEDNESDAY NIGHT (Feb. 6, 2008)!"

SO WE DID!!! And there we saw Martha's photos of The Donald, Tom Cruise and Kate, Rihanna, Timbaland, Nelly Furtado and Alicia Keys. According to Martha, "Everyone was dressed in mostly Gucci and looked spectacular, especially our hostess Madonna, who was sitting with her daughter Lourdes, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Rosie!" WEWMD? (What else would Martha do?) She would also take photos of the countless appetizer platters of beef carpaccio and leek and tomato tarts that began the evening, not to mention, the beautiful table settings and individual menu designs. The Sassistas!^TM were particularly taken by a Martha photo of an empty champagne flute and half-empty white wine glass side by side, simply captioned, "Pretty."

Curious about the purpose of the fund-raiser because it wasn't clear in Martha's post, the Sassistas!^TM did some research on Malawi and learned that, according to the United Nations, "an estimated 5 million of Malawi's 12 million people are hungry this year. . . . While the population has more than tripled, 85 percent of Malawians remain subsistence farmers, struggling to survive with primitive means and extremely vulnerable to devastating food shortages."

One of the comments on Martha's Madonna Fundraiser post said,

I didn't see a pic of you there! I just love Tom Cruise and Kate. She is such a doll. Rosie and the Trump were at the same affair? Were their any tufts of hair flying anywhere? Africa has some real sad times there now. Kenya, Darfur, AIDS . . . the list is . . . desperate. Thank you all for caring for them. I am sure God smiles on this.

We're sure Martha would want a picture of that. One last thing, Martha: WWJD?

Strength that Endures

Those who dwell among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life . . .  . Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.

-- Rachel Carson, The Sense of Wonder (1965)

Pipe Dreams Realized

The Sassistas!^TM favorite piece of wisdom from our favorite movie -- "The Wizard of Oz" -- is that if we ever want to go looking for our heart's desire, we don't have to look further than our own backyard.

This week -- the week of Earth Day -- sewer pipes were replaced near Flannista's backyard. If you recall, we featured the Das Park Hotel in our Earth Day post, a hotel which consists of three repurposed concrete pipes in a park.

As fortune would have it, at the end of the day (just yesterday) Flannista noticed that one small piece of drainpipe (pictured above) was unused. Knowing that she doesn't have a pull-out sofa or spare bedroom for guests, Flannista jumped on the opportunity to realize her pipe dreams and dragged the drainpipe into her backyard.

With Matissta's help, she furnished the drainpipe with all the accoutrement of comfort: pillow, teddy bear, clock and prayer book (which any respectable overnight establishment provides). Breakfast is included.

To view our first guest enjoying the comfy accommodations, click here and here .

That’s the Tanks We Get

To improve our stats, blogging experts have advised the Sassistas!^TM "to maintain an active presence on social media sites around the web." So we set our sites high and began to visit a particularly trendy and provocative blog: www.boeing.com/tankerfacts.

This website first came to our attensass on April 8, when Boeing ran a full-page color ad in the Washington Post about its formal protest against the selection by the U.S. Air Force of the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company KC-30 over the Boeing KC-767 for its KC-X medium-sized tanker program. 

(Whew! Where’s KC & the Sunshine Band when you need them?)

The ad details about several "significant flaws" in the KC-30, including flaws in "survivability," "aerial refueling capability," "fuel offload capability," and "airlift capability." The Sassistas!^TM were especially captivated by the alleged flaws in KC-30’s "total mission capability." Did you know that while the KC-30 had 30 "discriminators" and five "weaknesses," the KC-767 had 98 "discriminators" and ONLY ONE "weakness"? Kinda made us wonder what that one weakness was. Well, the ad didn’t say, so we went to the Boeing blog for more clarity.

We searched around for a while and finally learned, in a comment from a Mr. Smith in Missouri, that the KC-30 is twice as large as the KC-767. "Did size matter in this issue?" Mr. Smith asks.

A General Lichte responds:

. . . I think unwittingly, what the Air Force couldn't say no to [was]: More. So in the evaluation they made the Mission capability a major discriminator for NG/EADS, even though no credit was supposed to be given for exceeding the KPP objectives, which both planes did. Then to solidify their decision, they twisted themselves into pretzels making the more massive plane the more cost effective alternative.

Okey-dokey . . . major discriminator for NG/EADS, exceeding KPP objectives, twisted into pretzels . . . all adding up to one massive tanker that’s going to cost taxpayers at least $100 billion.

What can the Sassistas!^TM say except, "(Shake, Shake, Shake) Shake Your Booty!"

Them's Fightin' Words

And so six weeks after the last Presidential primary, all we know for certain is that we still don't know for certain who the Democratic nominee will be . . . and there's a fight goin' on.

