Have I ever sent you an email pointing you to my YouTube page, where I occasionally post videos of the girls doing cute things? Have I ever mentioned how cute my daughters are and talked about the adorable thing they did the other day, and then said "I have it on video, check it out on YouTube"?
If so, and if you actually want to see the videos, you'll need to sign up and send me your username so I can add you to my friends or family lists (Mom, you're already set up). I uploaded a bunch of stuff over the weekend, and almost immediately two people I don't know subscribed to the videos. When I went to check them out, I saw that one of them has listed as their favorites nearly 200 videos of people, mostly but not entirely children, getting wet. Playing in pools, lakes, sprinklers, whatever.
I don't know what it means -- it just seems, I dunno, creepy. Maybe it's totally innocent and this person just enjoys videos of people getting wet the same way people enjoy videos of cats falling off railing, or I enjoy videos of people wiping out while trying to do skateboard stunts. They're welcome to their videos, I've just decided to not have videos of my kids be among them.
So, videos on YouTube are now private. Send me your info if you want to be able to see them. Also, any recommendations for a different video sharing site would be much appreciated.
No, it's not the setup for an unfunny joke -- apparently a guy went to an anti-abortion rally in the not-at-all-ironically-named Libertyville, IL (just minutes from my hometown! Vanilla suburbs, represent!), with a video camera and a simple question for the participants: "if abortion were to be made illegal, what should the penalty be for the women who have illegal abortions?"
The resulting video blew my mind a little.
[Update 8/2: Apparently embedding is now "disabled by request." So to see the video you need to click through to the YouTube page]
These are people who have been working for years to outlaw abortion, and they haven't given a single thought to the consequences for the women who would be made criminals if their wishes were fulfilled. To be honest, this question hadn't crossed my mind, either (though I'm not the one calling for the criminalization of thousands of women), so when I watched the video I had one of those moments of clarity that come so rarely. The national "debate" (it's hard to call it that considering how little actual back-and-forth goes on) over abortion has been raging for nearly my entire life, and never before had I heard this question asked.
Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object?
[...]
Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways."
Looking at the faces of the people in the Libertyville video, I almost get the sense they might be thinking about what they're saying and doing, instead of just blindly doing what they think is right in the name of religion or belief or whatever. Almost. Still, you can't re-think a position you've never thought about in the first place, and if this simple question gets people thinking about what they believe in, and what those beliefs mean, that can only be good.
(Hat tip to Feministing, who posted about this yesterday, and Feministe, who followed up with some questions of her own.)
I first saw this on Feministing -- it's a question asked of John Edwards on last night's YouTube debate by Reverend Reggie Longcrier, pastor of Exodus Missionary Outreach Church in Hickory, N.C.:
"Sen. Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.
So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?"
I have a feeling you'll be getting a link to this clip in your email, if you haven't already. It's the video for the song "Typical" by Mute Math, and it's pretty cool. Apparently the lead singer learned to lip-sync the lyrics backward, then the video was shot, and then reversed:
It's already gotten over 100,000 views on YouTube in the last week, putting it well on its way to OK Go-type numbers, and it works as a nice tie-in to yesterday's American Idol recap post, too, since this is the song that just-voted-off Chris Sligh sang during Top 24 week.
If I may slip on my music-critic hat (which is a trucker cap that says "Your Band Sucks"), though, I'm not that impressed with these guys outside of the video. There isn't much musically that sets them apart from the pack -- they're a pretty straightforward (one might even say "typical") rock band. But, they might be able to ride this gimmicky video to some significant airplay, and if so, good on them.
For your added viewing pleasure, here's the video played backwards (i.e., the way it was filmed):