"Clinton Outduels Obama in Primary," "The Bruising Will Go On for the Party," and "With Clear Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight On" are the headlines in this morning's New York Times. "Obama's Gloves Are Off -- And May Need to Stay Off" is a front-page Washington Post headline.

Even before the polls closed last evening, the cable news network analysts were warning us about the heat in the kitchen. "This contest is not only about who can stand the heat, but who can stir up some," said CNN analyst, Donna Brazile.

Then once Hillary was declared the winner, all we heard -- from both the pundits and Hillary -- was that she's "a fighter" here "to fight for everyone" who will "keep fighting for us" because "America is worth fighting for. You are worth fighting for!" And in case we didn't get the message, did you notice the number of Clinton supporters in the hall who were wearing red boxing gloves? That's probably why the Washington Post is warning: "Unable once again to score a knockout, Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative."

Even more negative? Somebody, please knock out the Sassistas!^TM According to Obama, we're all bitter, and according to Hillary, we can "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel.  How much more negative can it get?

Wasn't a race between the first woman and first African-American candidates supposed to be a milestone in the democratic process? The stunning opportunity to witness a high-minded, issues-oriented campaign that would be in direct contrast to the tactics of the current with-us-or-against-us Administration?

Perhaps it just isn't possible. Shirley Chisholm, the African-American Congresswoman who became the first major party African American candidate for President of the United States in 1972 (winning 152 delegates), once said:

There is little place in the political scheme of things for an independent, creative personality, for a fighter. Anyone who takes that role must pay a price.

We're all paying it now. Senators Obama and Clinton, please take off the gloves. Say, "Yes, we can" and "Yes, we will."

Pipe Dreams

Happy Earth Day! (And Happy Birthday, Anthony!)

More than two weeks ahead of today’s date, one of our sistas (thank you, Chysosistah!) emailed the Sassistas!^TM several practical ways to mark Earth Day. Among them (courtesy of www.organicstyle.com):

• Plant a tree and also celebrate Arbor Day on April 25th.
• Eat locally. Celebrate with a meal prepared with foods from within 100 miles—a good way to conserve resources used for transportation and to support organic growers in your area.
• Treat your car to a day off. Ride a bike. Walk. Flannista wears a pedometer and walks an average of 8.57 miles a day. Really.

And here’s another way to preserve the environment, not to mention your travel budget. While on vacation, instead of staying in an ostentatious hotel with towels, linens and fountains galore that require a lot of energy to clean and maintain, go out on a limb and sleep in a tree. Really. At Kadir’s Tree Houses on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, $20 buys a dorm bed; a bungalow for up to three people costs $30, breakfast and dinner included.

Or if you are afraid of heights, you can sleep in a drainpipe. Really. The Das Park Hotel in Linz, Austria consists of three repurposed concrete pipes in a park. A bed fills the space wall to wall, but there’s electricity and Internet, plus public toilets are nearby. Pay what you want; most folks usually leave between $11 and $31. That the Sassistas!^TM will ever overnight here is, well, one big pipe dream.

We certainly hope a greener Earth isn’t.

Locked and Loaded

According to www.military.com -- the 10-million strong military and veteran membership organization -- the purpose of PSYOP or "psychological operations" is "to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives."  Further, and more specifically, "PSYOP is the dissemination of truthful information to foreign audiences in support of U.S. policy and national objectives."

The Sassistas!^TM have a question for the Pentagon: because we live in America and are not part of a "foreign audience," does that mean you aren't obligated to provide us with "truthful information"?

A front-page story in yesterday's New York Times, tells us the answer is yes! Further and more specifically, the Pentagon can -- and has -- "psyoped" us . . . except with false information.

According to the Times, a Pentagon "information apparatus" has used military analysts (retired from the military) on television and radio to "generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance." Wait, there's more. "Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air."

What deceptive methods did the "left-wing" Times use to obtain this information? It successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of "e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantanamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation."

The Sassistas!^TM read this article several times in disbelief because the "military analysts" have provided them with much comfort (really) over the last five years. We sassumed they were objective -- not employed by the military but by the networks -- to give us objective sassessments. But, according to the Times article, "the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest."

The Sassistas!^TM are having difficulty determining whose oversight is worse here: the Pentagon's or the networks'. That the Pentagon would use the same propaganda methods on us that the North Vietnamese used on our brave soldiers in the 60's leaves us sassless. That the networks don't hold their military analysts to the same ethical rules as their full-time journalists also leaves us sassless.

What leaves us particularly sassless is this incident cited by the Times: when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: "I think our analysts -- properly armed -- can push back in that arena."

That the Pentagon was more concerned about properly arming their "military analysts" here safely in the United States than our troops in harm's way in Iraq is beyond shameful. It's traitorous.

And we aren't psyoping.

Go Together

 

 

If you want to go
   fast, go alone.

If you want to go
   far, go together.

-- African Proverb